Encyclopedia of
Indo-European
Culture
Editors
J. P Mallory
and
D. Q. Adams
FITZROY DEARBORN PUBLISHERS
LONDON: AND CHICAGO
CONTENTS
Editors’ Note
page ix
Advisers and Contributors
xi
How to Use This Encyclopedia
xiii
Abbreviations and Technical Terminology
XV
Phonetic Definitions
xxvii
Alphabetical List of Entries
XXXI
Thematic List of Entries
xxxvii
Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture
1
t>5V)
795
Language Index
General Index
Figure Acknowledgments
825
EDITORS’ NOTE
Learned philologists, who chase
A panting syllable through time and space
Start it at home, and hunt it in the dark.
To Gaul, to Greece, and into Noahs Ark
William Cowper, Retirement \ 1782'
There arc two types of encyclopedia or. al least, two purposes lor thetr existence On the one
liand. they may he designed to represent a summary last word oi knowledge ol a paniculat
>uh|ect. i.e.. they mas draw a line under the various topics I he second purpose t» to arrant the
data in a manner that is intended to permit additional insights, i e . the organization is designed
to senv as a plailorm tor lunher research as well as to inlorm The purpose ol this fncycto fiedu
, 1 1 inik'-Europc.m Culture has been directed as much at the second goal as the tirst since 11 is an
encyclopedia, this work ts arranged conceptually ralher lhan he lorm tthe latter shape eg course
Ix-ing appropnate to an ety mdogical dictionary such as |uliu> Pokomye /ndogemumsches
ffri rmi/ogisches VI orwrbuch'i Similar io this work in that they are conceptual arranged are t arl
Parting Bucks A Pkiuvurv el SekxieJ M'flomim at the f’rtrkip.i/ /ndo-fim.fxan languages
1 10401. Xavier IVlamarres Lc ivcjhuiurc mJf-eunyeen leVKfUecrv mofugKpic rhema«ii»uet 1*WI '
and Tomas camkrehdzc and Vyacheslav Ivanovs /ndo funyvan and the Indo-European.* i |uuv
and the still uselul Rea Ikxikon Jer Ind. verm.im.se hen Aliertum-kunJe he Olio xhradcr and
Allons Nchring 1 1 o I T- 1 u> }i In terms ol exploring the lull semantic range ol Indo-European, it
was intended that this work he tuller and more inclusive than anv previous work In this wav
even it n olten (altered ui establishing how Proto-Indo-European might have tilled a paniculur
semantic held, tt would at least help establish a research agenda lor luiurc work The senior editor
Ix-gan with i his lairlv dear idea ot vvlut he h.id in mind Inn bv the end ol l^y it had become
apparent that the work would never he completed unless lie had the a-Mame ol someone wiili
lar greater linguistic competence lhan he hmisell had and so he muled one ol the original
contributors. IVugUs Adams, to loin him as editor so as to insure the completion ol those entries
which were mg hems accomplished
I Ik senior editor mitialb arranged ilul cadi cotunhutor lundk- one or two -c-nunlx
categories . g lives mammals, lor vclmli he or -Ik was provided a senes ol ivtemul i».4* ami
v'ogitaies based oil ibe various lmlo-1 un.pe.rn lundbooks l |cn tvceipl .4 a numbe r oi . nines u
lxcameiU.il that there were ov.riap* ascv.ll a- gap* vclmli n mured the twining .4 two or more
c.Munhuiors work m a -ingle c litre In swv.ass comnhuiors tell -irongtc . nough alv-ut cither
the work ol 1 4 her- or editorial amendment* that tlx-' wanted to m-ure tiut men own work w.*
either di-a-reiatcd horn that ol oilier- or that then name wa- not included alter a panic ular
enirv although thee had contributed to « I lx editor- have attempted with tlx
iontnbutors wishes in all tlre-e .as- li should Iv added tliai olten when lire cdiiot- initial*
, |1 V 1 A | I’M ■ are 10 lx- lotmd apivndcd to those ol the original .oninhutor then insertion wa*
nol intended bv tire editor- a- an auetnpi to -leal another- gk>r' but rallrer lo imlxate a more
appre^vnate target tor a reviewers .nix i-ru
IVgun in loop |or i.arlandl'uHisbmg ihc.tx'ek.|vcliawa-inpagc proolbv Apnl |vx»7
Ii wa- ai ibis lime tfi.ii Euzrov I Varhorn rex>k over lire public atu-n rescuing Kgh tlx cnev, lopvdxi
and tire saiuiv ol the two editor*
H should he ni4cd that no .me knows heller ilun tire editor- lltal thi- cx.ld K a belter
hook than it i- New ideas are constantly emerging that should lx- included old idea- could he
better integrated and discussed, there i- a wealth ol cogent information ihai could he added and
conned ions could he heller pointed out No doubt, despite our vigilance, -.me outnglu howlers
EDITORS’ NOTE
remain. Nevertheless, like all large, multi-authored projects, this one has long outlived the time
scheduled for its preparation and it is time to send it out into the world, admittedly a little startled
and not quite properly dressed for the occasion. As George Philip Krapp was wont to say on
similar occasions: one must leave something for the reviewers to say. It is our hope that users will
be indulgent with its imperfections and suggest improvements for a (still hypothetical) second
edition.
In the final preparation of the work a number of colleagues have commented on some of
the entries, assisted in verifying the existence of some of the more difficult to find lexical items, or
provided invaluable bibliographic assistance. For their help, we would like to thank the following:
Rhian Andrews, Vaclav Blazek, Allan Bomhard, John Day, Xavier Delamarre, Anthony Harding,
Petra Sabine Hellmuth, and Asko Parpola. Thanks also to a much badgered John Roblin of Garland
who had to deal with a continuous demand to create new font characters; also thanks to Evelyn
Kinloch of December Publications, Belfast, for the difficult job of page origination, and Roda
Morrison of Fitzroy Dearborn who saw the book through to completion. A very special thanks
goes to Gillian Gilmour who drew or redrew all of the illustrations in the Encyclopedia and to
Maura Pringle of the Cartographical Laboratory, School of Geosciences, Queen’s University Belfast,
for all of the maps and line diagrams. And, finally, the senior editor would like to thank his wife
Eimear and daughter Deirdre who helped enormously in the preparation of the indices to the
Encyclopedia.
J. P Mallory
D. Q. Adams
ADVISERS
Eric Hamp Martin Huld C. Scott Littleton
CONTRIBUTORS
Douglas Q. Adams [D.Q.A.]
Department of English
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
Philip Baldi [P.B.]
Department of Classics and
Ancient Mediterranean Studies
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
E.J. Barber [E.J.W.B.]
Department of Linguistics
Occidental College
Los Angeles, California
Robert S. P. Beekes [R.S.P.B.]
Department of Comparative Linguistics
University of Leiden
The Netherlands
Angela Della Volpe [A.D.V.]
Department of English and Comparative Literature
California State University
Fullerton, California
Miriam Robbins Dexter IM.R.D.J
Department of Humanities- Anthropology
Antioch College
Los Angeles, California
Paul Friedrich [P.F.]
Department of Anthropology
University of Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois
John Greppin 1J.A.C.G.]
Program in Linguistics
Cleveland State University
Cleveland, Ohio
Leigh Jellison Hansen [L.J.H.]
Department of Classics
Marlborough School
Los Angeles, California
Martin Huld [M.E.H.]
Department of English
California State University
Los Angeles, California
Carol Justus [C.FJ.]
Department of Classics and Linguistics Research Center
University of Texas
Austin, Texas
J. P. Mallory [J.P M.]
Department of Archaeology and Palaeoecology
Queen’s University Belfast
Northern Ireland
Dean Miller [D.A.M.]
Department of History
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York
MaryNiepokuj [M.N.l
Department of English
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
Steven O’ Brien [S.T.O.B.]
Sonoma, California
Edgar C. Polomd [E.C.P.]
Department of Oriental and African Languages
University of Texas
Austin, Texas
Joe Salmons [J.C.S.]
Department of German
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
HOW TO USE THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA
The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture is alphabetically
arranged and provides coverage of the major Indo-European
language stocks and their origins, the conceptual range of
the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language, selected
archaeological cultures with some relationship to the origin
and dispersal of Indo-European groups, and some of the major
issues of Indo-European cultural studies.
Finding an Entry
Broadly speaking there are two sorts of articles in the
Encyclopedia: those that do not have as their goal the recon-
struction of specific Proto-Indo-European lexical items, i.e.,
those that are devoted to archaeological, cultural topics, or
the various Indo-European languages and stocks, and those
that are devoted to the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European
words. The former group we think to be relatively straight-
forward but the latter group may not be, and thus may be
worth a few words of orientation.
Attributing a proto-meaning to a series of cognate words
is frequently a hazardous business where a half-dozen Indo-
European stocks, for example, may yield related words that
mean ‘bright’, ‘shining’, ‘silver’, ‘white’, etc., and the linguist
must decide which if any of these definitions was the “original”
meaning. This problem is compounded when the editors of
this Encyclopedia are required to arrange a series of con-
ceptually related roots under appropriate headings. To insure
that the reader can find what he or she is seeking (or abandon
hope that the semantic sphere can be reconstructed for Proto-
Indo-European), the following guidelines may be useful:
a) a list of all entries arranged in alphabetical order is provided
in the “List of Entries” section; b) as various headwords may
be “buried" under the name of a more general entry, e.g.,
“comb" is to be found under “Textile Preparation", the reader
is also offered a thematic list of all individual reconstructed
head-forms (with cross-references to their entry titles); c) if
the term is still not found, the reader is directed to the “General
Index" at the end of the book; and d) if the reader still can't
find the entry required but knows the word for the concept
in any of the major Indo-European languages, then reference
may be made to the “Language Index" at the end of the book
Lexical Entries
The basic lexical-semantic entry normally consists of five parts:
the reconstructed form, a gloss to the word, sources indicated
in brackets, the IE language data, and a discussion
a) The reconstructed form (in bold) presents as much
evidence as we have about the actual form of the PIE word.
Sometimes we are able to reconstruct only a root but,
where possible, we give a complete word, the nominative
singular in the case of a noun or adjective (and in some
cases the genitive singular, or even the genitive and
accusative singulars so as to show more fully complicated
morphological alternations) or the third person present
in the case of a verb.
b) The gloss is usually short, though often some attempt is
made to distinguish the meaning of the particular entry
from other similar ones. Often further semantic clues are
brought out in the discussion.
c) The source or sources (within square brackets) are our
attempt to direct the reader to certain larger and more
general discussions of the word or root in question.
Typically included are references to Julius Pokorny’s
Indogermamsches Etymologisches WonerbuchilFW), the
standard, though somewhat dated, etymological
compendium of Indo-European languages; to Calvert
Watkins’ The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-
European Roots (Wat) , an etymological overview of Proto-
Indo-European from the point of view of English; to Tomas
Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov’s Indo-European and
the Indo-Europeans (Gl), an encyclopedic, though
somewhat idiosyncratic, review of Proto-Indo-European
language and culture; and to Carl Darling Buck's A
Dictionary of Selected Synonyms m the Principal Indo-
European Languages (Buck), a dictionary organized under
semantic rather than root headings which illustrate how
various Indo-European languages have treated certain
concepts. Where words do not appear in one or the other
of these works, references to discussions in standard
ABBREVIATIONS AND
TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
a- vocalism = having the vowel *-a- in PIE, rather than the more usual *-e- or
*-o.
Abkhaz = language of the (non-IE) Northwest Caucasian group of languages.
abl. = ablative, the nominal case expressing origin or source of movement
(i.e. , more or less equivalent to English prepositional phrases with from),
e g., Olnd vit ‘settlement’, abl. viSas 'from the settlement’.
ablaut = alternation of vowels within the paradigm of a word, e.g., as in
English sing , sang , sung. PIE distinguished a full grade with e or o, a
zero-grade (the absence of a vowel), and a lengthened grade with e or o.
acc. = accusative case, the IE case marking the direct object of a verb, e g.,
“he saw me”, or the object of certain prepositions, particularly those
involving motion toward some goal, e g., “he went to the field" and Lat
domum venit ‘he/she goes home’.
aerostatic = a PIE inflectional type where the accent is fixed on the root
syllable, e.g., *bhreh a ter ‘brother’ (nominative) and *bhreh a tfs ‘brother’s’
(genitive).
active = in transitive verbs where the subject is the agent and the direct
object the undergoer of the activity, e g. , “the boy hit the ball”. Opposed
to the passive where subject and direct object have the opposite semantic
specifications, e.g., “the ball was hit by the boy”.
adj. = adjective, a word modifying a noun, e.g., “the green grass and the
colorful flowers”.
adstrate = (elements of) a language (presumed) responsible for change in a
neighboring language when they are in contact with one another.
adv. = adverb, a word modifying a verb or an adjective, e.g., “they went
carefully' or “the exceedingly colorful flowers”.
Aeolic = a Greek dialect group that spread to the western border of Anatolia ,
e.g., Lesbos, before c 1000 BC; it is one of the constituent elements of
the Homeric dialect. It consists of Boeotian, Thessalian and Lesbian.
AEsir = major division of Old Norse gods led by Odinn who are contrasted
with the Vanir. In the Dumezilian model of comparative mythology, they
are identified with the First (priest) and Second (warrior) aspects of
society.
affective = meaning that arouses emotional as well as rational response. The
emotional response can either be negative, as in the famous “four-letter
words” of contemporary English, or it can be positive, as with
endearments. The emotional response may interfere with normal rules
of sound change.
affricate = a consonant that begins as a stop but ends as a fricative, e.g., the
initial and final consonants of NE church or judge, or the initial consonant
of NHG zeit ‘time’.
Afro-Asiatic = formerly known as Hamito-Semitic, this is the language family
of southwest Asia and northern Africa which comprised Ancient Egyptian
(and its descendant Coptic), the Semitic languages (Hebrew, Arabic,
Akkadian, Assyrian, etc ), Berber, Chadic (in Chad, Nigeria, Cameroon,
etc.) and the Cushitic languages of the Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia and
Tanzania.
Agul = Northeast Caucasian (non-IE) language of the Lezgian subgroup.
Akkadian = ancient Afro-Asiatic, more specifically East Semitic language,
written in the cuneiform script, that was spoken from the Mediterranean
to the Persian Gulf. It flourished in the third millennium BC but by the
second it was being replaced by constituent dialects of Assyrian and
Babylonian.
Akkadogram = (in a Hittite text) an Akkadian word written instead of the
corresponding Hittite word, presumably intended to be pronounced as
Hittite (see also Sumerogram). Cf. the similar situation m NE lb (< Lat
libra ) which is read as ‘pound’.
Alb = Albanian, language of Albania, attested from the sixteenth century in
two main dialects, Gheg and Tosk.
allophone = a predictable variant of a phoneme, e.g., English A: is predictably
aspirated in word initial position (as in kit) but unaspirated when
preceded by an s (as in skit), or PIE *s which was voiced before a voiced
stop but voiceless elsewhere.
Altaic = a possible (non-IE) language family composed of the Turkic,
Mongolian, and Tungusic language groups,
alveolars = sounds made by the tip of the tongue touching, or almost touching,
the alveolar ridge (the bony ridge behind the upper teeth), e.g., NE t, d,
n, and z.
analogical .* creation of a new word or form by imitation of existing words or
forms, e.g., in English sing: sung leads to bring: brung.
Ancient Chinese = the (Middle) Chinese language attested during the period
from c 200 BC to c 900 AD.
anthroponym = name of a person, e.g., Caesar.
aor. = aorist, either a (P)1E tense which designated a past happening as a
single event, over and done with, e.g., “he won the race" (as opposed to
the imperfect which denotes a past event as an on-going event, e g., “he
was winning the race when he stumbled and fell”), or, more generally, a
(P)IE aspect that expresses momentary activity not necessarily in the
past, e.g., the aorist subjunctive or aorist optative in Greek
apocopated = having lost what had been the last sound of a word, e g.,
modern Spanish pan ‘bread’ is apocopated when compared to its early
Spanish ancestor, pane.
appellative = descriptive name or designation, e g , the all-knowing gods
approximant = a frictionless continuant sound, e.g. , English y, w, r, 1
Arabic = Afro-Asiatic, specifically West Semitic (non-IE) language.
Arcadian = a dialect of classical Greece spoken in Arcadia, or the north central
portion of the Peloponnesus, and most closely related to Cypriot, spoken
on Cyprus, and the by then extinct Mycenaean spoken, and written,
several centuries earlier throughout the south of the Peloponnesus and
on Crete.
Arm = Armenian, the language of the Armenians, of eastern Anatolia and the
south Caucasus, attested from about the fifth century AD to the present.
Ashkun = Nuristam language of Nuristan province of Afghanistan.
Asianic = designating a hypothetical language or languages of Asia Minor or
the Levant, elements of which are believed traceable through the words
of various east Mediterranean languages otherwise without etymologies.
— XV —
ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
aspectual - pertaining to aspect, or the manner in which the speaker views
the action of a verb (as on-going, momentary, having continuing
relevance, etc.), e g., “he eats meat” (i.e., is not a vegetarian) versus “he
eats up the meat” (i.e., a single act of eating).
aspiration = strong, breathy, release of a consonant, e.g., the initial p in English
pit as opposed to the unaspirated variety when the p is preceded by s as
in spit.
assibilation = the change of a stop consonant such as r or k into an s-llke
sound or one that ends in a s-like sound, e.g., t > ts.
assimilation = the change of one sound in a word so as to make it more like
another sound in the same word, e.g. , in- + possible > impossible where
the n shifts its place of articulation to become more like the following p.
Assyrian = pertaining to ancient Assyria or its (non-IE) language (a variety of
Akkadian).
atelic = refers to events with no built-in goal or endpoint, e.g., “they rode
horses”, “the birds were flying around', as opposed to telic events where
there is a natural goal or endpoint to the activity, e g., “he built a house”.
athematic = nouns and verbs in PIE, and the various daughter stocks, whose
stem does not end in -e/o-, e.g. , *g w du-s' cow’ as opposed to the thematic
*taur-o-s ‘aurochs; bull’.
Attic = the variety of Greek spoken in classical Athens and the surrounding
Attica. It was the dominant literary variety of Greek in classical times
and became, somewhat influenced by the neighboring Ionic, the ancestor
of almost all post-classical varieties of Greek.
Attic-Ionic = a closely related group of classical Greek dialects including the
Attic of Athens and the rest of Attica and the various Ionic dialects of
the Cyclades and the Greek-speaking coastal strip of Anatolia.
augment = a prefix ( */ije-) in certain vaneties of late PIE and their descendants
(Greek, Armenian, Indo-lranian, Phrygian) that indicated past time in
verbs, e.g., Olnd bhdrati 'he carries’ but a-hharat ‘he carried’.
Av = Avestan, the Iranian language of the ancient and sacred scripture of
Zoroastrianism, traditionally dated c 600-400 BC, but probably earlier.
backformation = word derivation by subtraction, e g., English orientation
(itself regularly derived from. orient) > orientate since orientation would
be a regular derivative of orientate, if the latter had existed.
Bailey = H. W. Bailey (1979) Dictionary of Kbotan Saka. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Bajui = a dialect of Shughni, an East Iranian language.
Bakhtiari = a Southwest Iranian language spoken in the province of Luristan.
Balkan-Danubian complex = hypothetical grouping of various cultures of
Balkans and central Europe (e.g., Baden, Ezero, Usatovo) that date to c
3000 BC on the basis of shared architectural, ceramic and metallurgical
forms. In the “Kurgan theory”, the similarities are attributed to a common
superstate of steppe intruders
Balto-Slavic = a possible IE superstock composed of Baltic and Slavic.
Baluchi = an Iranian language belonging linguistically to the Northwestern
Iranian languages and spoken in southwestern Pakistan and adjacent
parts of Iran and Afghanistan.
barytone = a word with non-final accent, e.g., Greek zopoq ‘slice’ (< “"‘thing
cut off’), as opposed to oxytone, a word with final accent, e.g., Greek
ropoq ‘cutting, shat p\
Basque = non-Indo-European language of northern Spain and southern
France, usually regarded as a residual language of western Europe that
has survived the incursions of the Indo-Europeans.
Berber = major subdivision of the Afro-Asiatic language phylum spoken in
North Africa.
bilabial = a sound formed with both lips, e g., NE p and b.
BK = citations of proposed underlying Nostratic forms for various Indo-
European words which are to be found in Bomhard, A , and J. C. Kerns
(1994) The Nostratic Macro family : A Study in Distant Linguistic
Relationship. New York, Mouton de Gruyter, and augmented with entries
from Bomhard, A. (1996) Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis.
Charleston, Signum.
Blazek = citations from Blazek, V (1992) Historicka Analyza Indoevropeske
Zoologicke Terminologie. Brno, Filosoficka fakulta Masarykovy
univerzity v Brne.
BMAC = Bactrian-Margiana Archaeological Complex, major archaeological
culture of Central Asia c 2200-1700 BC It has been identified as a
likely candidate for early Indo-iramans prior to their expansion
southwards into Iran and northern India.
Boeotian = Greek dialect belonging to the Aeolic group that was spoken in
Boeolia.
Bret = Breton, a Celtic language of BritLany, primarily derived from the
language of early British immigrants of the fifth and sixth centuries AD,
and closely related to Cornish and Welsh.
Brit = Old British, the P-Celtic Insular Celtic language spoken in Britain and
attested in the last centuries BC and first centuries AD.
BSLP = Bulletin de la Societe linguistique de Pans
BSOAS = Bulletin of the Society for Oriental and African Studies
Buck = Buck, Carl (1949) A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal
Indo-European Languages. Chicago, University of Chicago Press
Bulg = Bulgarian, a south Slavic language closely related to (Slavic)
Macedonian. Old Bulgarian (ninth-eleventh century BC) is dose to Old
Church Slavonic but after the eleventh century Bulgarian saw con-
siderable restructuring such as the loss of most of its case forms
Burgundian = Germanic language, related to Gothic, which spread from
Thuringia to Gaul in the fifth century; some lexical items have been
preserved in French
Burmese = the (non-IE) Sino-Tibetan language which is the major language
of Burma (Myanmar).
Byzantine = medieval Greek as spoken in the Byzantine Empire
Calabrian = pertaining to the peninsula (Italian and Greek spoken there)
that forms the toe of Italy.
Camp = citations from Campbell, L. (1990) Indo-European and Uralic tree
names. Diachronica 7, 149-180
caus = causative, a verb indicating causation, eg., “to fell a tree” where fell =
cause to fall.
Celtic = the major IE stock of western Europe, where it was spoken in the
British Isles, Gaul, northern Italy, Iberia, southern Germany and
Switzerland, and was carried as far east as Anatolia (Galatian),
centum = those descendants of PIE in which the PIE dorso-palatals did not
assibilate. Designated by the Latin word for ‘hundred’, cenium
(pronounced in Classical Latin as kentum). Opposed to satam
Chechen = language of the Northeast (Chechen- Ingush) group of (non-lF.)
Caucasian languages.
Chuvash = a (non-IE) Turkic language spoken along the middle Volga where
their ancestors settled about the fourth century AD.
cist = stone-built box-like construction which served as a receptacle for a
burial.
cognate = related by origin, as two words m related languages descended
from the same word in the language ancestral to both languages, words
may be non-cognate if they have not been descended from a common
word in their mutual proto- language or if they reflect a borrowing from
one language to another, e.g., NE the element were ‘man’ in werewolf is
cognate with Lat w'r'man’ as they both derive from a common ancestral
PIE word, on the other hand NE man is not cognate with Lai vir nor is
NE virile ‘manly’ which is a borrowing (via French) from Lat vinhs
‘manly’.
coll. = collective, a noun that designates a collection of persons or things
taken as a unit, eg., NE hair when it means mass of hair' (and opposed
to hair ‘a single hair’).
com. = common, designation of the animate (i.e , non-neuter) gender of
Hittite and other Anatolian languages
conj. = conjunction, a word, such as and, but, because, etc., that connects
other words, phrases, clauses, or sentences
consonant stem = a type of PIE noun which ended in a consonant, e.g.,
*menes- ‘thought’ and opposed to those nouns whose stem ended in
some sort of vowel, e.g., *port-u- ‘passage’ or *y / k w -o- ‘wolf,
continuant = a consonant, such as s, f, that can be prolonged at will without
change in quality; opposed to a stop.
Com = Cornish, Celtic language of the Brittomc group (and closely related
to Welsh) spoken in Cornwall.
XVI —
ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
correlative = a grammatical construction involving two words which
correspond to one another in some fashion and which are used together,
e g., correlative clauses, “ when we need you, then we’ll call you”.
Cretan = that variety of ancient Greek spoken on Crete.
CrimGoth = Crimean Gothic, a variety of eastern Gothic spoken in the Crimea ,
extinct by the eighteenth century; attested by a fragmentary wordlist
collected in the sixteenth century.
Cypriot = a dialect of classical Greece spoken on the island of Cyprus, closely
related to classical Arcadian and Mycenaean.
Czech = Czech, the western Slavic language of Bohemia and Moravia, first
attested about the eleventh century AD.
Dacian = IE stock spoken north of the Danube, primarily in the present
territory of Romania, during the last centuries BC. It is very poorly
known, attested by personal and place-names, a number of glosses and
presumed remnants in the Romanian language,
daevish = in Avestan, pertaining to the special vocabulary used .to refer to
the daevas (demons) in the Zoroastrian religion.
Dan = Danish, Scandinavian language of the Germanic stock. The earliest
Danish, attested from about L300 AD is an East Norse language (along
with Swedish).
Dardic = a northwestern subgroup of the modern Indie languages whose
most important member is Kashmiri.
dat. = dative, that form of the noun which characteristically refers to the
recipient of an action, e.g., him in the English sentence “I gave the book
to him"
deaspiration = loss of aspiration, e g , *bh > b, *dh > d, etc.
deictic = a word specifying place or time, e.g., here , there , this , that, then.
Del = citations found in Delamarre, Xavier (1991) Le vocabulatre indo-
europeen: lexique etymologique thematique. Paris, J. Maisonneuve.
delabialization = alternate name for unrounding, e g., k w > k.
Delphic = that variety of ancient Greek spoken in Delphi,
demonstrative = specifying or singling out a particular noun. This, these,
that, those are demonstrative adjectives, e.g. , “the wool of these sheep is
to be shorn” .
denasalization = loss of nasal resonance in a sound, e.g., m> b, n> d, etc.
dendrochronology = the dating of events and environmental changes by
analysis of the corresponding patterns of growth rings on trees and
wooden remains from archaeological sites,
denominal - denominative = derived from a noun, e.g. , Latin piscare 'to fish’
derived from piscis ‘fish’.
dental = a sound made with the tip of the tongue against the back of the
upper teeth, e.g., NE th in think.
desiderative = designating a derived verb which expresses a desire to do the
act denoted, e.g., Lat edere ‘to eat’ underlies a desiderative esurire ‘to be
hungry, to want to go and eat’,
desinence = grammatical suffix.
devata-dvandva = compound form in Indie that unites the names of two (or
more) deities into a single word where both elements were originally in
the dual, e g., Olnd Mitra-varuna ‘Mitra and Vanina’ or Indra-vayQ ‘Indra
and Vayu’
deverbative = a word derived from a verb, e.g., NE worker from (to) work.
devoicing = the making of a sound voiceless, e.g., d> t or b > p.
dial. = dialectal, a form of the language not regarded as standard (at least in
dictionaries).
diminutive = a word bearing a suffix denoting smallness, youth, familiarity,
or affection, e.g., booklet from book or words in -ito or -ita in Spanish
such as muchachito ‘dear little boy’ from muchacho ‘boy’,
dissimilation = a phonological process whereby two sounds within a word
become less alike, e g., the dissimilation of r...r > l...r in Late Latin
pelegrinus ‘pilgrim’ from earlier peregrinus.
disyllabic = having two syllables.
Doric = one of the principal groups of the West Greek dialects which
presumably did not enter Greece until after the Mycenaean inscriptions.
Doric is found in northern Greece, the Peloponnesus and the Aegean,
dorsal = a sound made with the back of the tongue against the roof of the
mouth, e.g., NE k.
dorsO-palatal = a sound involving the back part of the tongue and the hard
palate, e g., PIE *gand *k.
dorso-velar = a sound involving the back part of the longue and the soft
palate, e.g., NE k, g.
Dravidian = a non-IE language family of central and southern India which
includes Tamil, Telegu, Kannada and Malayalam
dual = designating a number category that indicates two persons or things,
eg, Greek AuxaCtwo wolves’, and opposed to the singular, denoting
one person or thing (Greek A vicog ‘wolf’) and plural, denoting (in
languages without a dual) more than one person or thing or (in languages
with a dual) more that two persons or things (Greek Aiivoi [three or
morel wolves’).
Dutch = West Germanic language spoken primarily in the Netherlands,
Belgium (where it is known as Flemish) and in a sufficiently changed
form to rank as a separate language, in South Africa (Afrikaans)
e-grade = in an ablauting paradigm, having the vowel *-e- (less commonly
*-e-) rather than *-o- or no vowel.
Egyptian = a major branch of the (non-IE) Afro-Asiatic languages that also
include Semitic and Berber.
‘ EIE = Etudes Indo-europeennes.
ejective = a stop produced by closing the vocal cords and rasing the larynx,
thus compressing the air in the upper throat and mouth which is released
by the opening of the lips and/or tongue which have been closed as for
a regular voiceless stop, e g , the initial consonant of Osset k'ullaw
‘hernia’.
Elamite = the non-IE language in Elam in what is now southwestern Iran
emphatic = in phonology, a sound produced with more than ordinary
articulatory energy, e.g., the bof NE bullshit when emphatically spoken,
enclitic = a word that has no independent accent in a sentence, forming a
single phonological unit with the preceding or following word, eg,
Latin -que ‘and’ in Senatus populusque Romanus ‘the Senate and People
of Rome'.
enlargement = addition of consonantal extension to PIE root, e g. , *ten-s- or
*ten-gh- beside *ten-, all ‘stretch’. Presumably the remnant of some
early PIE derivational process but one without much or any semantic
consequence in reconstructible PIE.
Eneolithic = the so-called ‘copper-stone’ age, i.e., the cultural and
chronological period where copper metallurgy existed alongside the
production of stone tools but before the early Bronze Age (although
there is often an overlap between this term and both Neolithic and early
Bronze Age in various regions of Eurasia). In eastern Europe, the penod
generally comprises the late 5th and 4th millennium BC.
eponymic = pertaining to or using an eponym, a person whose name has
given rise (by fact or repute) to the name of a people, place, institution,
etc., e g., Constantinople from the name of the emperor Constantine
ergative - the name given to a morphological and syntactic situation whereby
the morphological shape of the subject of an intransitive verb and the
object of a transitive verb is the same while the shape of the subject of a
transitive verb is different.
Emout-Meillet = A. Ernout and A Meillet.(1967) Dictionnaire etymologique
de la langue latine histoire des mots 4th ed. Pans, Klincksieck
Estonian = along with Finnish, the major Balto-Finnic language of the Urahc
language family, spoken as the national language of Estonia
ethnonym = designation of an ethnic group, eg, English, German
Etruscan = a probably non-IE language (certainly non-ltalic) anciently spoken
in Tuscany in Italy.
etymon = the original form of a word
euhemerize = the process whereby gods develop out of deified heroes or, to
the contrary, where mythological stories once attributed to gods are
“reassigned” to human heroes.
eventive = describing verbs that reflect events, e g., “He stood up", as opposed
to states, e.g., “He was standing .
exocentric = designating a compound noun or noun derivation whose
distribuiion is different than that of any of its constituents (e.g., NE
redcoat beside red and coat).
— XVII —
ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
factitive = a verb derived from a noun or adjective which expresses the creation
of the quality of the underlying noun or adjective (e g., NE whiten from
white).
familiar = a word whose normal use is restricted to the family or other intimate
associates, e.g., daddy as opposed to the more genera! father.
fern. = feminine, one of the divisions which PIE nouns, and the nouns of
many IE languages, are divided, opposed to “masculine” and “neuter”.
Feminine nouns do not necessarily refer to females, e.g. , Lat mensa (fern.)
‘table’, though nouns whose referent is an adult female human being
are, almost always, feminine in gender,
feminization = creation of a feminine noun from a masculine or neuter, e.g.,
Lat porca 'female pig, sow’ from porcus ‘hog, pig’.
Finnish = the major representative of the Balto-Finnic subgroup of the Uralic
languages.
Finno-Ugric - the major western group of the Uralic language family that
includes some fifteen languages (Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian, etc.)
today; the eastern branch comprises the Samoyedic languages.
First Function = the ideological conceptualization of the religious and juridical
components of Indo-European society reflected in the system of
comparative mythology championed by Georges Dumezil and others.
In crude social terms, the “priest class” and its attendant ideology,
first person = the speaker, i.e., T or ‘we’, in a conversation.
Fomorians = otherworld enemies of the Tuatha De Danann in Irish
cosmological and eschatological myth,
formal = a word whose normal use is restricted to more formal situations,
e.g., NE transport as opposed to carry.
formant = grammatical suffix (alternate designation for desinence),
fortis = referring to a stop consonant pronounced with more than ordinary
articulatory energy, e.g., the t in NE tumbled.
Fraenkel = Fraenkel, E. (1962-1965) Litauisches Etymologisches Wdrterbuch.
Heidelberg, C. Winter.
Franconian = designating a group of West Germanic dialects spoken near or
on the middle and lower Rhine, roughly the varieties of West Germanic
spoken by the Franks (Old Low Franconian is the ancestor of Dutch).
Fried = Friedrich, Paul (1970) Proto-Indo-European Trees. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
Fris = Frisian, a West Germanic language closely related to English and spoken
in the Dutch province of Friesland.
full-grade = referring to a PIE formation where the vowel is either -e- or -o-
(usually accented), e.g., PIE *dbr-u (nom.-acc.) ‘tree’ where the root
syllable shows a full-grade -o-. Compare *dr-ous (gen.) ‘wood’ where
the root syllable has zero-grade while the inflectional syllable has full-
grade.
Galatian = adjective referring to the Celtic immigrants found in central
Anatolia in classical times and to their language. The Celtic Galatians
formed the nucleus of a larger Roman province to certain congregations
of which Paul wrote an epistle.
Gallo-Lat = Gallo-Latin, see Gallo-Roman.
Gallo-Roman = referring to the Latin spoken in Gaul after the Roman
conquest, a Latin which had borrowed a number of words from the
Celtic language (Gaulish) originally spoken there.
Gath = Gathic, designating the oldest variety of Avestan, in its original form
the language of ZaraGustra
Gaul see Gaulish.
Gaulish = the Continental Celtic language of ancient Gaul, generally attested
during the period from the third century to first centuries BC.
Gawarbati = Dardic (i.e. , northwestern Indie) language spoken in Afghanistan
near the Pakistan frontier, where the Bashgal and Chitral rivers merge to
form the Kunar.
gemination = the doubling of a consonant, e.g., in Lat ferrum ‘iron’ or sagitta
‘arrow’.
generalizing particle = a small uninflected word (or suffix) that serves to
make a pronoun or verb general in its application (e.g., NE -ever in
whoever).
genitive = genitive case, the IE case generally denoting possession, e.g., *g w 6us
‘cow’, but gen. *g w oij6s 'of the cow’ (cf. possessive).
Georgian = the best known of the (non-IE) South Caucasian (Kartvelian)
languages; spoken in the Georgian Republic.
Germanic = one of the twelve major branches of Indo-European, spoken
originally in northwestern Europe It includes English, Frisian, Dutch,
German, Yiddish, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Faeroese, and
various other extinct languages.
Gheg = the northern variety of Albanian, opposed to Tosk, the southern
variety. It formed the basis of the pre-War standard language. (The current
standard is based on Tosk.)
G1 = citations from Gamkrelidze, T. and V Ivanov (1995) Indo-European
and the Indo-Europeans. 2 vols. Berlin and New York, Mouton de
Gruyter.
glide = in phonology a synonym for approximant, e.g., NE y and w.
Gmc = see Germanic.
Gortyn = ancient city of central Crete, known for its early, well-preserved
law code which forms one the earliest long inscriptions in the Doric
variety of Greek.
Goth = Gothic, the sole example of eastern Germanic, attested by a fourth
century AD translation of the Bible; fragmentarily attested in the Crimea
(Crimean Gothic ) in the sixteenth century before becoming extinct by
the eighteenth century.
Grassman’s Law = a rule in both Greek and Old Indie phonology that prohibits
two aspirated consonants in adjacent syllables; where two aspirated
consonants would be expected, the first is deaspirated (thus Greek
*thfthemi ‘I put’> tithemi and OInd *dhadhami ‘1 put’ > dadhami)
Named after Hermann Grassmann (1809-1877) who recognized the
law in 1863.
Grimm’s Law = designation of the systematic phonological change in the
prehistory of Germanic whereby PIE voiced aspirated stops were
deaspirated, voiced stops became voiceless, and voiceless stops became
continuants (e.g., *dh, d,t>d , t, p). Named after Jacob Grimm (1785-
1863) who recognized the relationship in 1822. See also Vemer’s Law
Grk = Greek, the major IE stock of Greece and its ancient colonies, attested
as Mycenaean from about the fourteenth century BC, and as Homenc
Greek (c800 BC) then Classical Greek from c600 BC until the beginning
of the Christian era.
hapax = a short form of hapax legomenon, meaning a word that occurs only
once in the recorded attestation of a given language, consequently, a
hapax may often be very uncertain with respect to both form and
meaning.
Hattie = a non-IE language spoken at Hattusa, prior to its domination by the
Hittites. The surviving texts, found in the Hittite archives, are largely
liturgical and Hattie loanwords are found in Hittite.
Hausa = an Afro-Asiatic language (a group which also contains Semitic)
spoken in Niger and northern Nigeria.
Hebrew = a Semitic (Afro-Asiatic) language spoken in ancient Judea and
Samaria and, in a revived form, in modern Israel
Hesychius = Hesychius of Alexandria, a fifth century AD Greek scholar who
compiled an extensive dictionary of the Greek language; he is sometimes
the only source for Greek cognates with other IE words
heteroclisis = the name for a morphological situation in Proto-Indo-European
and many of its daughter languages whereby a given noun is formed
from two stems, one for the nominative and accusative and the other for
the rest of the cases. The most common type involved a nominative and
accusative with -r(e.g ., PIE *udd-f ‘water’) and the rest of the cases in
-n-(e.g., *ud-n-6s ‘of water ).
HierLuv = Hieroglyphic Luvian, an Anatolian language closely related to
(Cuneiform) Luvian and attested in a hieroglyphic script, devised in
Anatolia, during the period c 1300-700 BC
hierogamic = pertaining to sacred marriage,
hippomorphic = having the shape of a horse.
Hirt’s Law = designation of two laws discovered by Herman Hirt (1865-
1936); the first recognizes the leftward retraction of PIE accent in Balio-
Slavic from a final syllable to a preceding one, provided the latter
contained a laryngeal (e.g., PIE *dhuh 2 mos > Lith ddmas ), the second
recognizes the leftward shift of PIE accent in Greek from the middle
— xviii —
ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
syllable of three short syllables to the first (e.g., PIE *yeIutrom > Grk
e'Avrpov). Both rules were discovered in 1895.
Hit = Hittite, best attested language of the Anatolian stock, the official court
language, attested in over 25,000 clay tablets, of the Hittites of central
Anatolia (Turkey) which flourished during the period c 1650-1190 BC.
Holocene = the current period since the (last) Ice Age or Pleistocene, beginning
about 10,000 years ago.
holokinetic = a nominal accent pattern in PIE where the accent falls on the
root syllable in the nominative and accusative but on the last suffixed
syllable in the other cases, e g., *pbnt-dh 2 -s ‘way’, gen. *ppt-h 2 -ds.
Homeric = the Greek dialect of the Homeric poems and epics dated to c 800
BC; it was an artificial dialect derived primarily from the Ionic and Aeolic
dialects.
homophonous = words having the same sound, e g., NE right and write.
Hungarian = major representative of the Ugric branch of the Finno-Ugric
languages, the western division of the Uralic language family.
Hurrian = the major non-IE language of eastern Anatolia and the upper
reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates. The Hurhans influenced greatly
the religious development of the Hittites and Luvians in the period after
1400 BC. Hurrian is closely related to Urartian.
hydronomy = (the system of) names given to rivers, lakes, and other bodies
of water in a particular area.
hysterokinetic = a nominal accent pattern in PIE where the accent falls on
the second to last suffixed syllable in the nominative and accusative but
on the last suffixed syllable in the other cases, e.g., PIE *must-ei-s ‘fist’,
gen. *must-i-os.
i'-stem = a variety of noun or adjective in Proto-Indo-European or many of
its daughter languages that is derived by the addition of an -i-, e.g., PIE
*h 20 ij-i - ‘sheep’.
Ibero-Celtic = the variety of Celtic spoken in classical times in Iberia, known
only from a few, mostly short, inscriptions; also known as Hispano-
Celtic.
idiolect = the variety of a language spoken by an individual speaker.
IE - Indo-European.
JEW = citations from Pokomy, J. (1959) Indogermanisches Etymologisches
Worterbuch. 2 vols. Bern and Stuttgart, Francke Verlag.
IF = Indogermanische Forschungen.
IJAL = International Journal of American Linguistics.
Illyrian = the ancient IE language spoken in classical times in Illyria (the
equivalent of the old Yugoslavia and adjacent parts of Albanian). It is
known almost exclusively from proper names recorded by Latin authors.
imperative = referring to a special form of the verb that expresses a command
or plea, e.g., NE “Speak!” or “Be gone!”.
imperfect = referring to a special form of the PIE verb, or of many of its
daughter languages, that refers to a past activity as an on-going one,
much as the New English past progressive, “she was working on her
thesis”.
indefinite article = a word modifying a noun that introduces to a conversation,
e.g., “there once was a king...".
indefinite pronoun = a pronoun that refers to an indefinite referent, e.g., NE
anyone, someone.
Indie = IE stock found largely in India, including Sanskrit (= Old Indie) and
its modern descendants such as Hindi, Panjabi, Bengali, etc.
indicative = designation of a verbal mood that expresses objective fact.
Indo -Aryan = see Indie
Indo-Hittite = an alternate name for Indo-European, called so by those who
believe that the Anatolian languages (including Hittite) broke off well
before there were any further divisions in the proto-language.
Indo-lranian = a major “superstock” of the Indo-European languages
comprising Iranian, Indo-Aryan and the Nuristam languages, also used
to describe the reconstructed ancestor of these languages.
inf. = infinitive, a verbal form that does not specify person and shares certain
characteristics with nouns; in NE preceded by to, e g., “to sleep when
one is tired is natural”. Attested infinitives are largely the result of
independent creation in those IE languages that have them.
infix = an affix inserted in the middle of a word (e.g., the n in NE stand vs.
stood).
Ingush = a Northeast Caucasian language, related closely to Chechen
injunctive = designation of a verbal mood that expresses direction or a mild
command, e.g., NE “you should not eat the mouldy bread”
instr. = instrumental, the designation of a nominal case that indicates means
or instrument, OInd grava ‘pressing stone', instr. gravna ‘with the pressing
stone'.
intensive = a derived verb which emphasizes the act denoted, e.g., OE findian
‘find’ compared to the intensive fandian ‘seek out, explore, investigate'
intervocalic = situated between vowels, e.g., the -r- in NE pity
intrans. = intransitive, the designation of a verb which does not take a direct
object, e.g., “they moved”, as opposed to transitive verbs which do take
direct objects, e.g., “they built a house”
Ionic = major dialect grouping of ancient Greek, spoken in Euboea, the
northern Cyclades, and southwestern Anatolia and with Attic (Attic-
Ionic), it provided the basis of much of classical Greek writing and
modern Greek.
Ishkashimi = a Southeast Iranian language spoken in northeastern Afghanistan
and adjacent portions of Tadzhikistan. Attested only in modem times,
isogloss = boundary of the area where a significant linguistic feature (such as
a particular pronunciation, morphological feature, or vocabulary item)
occurs.
Italo-Celtic = a possible IE subgroup composed of Italic and Celtic,
iterative = a derived verb which highlights the repetition of the act denoted,
e.g., Grk nordopcn hover, fly about' beside nexofaai fly' or Lat cantito
‘sing frequently, rehearse music’ beside canto 'sing'
JIES = Journal of Indo-European Studies
Kala^a = Dardic (i.e , northwestern Indie) language of the Chural Valley of
northwestern Pakistan.
Karakalpak = a Turkic ethnic and linguistic group located along the lower
Amu Darya and along the southern edge of the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan.
Kartvelian = the (non-IE) South Caucasian language group among which
Georgian is the best known.
Kashmiri = dominant Indie language of the Indian state of Kashmir; attested
from the fourteenth century AD.
Kashubian = a West Slavic language, closely related to Polish, and spoken in
Pomerania between the Oder and Vistula.
Kati = Nuristani language of Afghanistan, spoken in two discontinuous areas
of the Hindu Kush with some speakers also settled in the Chitral area of
Pakistan
kerb = a ring of stones set to reinforce the earth at the base of a mound.
Khot = Khotanese, an Eastern Iranian language spoken along the southern
rim of the Tarim Basin in Xinjiang.
Khowar = Dardic (i.e., northwestern Indie) language of the Chitral area of
Pakistan.
Khufi = dialect of Roshani, a Southeast Iranian language.
Khwarezmian = East Iranian language attested (not always continuously)
from the third to fourteenth centuries AD in the area of Central Asia
centered on Khiva.
Kluges Law = the phonological process in Proto-Germanic whereby an
obstruent of any sort plus a following -n- gave a geminate voiceless
stop, e.g., PIE *-pn-, *-bn-, *-bhn- > Proto-Gmc *-pp-
koin£ = a language or dialect common to a wide area in which different
languages or dialects are used locally, particularly the common Greek
literary language from the close of the classical Attic period to the
Byzantine era
Komi = also known as Zyryan, Komi belongs to the Finnic branch of the
Uralic language family and is spoken in the north of Russia (in the Komi
Autonomous Region).
Kurdish = a Northwest Iranian language spoken in southeastern Turkey,
northern Iraq, and northwest Iran, and by scattered groups in Syna,
and Central Asia. Attested only in modem times.
Kurgan = blanket term for a series of archaeological cultures of the Copper
and early Bronze ages in the steppelands and forest-steppe of the Ukraine
and south Russia. It derives its name from the Russian kurgan (a Turkish
loanword) which designates a tumulus or barrow which typically covered
the burials of the steppe.
XIX
ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
Kurgan theory = a model of Indo-European origins, championed in particular
by Marija Gimbutas, that the Indo-Europeans originated and dispersed
from Copper and early Bronze Age cultures of the Ukraine and south
Russia.
Kurgan tradition = a composite of Neolithic, Eneolithic and early Bronze
Age cultures of the steppe and forest-steppe north of the Black and
Caspian seas. These cultures are united by the predominance of burial
under a kurgan 'mound’.
KZ - one of the major journals of Indo-European research; officially known
as Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung in the period 1852-
1987 (vols. 1-100) and since 1988 as Historische Sprachforschung. It
is known popularly (irrespective of its proper name) as Kuhn’s Zeitschrift,
hence the abbreviation, after Adalbert Kuhn, one of its founders,
labial = a sound involving upper and lower lips, e.g., NE p, b.
labialization = addition of lip-rounding to the pronunciation of a vowel or
consonant, e.g., PIE *k w , *g w , *g w h.
Laconian = designating a variety of ancient Greek spoken in Laconia (the
region surrounding Sparta).
lamino-palatal glide = the sound of English y as in you.
laryngeal = a sound produced in or near the larynx, e.g., English h. In this
encyclopedia, PIE laryngeals whose exact pronunciation is unknown
(indeed not everyone believes that they were all phonetically laryngeal)
are designated as hi, h 2 , hj, h+, h a (when either /i 2 or h 4 ) or h x when
the nature of the particular laryngeal is unknown.
Lat = Latin, the major Italic language of Italy from which the modem Romance
languages are derived.
Latv = Latvian, the northernmost of the surviving Baltic languages; attested
since the sixteenth century. The national language of Latvia,
lengthened-grade = in an ablauting paradigm, having an *-e- or *-d- rather
than *-e~, *-o-, or no vowel.
lenis = pronounced with relatively less muscular effort (the opposite of fortis),
e.g., the d in NE doe (white the t in toe would be fortis).
lenited = having become lenis (especially with reference to the Celtic languages
where, under certain circumstances, stops may develop into the
corresponding continuants, e.g , p> f b> v).
Lesbian « designating a variety of ancient Greek spoken on the island of
Lesbos, the language of the Greek poet Sappho.
Lex Salica = medieval law code, written in Latin, of the Safian Franks,
lexicalization = creation of a word in the formal sense where it is subject to
the usual paradigmatic rules, e.g., NE moo > “the cow mooed’, “we
could hear the mooing of the cows".
Ligurian = an ancient (presumably) Celtic language of northwestern Italy
and southeastern France.
Lindeman variant = a phonological variant of a PIE word caused by Lindeman’s
Law whereby a monosyllabic word beginning with two consonants may
have a disyllabic variant if the second consonant is a resonant, e.g.,
*dieus > *diiius ‘sky-god’.
Lith = Lithuanian, the most conservative of the two surviving Baltic languages;
attested since the sixteenth century. The national language of Lithuania,
lithic = literally ‘of stone’ but employed in archaeology to designate
implements made of stone (often flint, chert, obsidian),
loc. = locative, the designation of a nominal case which indicates location,
e.g., Olnd v/t ‘settlement’, locative vis/ ‘in the settlement’.
LowGerm = that variety of German (also known as Plattdeutsch) spoken in
the northern (and generally lower) parts of Germany, characterized by
not having undergone the High German consonant shift (p> d, p,t,k >
pf, ts, ch ; b,d,g> p, t, k).
LowSorb = Lower Sorbian, variety of (West Slavic) Sorbian spoken in the
area of Cottbus in eastern Germany.
Luvian = an ancient Anatolian language spoken in southeastern Anatolia.
Lycian = ancient Anatolian language of southwest Asia Minor.
Lydian = ancient Anatolian language of west central Asia Minor.
Maced = Macedonian. Citations in this encyclopedia refer to the ancient IE
language of Macedonia, a language closely related to Greek. Macedonian
is also the designation of a South Slavic language, closely related to
Bulgarian, spoken in the Republic of Macedonia.
Maldivian = an Indie language, the official language of the Republic of the
Maldives in the Arabian Sea, and most closely related to Sinhalese.
Manichean Sogd = that variety of Sogdian in which Manichean religious
literature was written (opposed to Buddhist Sogdian and Christian
Sogdian).
Mannerbund = a warband consisting of young men grouped around a leader;
such units have frequently been postulated for various Indo-European
(and non-IE) traditions.
Marathi = an Indie language, the official language of the Indian state of
Maharashtra, attested since the eleventh century AD
Mari = earlier designated Cheremis, this is a subgroup of the Finnic branch
of the Uralic languages; it is spoken east of Gorki between the Volga and
Kama nvers.
MArm = Middle Armenian, Armenian from roughly the ninth century AD to
the thirteenth, particularly the chancery language of the Armenian
kingdom of Cilicia in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,
masc. = masculine, one of the three genders of (P)1E nouns, the others being
feminine and neuter. Masculine nouns do not necessarily refer to males,
e.g., Lat portus (masc.) ‘harbor, port’, though nouns whose referent is
an adult male human being are almost always masculine
MBret = Middle Breton, the Celtic (Brittonic) language attested in Brittany
during the period 1000-1600 AD
MBulg = Middle Bulgarian, the Bulgarian language of the twelfth to sixteenth
centuries.
MCom = Middle Cornish, the Celtic language of Cornwall, closely related to
Welsh, which is attested from the penod c 1200-1575 AD. As the most
abundantly attested variety of Cornish, this has served as the template
for the modern (revived) Cornish language.
MDutch = West (Low) Germanic language spoken in the Netherlands in the
period c 1300 to 1500.
ME = Middle English, the English language attested from the twelfth through
fifteenth centuries.
medio-passive = designating the voice of the verb which expresses middle
and passive (as a designation often used interchangeably with “middle”)
Meillet’s Law = the change in Slavic of certain Balto-Slavic acute intonations
into circumflex ones. Named after Antoine Meillet (1866-1936).
Mesolithic = the cultural stage of hunting-gathering economies following
the last Ice Age and preceding the advent of farming (Neolithic)
economies; generally set, depending on geographical area, to c 10,000-
4000 BC.
Messapic = an ancient, non-ltalic, IE language of southeastern Italy,
metathesis = the transposition or reversal of sounds, e.g., OE bridd and ME
brid by a process of metathesis have given NE bird.
metonymy = figure of speech whereby a word denoting an attribute or adjunct
of a thing is substituted for the word denoting the thing itself, e g., NE
(British) crown for ‘(royal) government’.
MHG = Middle High German, the High German language attested from the
period c 1050-1500.
middle = designating the voice of the verb which expresses reflexive or
reciprocal action or action which otherwise includes the subject (as a
designation often used interchangeably with the “medio-passive”), e g.,
active: “I wash the car”, middle: “I wash myself". The middle is indicated
by different endings in most IE verbal paradigms, e g., OInd bibharnu 1
carry’ (active) but bibhre ‘I carry’ (middle)
Milyan = a dialect of the Anatolian language Lycian (or a language very closely
related to Lycian).
Mind = Middle Indie, designating the languages of the Indie branch of IE
from approximately 600 BC to 100 AD, in the early part of this penod
contemporary with Old Indie which was still in use as a language of
liturgy, culture, and scholarship but no longer regularly a spoken
language.
Mir = Middle Irish, Celtic language spoken in Ireland and recorded during
the period c 900-1200 AD.
Mlran = Middle Iranian, designating Iranian languages from approximately
300 BC to 1000 AD
XX
ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
misdivision = an (originally incorrect) reassignment of sounds from one
morpheme or word to an adjacent one, e.g., NE a nauger> an auger or
a napron > an apron.
Mitanni = a Hurrian (non-IE)-speaking people and language of the upper
Euphrates, attested in the fifteenth and early fourteenth centuries BC;
the language retains some elements of Indo-Aryan in its vocabulary.
MLat = medieval Latin, a rather generic designation for Latin of the third
century AD and later. (The cutoff date between Latin and medieval Latin
follows that of the Oxford Latin Dictionary.')
MLG = Middle Low German, Low German from the middle of the eleventh
century to the middle of the fourteenth century AD.
Mongolian = a non-IE group of languages spoken in Mongolia and adjacent
areas.
monolexemic = a lexical construction consisting of a single word, e g., NE
school vs. educational institution.
Mordvin = The southernmost of the Finnic languages of the Uralic family; it
is spoken on either side of the Middle Volga,
morphologization = conversion of an originally independent word into an
affix, e g., OE lie ‘like’ has become the affix -ly in NE adjectives and
adverbs.
MPers = Middle Persian, the Southwestern Iranian language, descended from
Old Persian, that was the official language of the Sassanian Empire.
Attested from about 200 BC to the seventh century AD, in either the
Pahlevi or Manichean script, in documents and inscriptions in what is
now Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asia.
MSS = Munchener Studium zur Sprachwissenschaft.
multiplicative = a numeral expressing a factor of multiplication, e.g., NE
twice or fourfold.
Munji = an Eastern banian language spoken in northeastern Afghanistan
MWels = Middle Welsh, Celtic (Brittonic) language of Wales attested in the
period c 1200-1500 AD.
Myc = Mycenaean, the earliest known form of Greek, attested from the
sixteenth (?) to the thirteenth centuries BC.
Nakh-Dagestani = a non-IE language family of the Russian Caucasus,
including Chechen, Avar, Lezgian, etc.
Narten present = a type of PIE present characterized by an accented *-e-or
*-o- in the singular but an accented *-e- in the dual and plural,
nasal present = a type of PIE present characterized by a suffixed *-n(e)u - or
*-n(e)h a - (cf. NE waken, as opposed to wake), or by *-n(e)- infixed
before the last consonant of the root (cf. NE stand, as opposed to stood).
nasal suffix = any PIE derivational suffix having an *-n- as its first element,
either forming an n-present or a nominal n-stem.
NDutch = modern Dutch, the West Germanic language spoken in the
Netherlands (and among the adjacent Flemings of Belgium) from c 1500
onwards.
NE = New (Modern) English, attested since c 1500.
neo-vfddhted = containing a new, i.e., possibly post PIE, long-grade *-e- or
*-o-
Neogrammarian = designating a group of nineteenth century linguists (called
in German the Junggrammatiker) who held strongly the belief that
phonological change, when properly understood, was exceptionless
Neolithic = the cultural period marked by the inception of the earliest
economies based on domestic plants and livestock and which were
technologically dependent on stone (or organic) tools rather than metals.
Dependent on geographic location, the Eurasian Neolithic dates from c
8000 BC in the Near East (c 4000 BC on the European periphery) until
about 3000-2000 BC.
neut. = neuter, one of the three genders of (P)IE nouns, the others being
masculine and feminine. Neuter nouns usually refer to inanimate objects,
though not all inanimate objects are designated by neuter nouns, e.g.,
Lat mensa (fern.) ‘table’ or portus (masc.) ‘harbor, port’. In some IE
stocks any noun characterized as a diminutive is a neuter, whether
animate or not, e.g., NHG kindlein (neut.) ‘small child’, madchen (neut.)
‘girl, miss’ or Grk naiSiov (neut.) ‘child’.
NFris = modem Frisian, the Frisian language attested since c 1600.
NGrk = modern Greek, the Greek language attested since the fall of
Constantinople and the collapse of the Byzantine state and language,
i.e., since about the fifteenth century
NHG = New High German, the modern Germanic language attested from
about the beginning of the sixteenth century.
Nice = modern Icelandic, the Icelandic language from about the fifteenth
century onwards.
Nlr = modern Irish, Celtic language spoken in Ireland since c 1200 AD
nomen agentis = agent noun, e g , NE driver Irom drive
nominalization = the creation of a noun from another part of speech, usually
a verb, e.g., NE give > gift, or an adjective, e g., poor > the poor.
nominative = designating a nominal case which indicates the subject.
Norw = Norwegian, the modern language of Norway from the nineteenth
century onwards.
Nostratic =* a possible macrofamily of languages which comprises (as a
Eurasiatic group) Indo-European, Urahc-Yukaghir, Altaic, Chukchi-
Kamchatkan, Gilyak and Eskimo-Aleut and the somewhat more distantly
related Kartvelian, Elamo-Dravidian, Sumerian and Afro-Asiatic. Its home
has speculatively been set to the Near East c 1 5,000 BC Where a Nostratic
root has been claimed to underlie an Indo-European root, it has been
indicated with reference to the standard Nostratic dictionary number
and entry and prefixed with BK
NPers = New Persian, the Southwestern Iranian language that is the official
language of Iran and, in dialectally divergent forms of Tadzhikistan and
is one of the two official languages, along with Pashto, of Afghanistan
Not a direct descendant of the official Middle Persian of the Sassanian
Empire, New Persian is attested from the eighth century AD
n-stem = in (P)IE a nominal forming suffix containing -n-, e.g., Lat nomen
‘name’, genitive nominis (and residually in NE oxen)
Nubian = the non-IE languages of Nubia, anciently between Egypt and the
Sudan.
NUristani = a particular group (Ashkun, Gawarbatt, Prasun, Tregami, and
Waigali) of Indo-lranian languages spoken in the region of the Hindu
Kush in Afghanistan. Thought by most to be a group that is co-ordinate
with both Indie and banian while others have wished to ally it more
closely with either Indie or Iranian.
o-grade = in an ablautmg paradigm, having *-o- (less commonly *-o-) rather
than *-e- or no vowel.
OArm = Old Armenian, the earliest attested Armenian of the fifth century
AD.
oblique = any nominal case but the nominative.
OBret = Old Breton, the Celtic (Bnttomc) language attested in Brittany during
the period c 600-1000 AD.
OBrit = Old British, the ancient Celtic language of Britain until about the
eighth century AD (the ancestor of Welsh, Cornish, and Breton)
obstruent = a class of consonants including stops (e g., /, k) and continuants
(e.g., f, s).
OCom = Old Cornish, the Celtic (Brittonic) language of Cornwall attested
primarily from a Latin-Cornish glossary and place and personal names
during the period 800-1200 AD.
OCS = Old Church Slavonic, the liturgical language of orthodox Slavs
recorded from the ninth through the eleventh centuries. The language
offers the closest parallels with reconstructed Proto-Slavic and it had an
enduring impact on the subsequent development of those Slavic
languages which were associated with the Eastern Orthodox Church
OCzech = Old Czech, Czech from the thirteenth through the sixteenth
centuries AD.
ODan = Old Danish, Danish from the beginning of the twelfth century to
the end of the fourteenth century
OE = Old English, the English language from the beginning of the eighth
century to the middle of the twelfth century.
OFrench = Old French, French from the ninth century to the early sixteenth
century.
OFris = Old Frisian, the West Germanic Fnsian language from the beginning
of the thirteenth century to the end of the fifteenth century
— XXI —
ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
Oghamlr = Ogham Irish, the earliest inscriptional evidence of this Celtic
language, recorded from about the fourth through the seventh centuries
AD. The inscriptions, generally brief memorials, are in an archaic form
of Irish that still retained its original case endings.
OHG = Old High German, the Germanic language of the southern German
uplands (southern Germany, Switzerland, Austria) from about 750 to
1050; High German is marked by the Second (Germanic) Sound Shift
where, for example, Proto-Germanic *p, *t and *k > pf, z, and ch (kk)
respectively.
OHit = Old Hittite, the Anatolian Hittite language from the early sixteenth
century BC to the middle of the fifteenth century BC.
Olnd = Otd Indie, also known as Sanskrit, the oldest attested stage of the
Indie branch of IE, from roughly 1500 BC to 600 BC.
OIr = Old Irish, the Celtic language attested in Ireland from c. 600 to 900
AD (from which New Irish, Scots Gaelic and Manx are all descended).
OIran = Old Iranian, that stage of Iranian represented by Old Persian and
Avestan (up to about the beginning of the third century BC).
OLat = Old Latin, Latin from its first attestation in the sixth century BC
through the second century BC.
OLith = Old Lithuanian, Lithuanian of the sixteenth through early eighteenth
centuries AD.
ON = Old Norse (also known as Old Icelandic) from the middle of the twelfth
century to the middle of the sixteenth century.
onomastic = pertaining to names, naming, or nomenclature.
onomatopoeic = pertaining to onomatopoeia, the formation of words by
imitation of a sound (supposed to be) associated with the thing or activity,
e.g., NE meow, hush, sizzle, hoopoe.
OPers = Old Persian, the Southwestern Iranian language that was the official
language of the Achaemenid Persian Empire of the sixth and fifth
centuries BC.
OPhryg = Old Phrygian, Phrygian from the eighth to the third centuries BC.
OPol = Old Polish, Polish from roughly the thirteenth through the fifteenth
centuries AD.
OPrus = Old Prussian, the West. Baltic language of the original Prussians
known from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries.
optative = designating a verbal mood which expresses a wish or hope, e g.,
Olnd (indicative) bibharti ‘he carries’ but (optative) bibhfyat ‘he would
carry, he hopes to carry’.
Ormuri = a Northwest Iranian language spoken in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Attested only in modem times.
Oroshori = Southeast Iranian language spoken in eastern Tadzhikistan, closely
related to Roshani and Shughni. Attested only in modem times.
ORus = Old Russian (mixed with Old Church Slavonic) from the middle of
the eleventh century to the end of the sixteenth century.
OSax = Old Saxon, i.e ., Old Low German, from the middle of the ninth
century to the middle of the thirteenth century.
Osc = Oscan, Italic language spoken down the spine of Italy and attested
from about two hundred documents ranging from the fifth through first
centuries BC. It was subsequently replaced by Latin.
Osco-Umbrian = major dialectal grouping of Ualic comprising the Oscan
and Umbrian languages.
OSerb = Old Serbian, Serbian (largely mixed with Serbian Church Slavonic)
before the nineteenth century AD.
OSorb = Old Sorbian, Sorbian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Oss = Ossetic, a conservative Northeast Iranian language spoken in the
Russian and Georgian Caucasus, a descendant of the language of the
Scythians. Attested only in modem times.
OSwed = Old Swedish from the early thirteenth century to the later fourteenth
century.
OWels = the Celtic (Brittonic) language attested in Welsh documents from
the ninth to twelfth centuries.
Paelignian « ancient Italic language spoken in east central Italy.
Palaeosiberian = designating a number of non-IE languages spoken in Siberia
which are not apparently related to language families outside the area
(nor apparently to one another) and which are assumed to represent the
original inhabitants of Siberia.
Palaic = ancient Anatolian language of north central Anatolia,
palatalization = the making of a dorso-velar or apical sound fronter by moving
the place of contact between tongue and roof of the mouth further
forward, often accompanied by a change from stop to affricate pronun-
ciation, e g., Lat centum (/ kentum f) ‘hundred’ > Italian cento {/tsento/).
palynological = referring to the study of pollen; the accumulation of the
extremely durable pollen rain permits one to reconstruct past plant
environments.
Pamphylian = an ancient Greek dialect spoken in Pamphylia in southwest
Anatolia.
Panjabi = a modern Indie language spoken in northeastern Pakistan and in
the Indian states of Punjab and Haryana, closely related to Hindi.
Paraci = Eastern Iranian language spoken in the Hindu Kush near Kabul,
Afghanistan.
paradigm = a list serving as an exemplification of the pattern of inflection for
a noun, adjective, or verb, e.g., Olnd bhavami 'I am’, bhavasi you are’,
bhavali ‘he/she is’.
parahistorical = relating to an illiterate population which has no historical
texts of its own but which is mentioned in the histories of its neighbors,
e.g., the Iron Age Celts of western Europe who are mentioned in Greek
and Latin sources.
Parth = Parthian, a Northwest Iranian language spoken in what is now
northwestern Iran and in Central Asia, and attested during the last three
centuries of the pre-Christian Era, in the inscriptions of the Sassanian
Empire and in Manichaean religious texts. See Pehlevi.
Pashto = a Southeast Iranian language spoken in Afghanistan where it is one
of the country’s two official languages (along with Persian) and in adjacent
parts of Pakistan. Attested only in modem times,
passive = voice of the verb where the person or thing acted upon is the
subject (e.g., in “the boy was hit by the ball"), opposed to the active
(“the ball hit the boy”).
past part. = past participle, an adjective derived from a verb expressing
completed action, e g., NE broken.
Pehlevi = (also Pahlavi, Parthian) a Middle Iranian language, a later form of
Parthian (attested from the third to the tenth centuries AD) originally
localized in northwestern Iran, also the writing system used to write the
language (and used by other contemporary languages). See also Parthian.
Pelasgian = the language of the pre-Greek inhabitants of Greece, often
supposed to be IE but of a different (and otherwise unknown) sort than
Greek.
perf. = perfect (P)IE aspect (or manner of viewing an action) that expresses
present relevance of a past action, e g , PIE *yb/de ‘he/she has seen’ >
‘he/she knows’.
Phoenician = ancient Semitic language , closely related to Hebrew, spoken in
Phoenicia (= modern Lebanon) and, under the name Punic, in Carthage
(= modern Tunisia) and its colonies.
Phryg = Phrygian, a poorly attested IE language once spoken in Phrygia
(northwestern Anatolia) and last recorded in the first half of the first
Christian millennium.
Picene = two ancient languages of east central Italy; Southern Picene was
possibly an Italic language but the few attested texts of North Picene
remain opaque.
PIE = Proto-Indo-European, the proto-language of the Indo European
language family.
pi. = plural, i.e., a grammatical form, either nominal or verbal, designating
more than one, e.g. NE dogs as opposed to the singular dog
pluperfect = a verbal tense in vanous IE languages, notably Latin, Greek,
and Old Indie, corresponding in meaning to NE “he had gone" or “she
had worked for years”.
Pol = Polish, major Western Slavic language.
Polab. = Polabian, an extinct West Slavic language once spoken in what is
now the eastern portion of the German state of Lower Saxony, along the
lower Elbe (= Laba in Slavic, hence the name Po-fab-ian ‘along the Elbe ).
Known from records of the eighteenth century
poss. = possessive, the English nominal case showing, inter aha. possession,
e g , John's, house’s (cl genitive).
— XXII —
ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
postposition = the equivalent of a preposition but placed after the noun it
governs rather than before, e g., NHG Bremen gegentiber ‘opposite
Bremen’.
Praenestine = pertaining to ancient Praeneste (modem Palestrina) near Rome.
Prakrit = vernacular Indie languages (as opposed to the concurrently found,
but no longer vernacular, Sanskrit or Old Indie) of the Middle Indie
period.
Prasun = a Nuristani language of the Prasun Valley of the central Hindu
Kush in Afghanistan. Spoken between the two discontinuous sections
of Kati.
present = either a (P)1E tense whose reference includes the present time
(e.g., NE “water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit” or “They’re walking
to school now") or a (P)IE aspect that expresses the on-going nature of
the activity.
preverb = a particle or prefix placed in front of the verb root, e.g., Olr do-
beir 'gives' < do ‘to’ + beir 'carries’.
productive = frequently or actively used in word formation, e.g., in NE plurals
formed in -s are highly productive while those in -en (cf. children, oxen)
are no longer productive.
progressive tense = in English, those tenses formed with be and the present
participle (in - ing ) indicating on-going activity, e.g., “they were walking
the dog” or “we are making dinner [right now]’’.
proterodynamic = alternative name for proterokinetic.
proterokinetic = an accent pattern in PIE where the accent was on the root
syllable in the nominative and accusative of the noun or the singular of
the verb and on the syllable immediately following the root elsewhere,
e.g., dor-u‘ tree', gen. *dr-6u-s.
prothetic = in Greek or Armenian, designating a word-initial vowel without
a counterpart in other IE stocks, generally supposed to reflect a vocalized
initial laryngeal, e.g., Grk ovopa ‘name’, Arm anum ‘name’ from PIE
*hindmQ.
Proto-Anat = Proto-Anatolian, the reconstructed proto-language, itself a
descendant of PIE, ancestral to Hittite, Palaic, Luvian, Lydian, Lycian,
and some other scantily attested languages once spoken in western
Anatolia.
Proto-Baltic = the reconstructed proto-language, descended from PIE, that is
ancestral to both West Baltic, i.e.,01dPrussian, and East Baltic, i.e., Latvian
and Lithuanian. Particularly closely related within IE to Proto-Slavic.
Proto-Gmc = Proto-Germanic, the reconstructed proto-language, descended
from PIE, that is ancestral to the various Germanic languages. The earliest
Runic inscriptions dating from the third century AD are eitheT a late
form of Proto-Germanic or a form of northwest Germanic only little
changed from Proto-Germanic.
Proto-Indo-Iranian = the reconstructed proto-language, itself a descendant
of PIE, ancestral to Indie, Iranian, and Nuristani.
Proto-Nuristani = reconstructed proto- language, itself probably an immediate
descendant of Proto-Indo-Iranian, ancestral to the several Nuristani
languages spoken in east central Afghanistan in the area of the Hindu
Kush (Ashkun, Gawarbati, Prasun, Tregami, and Waigali), all of whom
are first attested only in modern times.
Proto-5emitic = the reconstructed language ancestral to the Semitic languages.
Proto-Slavic = the reconstructed proto-language, descended from PIE,
ancestral to the various Slavic languages (divided into East, West, and
South Slavic). Within IE Proto-Slavic is very closely related to Proto-
Baltic. Old Church Slavonic is a South Slavic language very little changed
from Proto-Slavic.
psilosis = in Greek the substitution of the smooth breathing for the rough
breathing, i.e., the loss of h, e.g., Attic = 77 /iepff ‘day’ but East Ionic
mepr\.
psychopomp = one who escorts the deceased to the afterlife.
ptcpl. = participle
Puhvel = Puhvel, Jaan (1984-) Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin, New
York, Amsterdam, Mouton.
Punjabi = alternate spelling of Panjabi.
QSem = Quademi semantica: Rivista Intemazionale di Semantica Teorica e
Applicata.
Raetic = ancient IE language of Raetia (= southeastern Switzerland, the
Austrian Vorarlberg and both Austrian and Italian Tyrol)
redup. = reduplication, the repetition of the initial sound or syllable in certain
(P)1E noun and verb formations, e.g., PIE *dbi-dheb jmi 'l put'
(< *dhehy) or *k w 6-k w l-os ‘wheel’ (< *k w el-).
reflexive pronoun = a pronoun which refers back to the subject, e.g., “1 saw
myself in the mirror”.
regressive assimilation = assimilation of one sound to another working
backward from the second to the first, e.g., contemporary NE tidbit
from older NE titbit.
resonant = an alternate name for sonorant.
rhotacism = the change of some other sound (usually -z-) into -r-, e.g., OLat
ausom (/auzom/) 'gold’ > Lat aurum.
RHR = Revue de 1’Histoire des Religions.
Rom = Romanian, modem Romance language of Romania,
root noun = a (P)IE noun with no derivational suffixes.
Roshani = a Southeast Iranian language, closely related to Shughni. spoken
in eastern Tadzhikistan and adjacent parts of Afghanistan. Attested only
in modem times.
ruki-rule = the phonological change in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic whereby
PIE *-s- became *-$- (or the like) after PIE *-r-, *-u-, *-k-,
Runic = the name of a non-Latin alphabet used by speakers of North and
West Germanic for usually short inscriptions, in Scandinavia down to
the Middle Ages. By extension the language of the earliest of these
inscriptions, a variety of Germanic very close to Proto-Germanic itself,
if, indeed, it is not a late form of Proto-Germanic.
Rus = Russian, major representative of the East Slavic languages
RusCS = Russian variety of Church Slavonic, the liturgical language of Eastern
Orthodox Slavs.
RV = (found in) the ggveda, the oldest attested text in Old Indie
Sabine = the Italic language, closely related to Oscan, anciently spoken in
part of central Italy.
Saka = a designation for various Northeast Iranian tribal groups of the first
millennium AD. Linguistically attested in Khotanese Saka and Tumshuq
Saka in the southwestern portion of the Tarim Basin. No longer attested,
possibly extinct by about 1000 AD.
Samoyed = The eastern branch of the Uralic family that occupies the region
of northwestern Siberia; the western branch is Finno-Ugric
sandhi = modification of the form of a word under the influence of a following
or preceding sound, e g., NE /did] a/ for did you.
Sanglechi = a Southeast Iranian language spoken in northeastern Afghanistan.
Attested only in modern times.
Sarikoli = a Southeast Iranian language spoken in the extreme southwest of
Xinjiang (Chinese Turkestan) and closely related to Shughni. Attested
only in modem times.
satam = pertaining to a group of eastern IE languages (Indo-lranian, Balto-
Slavic, Greek, Armenian) where the PIE dorso-palatal stops have become
sibilants and the labio-velars have lost their labialization and fallen
together with the plain dorso-velars; named after the Avestan word for
‘100’, satam.
satomization = process whereby PIE dorso-palatals become sibilants, e g.,
PIE *Kqit6m ‘hundred’ > OInd s atam or Av satam
SC = Serbo-Croatian, a South Slavic language, one of the major languages of
the former Yugoslavia; the language was standardized in the nineteenth
century.
Schrader’s Reallexikon = Schrader, O., and A Nehnng (1917-1923) Real-
lexikon der indogermaniseben Altertumskunde 2 vols. Berlin, Walter
de Gruyter. Major compendium of Indo-European language and culture.
ScotsGae! = modem Celtic language spoken in western Scotland, descended
from Old Irish and closely related to the Modem Irish of Ireland.
Scyth = Scythian, the designation of various Iranian tribal groups, closely
related to the Saka, from the eighth through third centuries BC in what
is now the Ukraine. Their linguistic descendants are the Ossetes.
Second Function = the ideological construct proposed for Indo-European
society that concerns the maintenance of offensive and defensive war, it
is reflected in the social roles of the various Indo-European war gods
— xxiii —
ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
and is contrasted with the First Function (religious-juridical aspects of
society) and a Third Function (fertility),
second person = denoting or indicating the person addressed in the speech
act, e.g., NE you.
sememe = a unit of meaning.
Serb = Serbian, major South Slavic language, usually grouped with Croatian.
SerbCS = the Serbian variety of Church Slavonic, the liturgical language of
the Eastern Orthodox Slavs,
sg. = singular.
Shughni = a Southeast Iranian language of eastern Tadzhikistan, closely related
to Roshani, Oroshori, and Sarikoli. Only attested in modem times
sibilant = any continuant or affricate consonant characterized by a hissing or
hushing sound, e.g., NE s, sh.
Siever’s Law = describes the change of sonorants to sequences of (corres-
ponding) vowels and sonorants, in PIE and still in Old Indie, after a
long syllable (one containing a long vowel or any vowel and two
consonants), thus *CeCjo- > *CeCijo-. Named after Eduard Sievers
(1850-1932) who discovered the law in 1878.
Sindhi = a modern Indie language spoken in southern Pakistan,
singulative = a nominal derivative indicating a single individual or thing,
e.g., Weis derwen ‘oaktree’ (< *‘a single oaktree’), historically a derivative
of the plural derw ‘oaktrees'.
Sino-Tibetan = a non-IE language family of Central Asia and the Far East
including Chinese, Tibetan, Burman, etc.
Slov = Slovene, a South Slavic language spoken in Slovenia.
Sogd = Sogdian, a Northeast Iranian language spoken in what is now
Uzbekistan and by merchant colonies in Chinese Central Asia, attested
from the fourth through eighth centuries AD. Its modern descendant is
Yaghnobi.
sonorant = a consonant produced with the vocal cords so placed that
spontaneous voicing is possible, e.g., NE m, n, /, r, y, w.
spiritus asper = alternate name for the rough breathing (i.e., h-) in Greek,
stative = designating a verb expressing a state or condition,
stop = a consonant involving complete closure of the vocal tract, e.g., NE p,
t, k.
strong-grade = in an ablauting paradigm having *-e-, or *-o-, or, less
commonly, *-e-or *-o-.
subjunctive = designating a verbal mood which expresses a relation wished
for or thought of by the speaker as existing between subject and predicate,
frequently found in subordinate clauses, e.g. “If I were rich”, “He insisted
that I be here".
substantivization = the creation of a noun from an adjective or a verb, e.g.,
poor > [be poor.
substratal = pertaining to elements in a language identified as being relics or
borrowings from an earlier language now extinct but once spoken in
the same location as the attested language, e.g., the presumed impact of
Dra vidian on the Indo- Aryan languages of northwest India,
suffix = an element attached at the end of a word to form an inflectional form
of the word or a derivation of the word, e.g., NE -s, -ed, - ing , -t/on, etc.
Sumerian = ancient language of southern Mesopotamia, written in the
cuneiform script. It flourished from c 3100 BC until 2000 BC by which
time it had been replaced as a chancery language by Akkadian but it
continued to serve as a vehicle for liturgical literature.
Sumerogram = (in a Hittite text) a Sumerian word written instead of the
corresponding Hittite word, presumably intended to be pronounced as
the Hittite word (see also Akkadogram).
suppletive present = a present tense formation from a different root than
found in other tenses (somewhat like the relationship of NE go to went).
Swed = Swedish, modem North Germanic language,
syncope = a shortening of a word by the omission of one or more syllables,
e.g., NE (adj.) separate, pronounced sep’rate.
synecdoche = a figure of speech in which a more inclusive term is used for a
less inclusive one or vice versa, e.g., farm-hand (for farm laborer) or
“he sets a good table ” (where table = meal)
Szem = Szemerenyi, O. (1977) Studies in the kinship terminology of the
Indo-European languages, with special reference to Indian, Iranian, Greek
and Latin. Acta Iranica (Varia 1977) 7, 1-240.
tatpurusa = designating a kind of noun compound where the first member
qualifies in some way the second, e g., NE red deer.
tectal = designating a sound which involves the back of the tongue and any
part of the roof of the mouth, e.g., dorso-palatal, dorso-velar, uvular,
telic = refers to events which have a natural goal or endpoint, e g., "he built
a house”, “she reached the top of the mountain", as opposed to atelic
where there is no built-in closure to the activity, e.g , “they rode a horse
[around)”.
thematic = nouns and verbs in PIE, and the various daughter stocks, whose
stems end in -e/o-, e.g. *taur-o-s ‘bull; aurochs’ as opposed to *^ w ou-s
‘cow’, or *bher-e-ti 'he carries’ but *es-li ‘he is’. In both nouns and verbs
the thematic types were productive in PIE and its descendants whereas
athematic types were increasingly less so.
thematicization = process whereby an athematic noun or verb has -e/o- added
to it to make a thematic noun or verb, e.g., PIE *bhreh a ter , but Proto-
Slavic *bhratr-o-s ‘brother’.
Thessalian = the classical Greek dialect of Thessaly.
Third Function = in Indo-European mythology, the Third Function relates
to the deities and elements concerned with fertility and productivity in
society. This contrasts with the First Function (religion and law), and
Second (warfare). The social expression of the Third Function is seen to
be herder-cultivators and female deities,
third person = denoting or indicating the person referred to in a speech act,
i.e., in NE he, she, it, they.
Thracian = the little known IE language of ancient Thrace, i.e , modem
Bulgaria, northeastern Greece and European Turkey.
Tischler = Johann Tischler (1977-) Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar.
Innsbruck, lnstitut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Umversitat Innsbruck
TochA = Tocharian A, an IE language spoken in the Turfan Depression and
adjacent areas of Chinese Turkestan and closely related to Tocharian B
spoken immediately to the west; it was extinct by the close of the first
Christian millennium. Also called East Tocharian or Agnean.
TochB = Tocharian B, an IE language spoken along the northern nm of the
Tarim Basin in Chinese Turkestan and closely related to Tocharian A
spoken immediately to the east. Extinct sometime around the close of
the first Christian millennium. Also called West Tocharian or Kuchean,
the latter being the native designation for the language.
Torwali = Dardic language of the Swat Valley in northwestern Pakistan
Tosk = The southern of the two groups of Albanian dialects, as opposed to
the northern Gheg. Standard Albanian is based on a variety of northern
Tosk.
trans. = transitive, the designation of a verb which takes a direct object , e.g. ,
“they saw a deer”, as opposed to intransitive verbs which do not take
direct objects, e.g., “they went”.
transfunctional = in IE comparative mythology, a deity or human figure that
encompasses all three of the canonical functions (religion and law,
warfare, fertility) attributed to IE society by Georges Dumdzil
TRB = Funnel Necked Beaker culture (German Tnchterbecherkultur), the
Neolithic culture of the north European plain which extended from the
Netherlands eastwards to Poland and the Ukraine
Tregami = a Nuristani language of three villages ( tre gam ) situated in a small
valley west of the Kunar in Afghanistan,
tripartition = the division of IE society and ideology into three components
or functions: religion/law, warfare and fertility
Tsakonian = modem Greek dialect spoken in the eastern Peloponnesus which
descended from the ancient Peloponnesian Doric.
Tuatha De Danann = major mythical race of Ireland who were important in
both Irish cosmological and eschatological myths; in native tradition
they were driven underground (into the fairy mounds) by the legendary
ancestors of the Irish.
Turkic = a non-IE language family of central and southwestern Asia including
Turkish, Uzbek, Kazakh, etc.
Udmurt = formerly known as Votyak, with Komi, this is a language of the
Permic sub-group of the Finnic branch of the Uralic languages; it is
spoken west of the river Kama in Russia in the Udmurtia Republic of
Russia.
— XXIV
ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY
j
ri
I
t
»
|j
I
ij
;l
Ugarit = a Central Semitic language, closely related to Hebrew and Phoenician,
which is found in documents from northern Syria during the period
from the fifteenth to thirteenth centuries BC.
Ukr = Ukrainian, an East Slavic language spoken in the Ukraine.
Umb = Umbrian, ancient Italic language spoken in central Italy and most
closely related to Oscan. Replaced by the somewhat more distantly related
Latin in the early centuries of the Christian era
unaspirated = describing a consonant not characterized by a marked flow of
breath, e.g., NE b as opposed to p.
uncontracted = said of adjacent vowels when they do not merge into a single
vowel, e g., the i and o in NE violate.
unrounding = the loss of labialization or lip-rounding in a consonant, e g.,
*k w >k.
Urartian = the major non-IE language of the Kingdom of Urartu which lay
south of the Caucasus between the Black and Caspian seas, i.e., the
territory of the later Armenians. The language, attested from about the
ninth through sixth centuries BC, appears to have descended from the
same ancestor that provided the earlier Human language of eastern
Anatolia.
uvular = designating a sound involving the back part of the tongue and the
uvula, e g., initial consonant in NPers qanat 'underground irrigation
channel’.
Vanir = in Old Norse tradition, the Vanir are a group of gods particularly
associated with fertility and contrasted with the yfeir.
Vedic = language of the Vedas, the earliest attested form of Old Indie,
velar = a sound produced by the back of the tongue and the soft palate, eg.,
NE k or g (as in ghost).
Venetic = an ancient IE language spoken in the Veneto and adjacent areas of
northeastern Italy.
Veps = a Balto-Finnic language of the Uralic language family spoken in the
vicinity of St Petersburg, Russia.
Verner’s Law = a refinement of Grimm’s Law, which recognizes that PIE
voiceless stops become voiceless continuants when in initial position or
immediately after the PIE accent but become voiced continuants (later
voiced stops) when preceding the PIE accent (thus PIE *pfy a ter> Proto-
Gmc * fader but PIE *bhreh a ter > Proto-Gmc *broper). Named after
Karl Vemer (1846-1896) who discovered this law in 1876.
vn. = verbal noun, distinctive form of the verb found in the Celtic languages
that resembles the infinitive, e g., Olr suide ‘(a) sitting’ beside saidid
‘sits’ or dilhle ‘(a) taking away' beside do-lien 'takes away’,
voc. = vocative, the nominal case used in direct address,
vocalism = a vowel sound or articulation.
voiced = refers to a sound that is accompanied by vibration of the vocal
cords, e.g. , NE b or z, as opposed to the corresponding voiceless sounds
p or s that are without any vibration of the vocal cords,
voiceless = refers to a sound that is not accompanied by any vibration of the
vocal cords, NE p or s, as opposed to the corresponding voiced sounds
b or z which are accompanied by vibration of the vocal cords,
vfddhi = alternative name for the (P)IE lengthened grade; the word is derived
from the Sanskrit grammarians of ancient India
VulgLat = Vulgar Latin, the designation of the non-standard variety of spoken
Latin, and opposed to the classical written variety of Latin, of the last
century or so of the pre-Christian era and the first centuries of the
Christian era that is the actual ancestor (rather than classical Latin) of
the various Romance languages
VW = A. J. Van Windekens (1976) Le Tokharien confronts avec les autres
langues indo-europeennes, Vol. I : La phonetique et le vocabulaire
Louvain, Centre Internationale de Dialectologie Generale.
Waigali = a Nuristani language at the Waigal Valley of Afghanistan
Alternatively known as Kalasa.
Wakhi = a southeastern Iranian language spoken in extreme northeastern
Afghanistan and adjacent portions of Tadzhikistan
Wanji = extinct Eastern Iranian language once spoken to the north of Shughni
in eastern Tadzhikistan.
Wat = citations from Watkins, C (1985) The American Heritage Dictionary
of Indo-European Roots. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
weak grade = in an ablauting paradigm not having *-«?-, *-o -, *-e- or *-b-
(= zero-grade).
Weekes = D. M. Weekes (1985) Hittite Vocabulary: An Anatolian Appendix
to Buck's ‘Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-
European Languages'. Ann Arbor, University Microfilms.
Weis = modem Welsh, a Celtic language of the Britonnic branch of Celtic,
most closely related to Cornish and Breton, spoken in Wales and attested
from the latter half of the first Christian millennium to the present.
Forms cited as Weis are in Modern Welsh, the language attested since c
1500 AD.
West Gmc. = West Germanic, one of three branches of the Germanic family
(the others are North Germanic and East Germanic) comprising English,
Frisian, Low German, Dutch, High German, and Yiddish.
Winter’s Law = the process in Balto-Slavic whereby PIE short vowels were
lengthened before original voiced stops (b, d, g , etc.) but not before
voiced aspiraies (bb, dh, gh , etc.) Named after Werner Winter whose
account of the phenomena appeared in 1978.
Winter-Kortlandt Law = alternative name for Winters Law with the added
specification that the PIE voiced stops were actually ejectives and that
*b‘ “decomposed" in Baho-Slavic into *Hb where the laryngeal -like
first element combined with a preceding vowel to create a long vowel
Wordick = citations from Wordick, F (1970) A generative-extensionist analysis
of the Proto-Indo-European kinship system with a phonological and
semantic reconstruction of the terms. Ann Arbor, University Microfilms.
WRus = West Russian or Belorussian.
Xanty = alternative spelling for Khanty (also known as Ostyak), a Finno-
Ugric language spoken in east central European Russia
Yaghnobi = Southeastern Iranian language spoken by no more than a couple
of thousand people in Tadzhikistan, the sole descendant of ancient
Sogdian.
Yazghulami = a southeastern Iranian language spoken in northeastern
Afghanistan and adjacent portions of Tadzhikistan, closely related to
Shughni and the other Pamir Iranian languages.
Yidgha = a Southeast Iranian language spoken in northeastern Pakistan
Attested only in modern times.
ZaraOustra = Greek Zoroaster, major Iranian religious leader and author of
the Gathas, the earliest portions of the Avesta. While traditional dates
place ZaraGustra at c 628-551 BC, the language of the Avesta is often
considered so archaic that its earliest portions ami author should date
before 1000 BC.
zero-grade = in an ablauting paradigm, having no vowel (= weak-grade)
Zoroastrian Pahlevi = the Middle Persian dialect used in Zoroastnan texts
from the third to seventh centuries AD
Zem = Zemaitis, the designation of Lithuanian dialects found in the western
portion of Lithuania.
PHONETIC DEFINITIONS
a a low, unrounded, vowel, usually central but may be
fronter or backer than central as well; in Indie a mid
central unrounded vowel.
a a long, tow, unrounded central vowel.
a a stressed a; in Lithuanian a long a with falling pitch,
a in Lithuanian a long a with rising pitch; in Latvian a
long a with sustained (or rising) pitch; in Lycian and
Lydian a nasalized a.
a in Lithuanian a short a with falling pitch; in Latvian an
a with falling pitch.
a in Lithuanian a long low central vowel with rising pitch;
in Latvian an a with sustained (or rising) pitch; in Lycian
and Lydian a nasalized a.
a in Latvian a long a with broken (or laryngealized) pitch.
^ in Polish a mid back rounded nasal vowel; in Lithuanian
a long a (formerly nasalized); in Avestan a mid low
unrounded nasal vowel.
as a low front unrounded vowel, in Old Norse a long low
front unrounded vowel.
a in Germanic a low front unrounded vowel; in Tocharian
a mid central unrounded vowel 1= a]; in Khotanese a
high central unrounded vowel,
a in Romanian a mid central unrounded vowel (= a] .
a/ in Gothic a lower mid front unrounded vowel [= e] .
au in Gothic a lower mid back rounded vowel 1= a].
b a voiced bilabial stop; in Hittite, Palaic, and Lydian a
voiceless bilabial stop [= p) (in Lydian voiced after a
nasal); in Lycian a voiced bilabial continuant.
bh a voiced aspirated bilabial stop; in Middle and New Irish
a voiced labio-dental continuant [= vl .
c in Italic (Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, and Paelignian), Celtic
(Irish and Welsh), and Old English a voiceless dorso-
velar stop [= k} \ in Old Indie a voiceless, apico-alveo-
palatal affricate [= cl; in Russian, Serbo-Croatian,
Albanian, Armenian and Iranian, a voiceless apico-
dental affricate [= ts] .
c 1 in Armenian an aspirated voiceless apico-dental affricate .
ch in Welsh, German, Polish, and Czech a voiceless dorso-
velar continuant [= x] \ in Indie an aspirated voiceless
apico-alveo-palatal affricate.
g in Albanian a voiceless alveo-palatal affricate [= c] ; in
Old Persian probably a voiceless apico-dental affricate
Ms).
c in Polish a voiceless corono-alveo-palatal affricate.
c a voiceless apico-alveo-palatal affricate.
c‘ an aspirated voiceless apico-alveo-palatal affricate.
cz in Polish a voiceless alveo-palatal affricate.
d a voiced apico-dental or apico-alveolar stop; in Hittite,
Palaic, and Luvian a voiceless apico-dental or apico-
alveola^top [= f] ; in Lycian and Lydian a voiced apico-
dental or apico-alveolar continuant [= <5).
dh a voiced aspirated apico-dental or apico-alveolar stop;
in Middle Irish and Albanian a voiced apico-dental
continuant [= 5); in New Irish a voiced dorso-velar
continuant [= y],
dd in Welsh a voiced apico-dental continuant [= <51 .
d a voiced apico-retroflex stop.
dh an aspirated voiced apico-retroflex stop.
6 a voiced apico-dental continuant
6 a voiced apico-dental continuant (= 6] .
e a mid front unrounded vowel; in Lithuanian a low front
unrounded vowel.
e a long mid front unrounded vowel,
e in Lithuanian a long mid front vowel,
e a stressed e; in Lithuanian a long low front vowel with
falling pitch.
e in Lithuanian a short low front vowel with a falling pitch;
in Latvian an e with falling pitch.
e in Lithuanian a long low front vowel with rising pitch;
in Latvian an e with sustained (or rising) pitch; in Lycian
and Lydian a nasalized e.
e in Latvian an e with broken (or laryngealized) pitch,
p in Polish a mid front unrounded nasal vowel,
e in Albanian a mid central unrounded vowel (= ^1; in
Russian a stressed mid back rounded vowel with
palatalization of a preceding consonant,
e in Old Church Slavonic a long low to mid unrounded
front vowel.
9 a mid central unrounded vowel,
ei in Gothic and Umbrian a long high front unrounded
vowel [=/].
f a voiceless labio-dental continuant; in Welsh a voiced
labio-dental continuant [= v], except in word final
position where it is voiceless.
ff in Welsh a voiceless labio-dental continuant [= /].
g a voiced dorso-velar stop; in Hittite, Palaic, and Luvian
a voiceless dorso-velar stop [= k \ ; in Gothic, when before
a k or another g , a voiced dorso-velar nasal stop; in
Lycian a voiced dorso-velar continuant [= y) .
gh a voiced aspirated dorso-velar stop; in Middle and New
Irish a voiced dorso-velar continuant 1= y\.
gj in Albanian a voiced dorso-palatal stop
— xxvu —
PHONETIC DEFINITIONS
g in PIE a voiced dorso-palatal stop.
gh in PIE an aspirated voiced dorso-palatal stop.
g w a voiced labialized dorso- velar stop.
g w h an aspirated voiced labialized dorso-velar stop.
7 a voiced dorso-velar continuant; in Iranian a voiced
dorso-uvular continuant.
7 in Iranian a voiced front dorso-velar continuant.
h a voiceless laryngeal continuant ; in Proto- Ge rmanic , Old
High German, English and Gothic (when before a
consonant) Polish, Slovenian, and Serbo-Croatian a
voiceless dorso-velar continuant [= x ] ; in Old Indie a
voiced laryngeal continuant.
h in Old Indie a voiceless laryngeal continuant.
h in Gothic a voiceless labialized dorso-velar continuant.
hi in PIE a “laryngeal” that has no affect on an adjacent
vowel.
/12 in PIE a “laryngeal” that changes an adjacent -e- to -a-.
h3 in PIE a “laryngeal” that changes an adjacent -e- to -o.
/14 in PIE a “laryngeal” that changes an adjacent -e- to -a-.
h a in PIE a “laryngeal” that changes an adjacent -e- to -a-
(either or h^).
h x in PIE an indeterminant “laryngeal”.
2 a high front unrounded vowel; in Polish also a mark of
palatalization for the preceding consonant; in Irish also
a mark of palatalization on the preceding or following
consonant.
1 a long high front unrounded vowel.
2 a stressed vowel 2; in Lithuanian a long 2 with falling
pitch; in Oscan and Umbrian a lower high front vowel
[=/]•
2 in Lithuanian a short 2 with falling pitch; in Latvian an
2 with falling pitch.
1 in Lithuanian a short 2 with rising pitch; in Latvian an 2
with sustained (or rising) pitch.
2 in Latvian an 2 with broken (or laryngealized) pitch; in
Romanian a high central unrounded vowel.
i in Lithuanian a long 2 (formerly a nasalized 2).
f in Old Church Slavonic a short high front vowel; in
Russian a mark of palatalization of the preceding
consonant.
1 a lower high front unrounded vowel (as in NE pit),
i a voiced palatal approximant [= y\.
j a voiced palatal approximant [= y\\ in Armenian and
Iranian a voiced apico-dental affricate [= dz ] ; in Middle
and New English and Indie a voiced alveo-palatal
affricate.
j a voiced alveo-palatal affricate.
jh an aspirated voiced alveo-palatal affricate.
k a voiceless dorso-velar stop; in Umbrian indifferently
voiced or voiceless; in Mycenaean Greek indifferent as
to voicing or aspiration; in Lydian voiced after nasals;
in Lycian a voiceless front dorso-velar (or dorso-palatal?)
stop (voiced after a nasal).
kh a voiceless aspirated dorso-velar stop; in Russian a
voiceless dorso-velar continuant.
k‘ in Armenian an aspirated voiceless dorso-velar stop.
in Latvian a palatalized k.
k in PIE a voiceless dorso-palatal stop.
k w a voiceless labialized dorso-velar stop.
1 a voiced apico-dental or apico-alveolar lateral
approximant. rz
— xxviii —
11 in Albanian a voiced apico-alveolar velarized lateral
approximant; in Welsh a voiceless apico-alveolar lateral
continuant.
ly in Tocharian a voiced alveo-palatal lateral approximant.
/ in Latvian a palatalized 1 .
lj in Serbo-Croatian a palatalized /.
1 in Armenian a voiced apico-alveolar velarized lateral
approximant; in Polish a voiced bilabial approximant
(formerly a voiced apico-alveolar velarized lateral
approximant).
/ a vocalic /.
m a voiced bilabial nasal stop.
qi a vocalic m.
m in Tocharian a voiced nasal stop, usually apico-dental
(except when before a labial when it too is a labial); in
Old Indie a nasal continuant of some sort or the
indication of nasalization on the preceding vowel; in
later Indie a voiced nasal stop agreeing in place of
articulation with the following consonant.
m in Lycian an unreleased voiced bilabial nasal stop.
n a voiced apico-dental or apico-alveolar nasal stop.
nj in Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, and Albanian a voiced
apico-alveopalatal nasal stop.
n in Czech a voiced apico-alveo-palatal nasal stop,
p in Latvian a voiced apico-alveo-palatal nasal stop.
n a voiced apico-retroflex nasal stop.
n a voiced dorso-velar nasal stop.
n in Indie and Tocharian a voiced dorso-velar nasal stop.
n a vocalic n.
n in Lycian an unreleased voiced apico-dental nasal stop.
o a mid back rounded vowel.
6 a long mid back rounded vowel.
6 a stressed o; in Lithuanian a long o with falling pitch; in
Polish a long high back vowel [= u] .
0 in Lithuanian a short o with falling pitch; in Latvian an
o with falling pitch.
6 in Lithuanian a long mid back rounded vowel with rising
pitch; in Latvian an u with sustained (or rising) pitch.
6 in Latvian an o with broken (or laryngealized) pitch.
0 a mid front rounded vowel.
ce in Old Norse a long mid from rounded vowel.
p a low back rounded vowel.
p a voiceless bilabial stop; in Mycenaean Greek indifferent
as to voicing or aspiration; in Lycian voiced after a nasal.
ph an aspirated voiceless bilabial stop; in Welsh a labio-
dental voiceless continuant.
p‘ in Armenian an aspirated voiceless bilabial stop.
q in Albanian a voiceless dorso-palatal stop; in Gothic
and Lydian a rounded voiceless dorso-velar stop [= k H 1 ;
in Mycenaean Greek a rounded dorso-velar stop
(indifferent as to voicing or aspiration); in Latin, Oscan,
and Umbrian a variant of k used before 12; in Lycian a
rounded (?) dorso-(mid-) velar stop,
r a voiced apico-alveolar tap (or sometimes a trill),
rr in Albanian and Spanish a voiced apico-alveolar trill,
f in Czech and probably also in Umbrian a voiced apico-
alveolar fricative trill.
f in Latvian a palatalized r.
r in Armenian a voiced apico-alveolar trill,
an apico-retroflex flap or trill
in Polish a voiced apico-alveopalatal continuant [= z\.
PHONETIC DEFINITIONS
rh in Welsh a voiceless apico-alveolar trill.
f a vocalic r.
s a voiceless apico-alveolar groove continuant; in Lydian
a voiceless apico-alveo-palatal groove continuant [= s] .
sh a voiceless apico-alveopalatal groove continuant [= s] .
s a voiceless corono-alveopalatal continuant; in Lydian a
voiceless apico-alveolar groove continuant [= s] .
s a voiceless apico-alveo-palatal groove continuant,
s a voiceless apico-retroflex groove continuant.
t a voiceless apico-dental or apico-alveolar stop; in
Umbrian indifferently voiced or voiceless; in Mycenaean
Greek indifferently aspirated or unaspirated; in Lydian
and Lycian voiced after a nasal.
th an aspirated voiceless apico-dental or apico-alveolar
stop; in Old and Middle Irish, Welsh, Middle and New
English, and Albanian a voiceless apico-dental con-
tinuant [= 01 .
V in Armenian an aspirated voiceless apico-dental stop.
t a voiceless apico-retroflex stop.
th an aspirated voiceless apico-retroflex stop.
0 a voiceless apico-dental continuant.
p a voiceless apico-dental continuant [= 0] .
r in Lydian a voiceless apico-alveolar affricate [= ts\.
u a high back rounded vowel; in Welsh a high back
unrounded vowel.
u a long high back rounded vowel.
u in Czech a long high back rounded vowel; in Iranian a
back rounded vowel midway between u and o.
u a stressed u; in Lithuanian a long u with falling pitch;
in Latvian an u with falling pitch; in Oscan and Umbrian
a mid back rounded vowel [= o] .
u in Lithuanian a short u with falling pitch.
u in Lithuanian a a long high back rounded vowel with
rising pitch; in Latvian an u with sustained (or rising)
pitch.
p in Lithuanian a long u (formerly nasalized u).
u in Old Church Slavonic a short high back rounded
vowel.
u a voiced bilabial approximant {= w\.
v a voiced labio-dental continuant.
vh in Venetic a voiceless labio-dental continuant {= fl.
w a voiced bilabial approximant; in German and Dutch a
voiced labio-dental continuant [= v]; in Welsh, when
between consonants, a high back rounded vowel
(otherwise = u).
x a voiceless dorso-velar continuant ; in Iranian a voiceless
dorso-uvular continuant; in Latin, Old Norse and
English the cluster ks\ in Albanian a voiced apico-dental
affricate [= dz \ ; in Lydian a voiceless back dorso-velar
(dorso-uvular?) stop.
y in Latin, Old English, German, and Albanian a high
front rounded vowel; in Russian and Welsh a high back
unrounded vowel (also in Welsh a mid central
unrounded vowel {= a]); in Polish a lower high front
unrounded vowel 1= /] ; in Czech a high front unrounded
vowel [= ij; in Lithuanian a long high front vowel 1= i\ \
in Armenian, Anatolian, Iranian, Indie, and Tocharian
a voiced palatal approximant.
z a voiced apico-alveolar groove continuant; in Oscan,
Umbrian, German, Hittite, Palaic, Luvian, and Lycian a
voiceless apico-alveolar affricate 1= is].
zh a voiced apico-alveo-palatal groove continuant [= z).
z in Polish a voiced corono-alveo-palatal groove con-
tinuant.
z a voiced apico-alveo-palatal groove continuant.
z in Polish a voiced apico-alveo-palatal groove continuant
[= rzl
— xxix —
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF ENTRIES
Abashevo Culture
Away
Birds
Case
Abdomen
Awl
Bishkent Culture
Castrate
Able
Ax
Bite
Cat
Abundant
Axle
. Bitter
Catacomb Culture
Accomplish
Black
Catal Htiyuk
Accustom
Baalberge Group
Blackbird
Cavity
Across
Babble
Bladder
Celtic Languages
Adhere
Back 1 (body)
Blame
Cemetery H Culture
Adpreps
Back 2 (behind)
Bleat
Centaur
Afanasevo Culture
Bad
Blind
Cernavoda Culture
Against
Baden Culture
Blood
Chaff
Age Set
Badger
Blow
Charcoal
Agriculture
Bag
BMAC
Chernoles Culture
Albanian Language
Bald
Boat
Chernyakovo Culture
Alder
Baltic Languages
Bodrogkeresztur Culture
Cherry
Alone
Bark 1 (of a tree)
Body
Chick-pea
Anatolian Languages
Bark 2 (of a dog)
Boil
Child
Anatomy
Barley
Bone
Chin
Ancestor God
Barren
Booty
Chust Culture
And
Basin
Border
Circle
Andronovo Culture
Basket
Bow and Arrow
Clay
Angelica
Be
Brain
Clean
Anger
Beaker Culture
Branch
Close (the eyes)
Animal
Bean
Brave
Clothe (oneself)
Animal Cry
Bear 1 (animal)
Break
Clothing
Anoint
Bear 2 (young)
Breast
Cloud
Ant
Beautiful
Breathe
Club
Anus
Beaver
Bride-price
Cock
Apart
Bed
Bright
Cold
Appear
Bee
Broad
Color
Apple
Beech
Broth
Come
Arm
Beer
Brother
Companion
Armenian Language
Before
Brotherhood
Comparative Mythology
Army
Begin
Brother-in-law
Compensation
Around
Behind
Brown
Complain
Ash 1 (tree)
Belch
Bug-Dniester Culture
Concubine
Ash 2 (bum)
Belief
Build
Conquer
Ask
Bend
Burden
Consort Goddess
Aspen, Poplar
Berry
Burn
Contend
Ass
Between
Butterfly
Cook
Assembly
Beyond
Buttocks
Coot
Attain
Bind
Copper Hoard Culture
Attempt
Binder-God
Call
Corded Ware Culture
Auger
Birch
Captive
Cosmogony
Aunt
Bird
Carp
Cosmology
Awake
Bird Cry
Carry
Co^ofeni Culture
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF ENTRIES
Cough
Eagle
Flea
Ground
Country
Ear
Flee
Grove
Cousin
Early
Floor
Grow
Cover
Earth
Flotsam
Grunt
Cow
Earth Goddess
Flow
Guest
Craft, Craftsman
East
Flower
Gull
Craft God
Eat and Drink
Fly 1 (insect)
Gullet
Crane
Eel
Fly 2 (verb)
Crawl
Egg
Foam
Hair
Creator
Elbow
Follow
Half
Crime
Elephant
Food
Hallstatt Culture
Crooked
Elf
Foot
Hand
Crow
Elk (American moose)
Force
Handle
Crush
Elm
Forehead
Hang
Cuckoo
Empty
Forget
Happy
Curve
Enemy
Fork (of a tree)
Harappan Culture
Custom
Entrails
Fort
Hare
Cut
Eschatology
Fortune
Harm
Este Culture
Fox
Harvest
Dacian Language
Evening
Framework
Hasanlu
Dark
Exchange
Freeman
Hate
Daughter
Excrement
Fresh
Haunch
Daughter-in-law
Extend
Friend
Hawthorn
Dawn
Extinguish
Frighten
Hazel
Dawn Goddess
Eye
Frog
Head
Day
Ezero Culture
Full
Headband
Deaf
Furrow
Heal
Death
Face
Further
Healthy
Death Beliefs
Falcon
Heap
Deceive
Fall
Gall
Hear
Deep
Fame
Gamebird
Heart
Deer
Family
Gather
Hearth
Defect
Far
Gaudo Culture
Heat
Degrees of Descent
Fart
Germanic Languages
Heavy
Dereivka
Fast
Gird
Hedgehog
Descendant
Fat
Give
Heel
Desire
Father
Gland
Hellebore
Destroy
Father-in-law
Glasinac Culture
Hell-Hound
Dew
Fatyanovo-Balanovo
Glide
Help
Dig
Culture
Globular Amphora Culture
Hemp
Direction
Favor
Go
Hen
Dirt
Fear
Goat
Henbane
Dive
Feed
God
Herd
Divide
Fence
Goddesses
Herdsman
Divine Twins
Ferment
Goddesses (misc.)
Hernia
Djeitun Culture
Few
Golasecca Culture
Heron
Dnieper-Donets Culture
Field
Gold
Hide 1 (conceal)
Dog
Fight
Good
Hide 2 (skin)
Door
Fill
Goose
High
Dove
Finch
Grain
High-one
Down
Find
Granddaughter
Hill
Dragon
Find One’s Way
Grandfather
Hock
Draw (water)
Fir
Grandmother
Hold
Dream
Fire
Grandson
Honey
Dregs
Fire Cult
Grass
Honor
Drive
Fire in Water
Gray
Hoof
Dry
Firm
Greek Language
Hook
Duck
Fish
Green
Hoopoe
Dwell
Flat
Grieve
Horn
Flax
Grind
Hornbeam
XXXll
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF ENTRIES
Hornet
Horse
Horse Goddess
Hostile
House
Howl
Hum
Humble
Hunger
Hunt
Hurry
Ice
Illyrian Language
Impeller
In
Indo-European Homeland
Indo-European Languages
Indo- Iranian Languages
Injure
Insects
Inspiration
Insult
Interjections
Intoxicator
Iron
Italic Languages
Jackdaw
Jastorf Culture
jaw
Jay
Joint
Juice
Jump
Junazite
Juniper
Karasuk Culture
Kelteminar Culture
Kemi Oba Culture
Khvalynsk Culture
Kick
Kidney
King
King and Virgin Theme
Kinship
Kinsman
Kiss
Kite
Knee
Knife
Knot 1 (tie)
Knot 2 (in wood)
Know
Kolochin Culture
Komarov Culture
Kurgan Tradition
Kuro-Araxes Culture
Lack
Lake
Large
La Tene Culture
Laugh
Law
Lead 1 (verb)
Lead 2 (metal)
Leader
Leaf
Lean
Learn
Leave
Leech
Left
Leg
Lengyel Culture
Leopard
Less
Libation
Lick
Lie 1 (recline)
Lie 2 (deceive)
Life
Lift
Light 1 (shine)
Light 2 (of weight)
Lightning
Limb
Linden
Line
Lineage
Linear Ware Culture
Lion
Up
Litter
Live
Liver
Loins
Long
Louse
Love
Love Goddess
Lower Mikhaylovka Group
Lung
Lynx
Macedonian Language
Magic .
Magpie
Make
Male
Mammals
Man
Manu
Maple
Marlik
Marriage
Marrow
Marsh
Marten
Master, Mistress
Maykop Culture
Measure
Meat
Medical God
Medicine
Meet
Mehrgarh
Melt
Messapic Language
Metal
Middle
Middle Dnieper Culture
Milk
Millet
Mistletoe
Mix
Moan
Monkey
Moon
Moss
Mother
Mother-in-law
Mouse
Mouth
Move
Mulberry
Murmur
Muscle
Nail
Namazga
Name
Narrow
Nave
Navel
Near
Neck
Necklace
Nephew
Nest
Net
Nettle
New
Niece
Night
Nod
Noise
Nose
Not
Novodanilovka Group
Novotitorovka Culture
Now
Number
Numerals
Nut
Oak
Oar
— xxxiii —
Oath
Oats
Old
Old Man
Once
Opinion
Or
Order
Orphan
Other
Otter
Out
Over
Owl
Own
Pain
Paint
Painted Grey Ware Culture
Panther
Pastoral God
Pea
Peak
Penkov Culture
People
Perceive
Perch
Persuade
Phrygian Language
Physical Anthropology
Picene Languages
Pierce
Pig
Pin
Pine
Pit-Comb Ware Culture
Place
Plank
Plants
Play
Please
Plow
Poet
Poetry
Point
Poison
Polecat
Poltavka Culture
Poppy
Porridge
Portion
Post
Pot
Potapovka Culture
Pour
Powerful
Prague Culture
Praise
Pray
Prepare
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF ENTRIES
Press
Samara Culture
Sling
Swan
Prick
Same
Sloetree
Swat Culture
Priest
Sand
Small
Swear
Project
Sap
Smear
Sweat
Pronouns
Satisfy
Smell
Sweet
Prosper
Scatter
Smith God
Swell
Protect
Schleicher’s Tale
Smoke
Swim
Proto-Indo-European
Scrape
Smooth
Sword
Przeworsk Culture
Sea
Snail
Pull
Sea God
Snake
Tail
Pure
Seasons
Snore
Take
Pus
Seat
Snow
Tame
Push
See
Social Organization
TSrtaria Tablets
Put
Seed
Soft
Taste
Put in Order
Seek
Some
Tazabagyab Culture
Servant
Son
Teach
Qawrighul Culture
Set
Son-in-Law
Tear 1 (cry)
Quail
Set in Motion
Son’s Death
Tear 2 (rend)
Quern
Sexual Organs and
Soon
Tench
Quiet
Activities
Sound
Tendon
Shadow
Sow
Terramare Culture
Rain
Shaft
Space
Terrible
Raw
Shake
Sparrow
Textile
Razor
Shame
Speak
Textile Preparation
Reconstruction
Sharp
Spear
Thick
Red
Sharpen
Speckled
Thin
Reed
Sheatfish
Spew
Think
Reins
Sheep
Spirit
Thorn
Release
Shellfish
Spleen
Thracian Language
Remain
Shield
Splinter
Threaten
Remains
Shine
Split
Threefold Death
Remedello Culture
Shoe
Spongy
Three-headed Monster
Remember
Shoot
Spread
Thresh
Residence
Shore
Spring
Through
Return Home
Short
Sprinkle
Throw
Reward
Shoulder
Squirrel
Thrush
Rich
Show
Sredny Stog Culture
Thunder
Ride
Shrew
Srubna Culture
Thunder God
Right
Shrink
Stalk
Thus
Rinaldone Culture
Sick
Stammer
Time
Ring
Sickle
Stand
Time-Depth
River
Side
Star
Tin
River Goddess
Sieve
Starling
Tired
Road
Sigh
Steal
Tiszapolgar Culture
Roar
Sign
Stelae
To
Roof
Silent
Step
Tocharian Languages
Rossen Culture
Silver
Stiff
Today
Rot
Sing
Stir
Tongue
Rough
Sintashta
Stone
Tool
Row
Sister
Stork
Tooth
Rub
Sister-in-law
Strength
Torch
Rule
Sit
Strike
Tortoise
Run
Skin
Strong
Touch
Rye
Skin Disease
Stupid
Track
Slack
Sturgeon
Transfunctional Goddess
Sacred
Slant
Subgrouping
TRB Culture
Sacred Drink
Slavic Languages
Suck
Tree
Sacrifice
Sleep
Sun
Trees
Salmon
Slide
Sun Goddess
Trickster
Salt
Slimy
Suvorovo Culture
Tnpolye Culture
XXXIV
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF ENTRIES
Trout
Venetic Language
Weak
Woman
Troy
Village
Wealth
Woodpecker
True
Villanovan Culture
Weasel
Wool
Trzciniec Culture
Visible
Wedge
Work
Turn, Twist
Voice
Wet
World
Twin
Vulture
Wheat
Worm
Wheel
Worship
Uncle
Wade
Whetstone
Wound
Under
Wagon
White
Underworld
Wall
Widow
Yamna Culture
Up
Wander
Wife
Yawn
Urinate
Want
Wild (God)
Yaz Culture
Urnfield Culture
Warfare
Willow
Year
Usatovo Culture
War God
Wind 1 (blow)
Yellow
Use
War of the Foundation
Wind 2 (wrap)
Yesterday
Uterus
Warriors
Wine
Yew
Wasp
Wing
Yoke
Vakhsh Culture
Watch
. Winnow
Young
Valley
Water
Wipe
Varna
Wave
With
Zarubintsy Culture
Vault
Wax
Without
Vegetables
Way
Wolf
XXXV
THEMATIC LIST OF ENTRIES
Activities
Anatomy and Natural Functions
Animals
Archaeological Sites and Cultures
Architecture and Dwellings
Clothing and Textiles
Emotions
Food and Drink
Languages and Linguistics
Law
Marriage and Kinship
Material Culture
Mind
Miscellaneous Grammatical Categories
Motion and Transport
Physical World
Possession, Occupation and Commerce
Quantity and Number
Religion and Comparative Mythology
Sense Perception
Social and Political Relations
Spatial Relations
Speech
Time
Vegetation and Agriculture
Warfare
Activities
Able
Accomplish
Adhere [Adhere; Smear]
Anoint
Attempt
Bathe [Clean]
Be
Bend
Bind
Blow
Braid [Bind]
Break [Break; Tear 2 ]
Build [Work]
Burrow [Dig]
Burst [Break]
Carve [Cut]
Compress [Press)
Crush
Cut
Dig
Do [Make]
Enjoy [Use]
Extend
Extinguish
Fasten [Bind]
Fit [Accomplish]
Flay [Tear 2 ]
Fold [Bend]
Glue [Adhere]
Grind [Crush]
Handle [Prepare]
Hang
Help
Hew [Strike]
Join [Bind]
Make
Peel [Tear 2 ]
Pierce —
Poke^fPnck]
Prepare [Make; Prepare]
Press
Prick
Project
Pull [Extend]
Reach [Extend]
Roll [Turn]
Rub [Rub; Sharpen]
Scatter
Scrape [Rub; Scrape]
Scratch [Cut; Scrape; Tear 2 !
Seek [Accomplish}
Shake
Sharpen
Shave [Scrape]
Smear
Smear [Anoint]
Sow [Scatter]
Split [Cut; Split]
Spread
Sprinkle [Spread]
Squeeze [Press]
Stab [Strike]
Stick [Adhere; Smear]
Sting [Pierce]
Stir
Stretch [Extend]
Strew [Scatter; Spread]
Strike [Strike; Tear 2 ]
Subdue [Tame]
Swell [Blow; Swell]
Swing [Bend]
Tame
Tear 2 (Off)
Throw
Thrust
Tremble [ Shake |
Turn
Twist | Turn, Twist]
Use
Wash [Clean]
Wear out [Crush]
Whet [Sharpenl
Wind 2
Wipe
Work
Wound | Strike]
Wrap [Wind 2 l
— xxxvii —
THEMATIC LIST OF ENTRIES
Anatomy and Natural Functions
Body Parts
Kidney
Tongue
Infertile [Barren]
Abdomen
Knee
Tooth
Lame [Defect]
Abomasum [Abdomen]
Leather [Hide 2 ]
Udder [Breast]
Leprosy [Skin Disease]
Anatomy
Leg
Uterus
Life
Anus [Anus; Sexual Organs]
Limb
Vulva [Sexual Organs]
Limp [Defect]
Arm
Lip [Lip; Mouth]
Wing
Live
Back 1
Liver
Womb [Abdomen; Uterus]
Manure [Excrement]
Beard [Hair]
Loins
Wool
Mature [Grow]
Bladder
Lung
Medicine
Blood
Mane [Hair]
Functions and Diseases
Naked [Bald]
Body
Marrow [Brain; Marrow]
Abscess [Skin Disease]
One-eyed [Blind]
Bone
Mouth
Affliction [Pain]
Pain
Brain [Brain; Marrow]
Muscle
Bald
Physical Anthropology
Breast
Nail
Bare [Bald]
Pimple [Skin Disease]
Bristle [Hair]
Navel [Nave; Navel]
Barren
Powerful [Powerful;
Buttocks
Neck
Bear 2
Strength]
Chin [Chin; Hair]
Nipple [Breast]
Beget [Bear 2 ]
Purulent [Rot]
Ear
Nose
Belch
Pus
Elbow
Omasum [Abdomen]
Bite
Purification [Pus]
Entrails
Palate [Mouth]
Blind
Rot
Eye
Palm [Hand]
Breathe
Scabby [Skin Disease]
Eyebrow [Eye]
Paunch [Abdomen]
Callosity [Skin Disease]
Sexual Organs
Face
Paw [Foot]
Castrate
Skin Disease
Feather [Wing]
Pelt [Hide 2 ; Skin]
Copulates [Sexual Organs]
Sleepy [Tired]
Finger [Hand]
Pelt [Skin]
Corpse [Death]
Sneeze [Breathe; Cough]
Fist [Hand]
Penis [Sexual Organs]
Cough
Snort [Breathe]
Fleece [Hair]
Rib [Breast]
Crooked [Defect]
Spew
Foot
Rumen [Abdomen]
Cross-eyed [Blind]
Spit [Spew]
Forearm [Arm, Elbow]
Rump [Buttocks]
Cure [Heal]
Strength [Force; Strength]
Forehead
Scrotum [Sexual Organs]
Deaf
Strong
Gall
Sexual Organs
Death
Suffer [Pain]
Gland
Shin [Leg]
Defecate [Excrement]
Sweat
Gullet
Shoulder
Defect
Tear 1
Gums [Mouth]
Shoulder [Arm]
Die [Death]
Tetter [Skin Disease]
Hair
Sinew [Tendon]
Dumb [Deaf]
Tired
Hand
Skin
Dung [Excrement]
Ulcer [Skin Disease]
Haunch
Skull [Head]
Excrement
Urinate
Head
Spleen
Exhausted [Tired]
Vigor [Strength]
Heart
Stomach [Abdomen]
Fart
Vitality [Strength]
Heel
Tail
Foul [Rot]
Vomit [Spew]
Hide [Hide 2 ; Skin]
Teat [Breast]
Fresh
Waken [Show]
Hip [Haunch]
Tendon
Grow
Wart [Skin Disease]
Hock
Testicle [Sexual Organs]
Heal
Weak
Intestines [Entrails]
Thread [Hair]
Healthy
Whole [Healthyl
Jaw [Chin; Jaw]
Throat [Gullet]
Hernia
Wound
Joint
Thumb [Hand]
111 [Sick]
Yawn
Animals
Mammals
Bear 1
Cat
Dormouse [Mouse]
Animal
Beaver
Cow
Elephant
Ape [Monkey]
Bison [Cow]
Creature [Animal; Wolf]
Elk [Elk; Deer]
Ass
Boar [Pig]
Deer
Ermine [Weasel]
Aurochs [Cow]
Buck [Goat]
Dog
Ewe [Sheep]
Badger
Bull [Cow]
Donkey [Ass]
Fleece [Sheep]
— xxxviii —
THEMATIC LIST OF ENTRIES
Fox
Stag [Deer]
Owl
Tortoise
Goat
Stoat [Weasel]
Quail
Hare
Weasel
Raven [Crow]
Insects, Etc
Hedgehog
Wild Cat [Cat; Marten]
Sparrow
Ant
Hoof
Wolf
Starling
Bee
Horn
Yearling [Animal]
Stork
Beetle [Insects]
Hornless [Homl
Swan
Butterfly
Horse
Birds
Teal [Duck]
Crab [Shellfish]
Ivory [Elephant]
Bird
Thrush
Crayfish [Shellfish]
Lamb [Sheep]
Birds
Vulture
Drone [Bee]
Leopard [Leopard;
Blackbird
Woodpecker
Flea
Panther]
Cock
Fly 1
Lion [Lion; Panther]
Coot
Fish
Gnat IFly 1 ; Inseclsl
Livestock [Animal]
Crane
Asp [Carp]
Hornet
Lynx
Crow
Carp
Insect [Worm]
Mammals
Cuckoo
Eel
Insect stinger [Insects]
Mare [Horse]
Dove
Fish
Insects
Marten
Duck
. Fish-eggs [Fish]
Leech
Monkey
Eagle
Minnow [Fish]
Louse
Mouse
Egg
Perch
Maggot [Worm]
Offspring [Animal]
Falcon
Pikeperch [Carp]
Midge [Fly 1 !
Onager [Ass]
Finch
Salmon
Mosquito [Fly 1 ]
Otter
Gamebird
Sheatfish
Mussel [Shellfish]
Ox [Cow]
Goose
Sturgeon
Nit [Louse]
Panther
Gull
Tench
Shellfish
Pig
Hawk [Falcon]
Trout [Trout; Salmon]
Slug [Snail]
Polecat
Hen
Weis [Sheatfish]
Snail
Quadruped [Animal]
Heron
Tick [Louse]
Ram [Sheep]
Hoopoe
Reptiles and Amphibians
Wasp
Roedeer [Deer]
Jackdaw
Dragon
Weevil [Insects]
Sheep
Jay
Frog
Worm
Shrew
Kite
Frog-spawn [Fish]
Squirrel
Magpie
Snake
Archaeological
Sites and Cultures
Abashevo Culture
Dnieper-Donets Culture
La Tene Culture
Samara Culture
Afanasevo Culture
Este Culture
Lengyel Culture
Sintashta
Andronovo Culture
Ezero Culture
Linear Ware Culture
Sredny Stog Culture
Baalberge Group
Fatyanovo-Balanovo
Lower Mikhaylovka Group
Srubna Culture
Baden Culture
Culture
Marlik
Suvorovo Culture
Beaker Culture
Gaudo Culture
Maykop Culture
Swat Culture
Bishkent Culture
Glasinac Culture
Mehrgarh
Tart aria Tablets
BMAC
Globular Amphora Culture
Middle Dnieper Culture
Tazabagyab Culture
Bodrogkeresztur Culture
Golasecca Culture
Namazga
Terramare Culture
Bug-Dniester Culture
Hallstatt Culture
Novodanilovka Group
Tiszapolgar Culture
Catacomb Culture
Harappan Culture
Novotitorovka Culture
TRB Culture
Qatal Hiiyuk
Hasanlu
Painted Gray Ware Culture
Tnpolye Culture
Cemetery H Culture
Jastorf Culture
Penkov Culture
Troy
Cernavoda Culture
Junazite
Pit-Comb Ware Culture
Trzciniec Culture
Chernoles Culture
Karasuk Culture
Poltavka Culture
Urnfield Culture
Chernyakovo Culture
Kelteminar Culture
Potapovka Culture
Usatovo Culture
Chust Culture
Kemi Oba Culture
Prague Culture
Vakhsh Culture
Copper Hoard Culture
Khvalynsk Culture
Przeworsk Culture
Varna
Corded Ware Culture
Kolochin Culture
Qawrighul Culture
Villanovan Culture
Co^ofeni Culture
Komarov Culture
Remedello Culture
Yamna Culture
Dereivka
Kurgan Tradition
Rmaldone Culture
Yaz Culture
Djeitun Culture
Kuro-Araxes Culture
Rossen Culture
Zarubintsy Culture
XXXIX
THEMATIC LIST OF ENTRIES
Beam [Framework; Plank]
Bed
Board [Plank]
Build
Cave [Cavity]
Cavity
Chair [Seat]
Couch [Bed]
Door
Doorjamb [Door]
Dwell
Dwelling [House]
Bag
Band [Headband]
Basket
Belt [Gird]
Bolster [Bag]
Braid [Textile Preparation]
Cloak [Clothing]
Cloth ITextile]
Clothe (oneself)
Clothing
Comb [Textile Preparation]
Anger
Bad
Blame
Charm [Deceive]
Deceive
Defect
Desire [ Desire ; Love ]
Evil | Bad]
Excellent [Good]
Fame
Favor
Fear
Ferocity [Angerl
Frighten
Architecture and Dwellings
Enclosure [Fence]
Fence
Floor [Floor; Ground]
Fort
Framework
Gate [Door]
Ground
Hearth
Hollow [Cavity]
House
Household [Village]
Litter
Nest
Peg [Tooth; Wedge]
Pen [Fence]
Pile [Build]
Pillar [Post]
Plank
Pole [Post]
Post
Rod [Post]
Roof
Room [House]
Seat
Settle [Dwell]
Settlement [Village]
Splinter
Stake [Post]
Stall [Fence]
Tube [Cavity]
Vault
Village
Wall
Wedge
Clothing and Textiles
Draw [Textile Preparation]
Plait [Textile Preparation]
Textile
Dress [Clothe]
Pluck [Textile Preparation]
Textile Preparation
Dye [Textile Preparation]
Ring [Pin; Ring]
Thread [Textile]
Felt [Textile]
Scratch [Textile Preparation]
Twine [Textile Preparation]
Garment [Clothing]
Sew [Textile Preparation]
Twist [Textile Preparation]
Gird
Shoe
Wattle [Textile Preparation]
Headband
Sinew [Textile]
Weave [Textile Preparation]
Knot 1
Sling
Wool
Necklace
Spin [Textile Preparation]
Net
Strap [Sling]
Pin
String (Textile Preparation]
Emotions
Good
Love
Scare [Frighten]
Greedy [Desire]
Lowly [Humble]
Shame
Grieve
Merry [Happy]
Terrible
Guilt [Shame]
Mourn [Grieve]
Threaten
Happy
Noble [Good]
Torment [Threaten]
Hard [Terrible]
Play
Trick [Deceive]
Hate
Please
True
Honor
Praise
Unpleasant [Bad]
Hostile [Hate; Hostile]
Real [True]
Violent [Anger]
Humble
Rejoice [Happy]
Want
Insult
Reproach [Blame]
Wish [Want]
Kiss
Revile [Insult]
Lament [Grieve]
Rude [Terrible]
Lie 2
Satisfy
— xl —
THEMATIC LIST OF ENTRIES
Food and Drink
Bake [Cook]
Beer
Boil [Boil; Cook]
Brew [Fermentl
Broth
Bubble [Boil]
Butter [Milk]
Buttermilk [Milk]
Chew [Eat and Drink]
Cook
Cream [Milk]
Curds [Milk]
Draw (water)
Dregs
Drink [Eat and Drink]
Eat and Drink
Fat
Fatten [Feed]
Feed
Ferment
Food
Gnaw [Eat and Drink]
Graze [Feed]
Grease [Fat]
Gulp [Eat and Drink]
Honey
Hunger
Intoxicator
Juice
Libation
Lick [Eat and Drink]
Mash [Broth]
Mead [Honey]
Meal [Eat and Drink;
Sacrifice]
Meat
Milk
Mix
Nourishment [Food]
Oil [Fat]
Poison
Porridge
Raw
Roast [Cook]
Sacred Drink
Sacrifice
Salt
Seethe [Boil]
Stir
Suck | Eat and Drink]
Swallow [Eat and Drink]
Sweet
Taste
Tasty [Sweet; Taste]
Whey [Milk]
Wine
Albanian Language
Anatolian Languages
Armenian Language
Baltic Languages
Celtic Languages
Dacian Language
Germanic Languages
Languages and Linguistics
Greek Language
Illyrian Language
Indo-European Homeland
Indo-European Languages
Indo-Iranian Languages
Italic Languages
Macedonian Language
Messapic Language
Phrygian Language
Picene Languages
Proto-Indo-European
Reconstruction
Schleicher’s Tale
Slavic Languages
Subgrouping
Thracian Language
Time-Depth
Tochanan Languages
Venetic Language
Law
Blame
Guilt
Oath
Shame
Crime
Law
Order
Swear
Marriage and Kinship
Aunt
Father-in-law
Lady [Master, Mistress]
Orphan
Bride-price
Friend
Lineage
Relation [Father-in-law]
Brother
Granddaughter
Male
Sister
Brotherhood
[Granddaughter; Niece]
Man
Sister-in-law
Brother-in-law
Grandfather [Grandfather;
Marriage
Son
Child
Uncle]
Marry [Marriage]
Son-in-law
Clan [Family]
Grandmother
Master
Twin
Concubine
Grandson [Grandson;
Mistress [Master, Mistress]
Uncle
Cousin
Nephew]
Mortal [Man]
Widow
Daughter
Heir [Orphan]
Mother
Wife
Daughter-in-law
Household [Familyl
Mother-in-law
Woman
Degrees of Descent
Husband [Man; Master,
Nephew
Young Man [Young]
Descendant
Mistress]
Niece
Young Woman [Young]
Family
Kinship
Offspring [Child]
Young
Father
Kinsman
Old Man
— xli
THEMATIC UST OF ENTRIES
Material Culture
Adze [Ax]
Case
Metal
Sickle
Arrow [Bow and Arrow]
Club
Nave
Sieve
Auger
Container [Pot]
Net
Silver
Awl
Copper [Metal]
Oar
Sling
Ax
Cudgel [Club]
Pin
Spear
Axle
Cup [Pot]
Plate [Pot]
Spit [Spear]
Bag
Dagger [Sword]
Plow
Sword
Bar [Hook]
Dish [Pot]
Plowshare [Plow]
Tin
Basin
Gold
Pole [Shaft]
Tool
Basket
Handle
Pot
Torch
Boat
Harrow [Plow]
Quern
Vessel [Pot]
Bolt [Hook]
Hoe [Plow]
Rake [Plow]
Wagon
Bow and Arrow
Hook
Razor
Wax
Bowl [Pot]
Iron
Reins
Wheel
Bronze [Metal]
Jug [Pot]
Ring [Pin; Ring]
Whetstone
Caldron [Pot]
Knife [Knife; Sword]
Shaft
Yoke
Canoe [Boat]
Lead 2
Shield
Mind
Awake
Feel [Think]
Remember
Think
Belief
Forget
Sleep
Thought [Think]
Believe [Belief]
Know
Sleepy [Sleep]
Tired
Consider [Think]
Learn
Stupid
Trust [Belief]
Dream [Dream; Sleep]
Opinion
Teach
Miscellaneous Grammatical Categories
And
Demonstrative Pronouns [Pronouns]
Interjections
Interrogative Pronouns [Pronouns]
Not
Or
Personal Pronouns [Pronouns]
Possessive Pronouns [Pronouns]
Pronouns
Thus
Motion and Transport
Attain
Fall
Jump
Pour
Axle
Find One’s Way
Kick
Pull [Glide; Pull]
Bear [Carry]
Flee
Lead 1
Push
Boat
Float [Swim]
Leave
Raise [Lift]
Canoe [Boat]
Flotsam
Lift
Reach [Attain]
Carry
Flow
Move [Flow; Hurry; Move]
Reins
Come
Fly 2
Nave
Return Home
Crawl
Follow [Follow; Hunt]
Oar
Ride [Carry; Ride]
Dip [Dive]
Glide
Ooze [Flow]
Road
Dive
Go [Go; Step]
Pass [Go]
Row
Drip [Flow]
Hunt
Passage [Road]
Run
Drive
Hurry
Pole [Shaft]
Set in Motion
— xlii
THEMATIC UST OF ENTRIES
Shaft
Surpass [Go]
Wade
Way [Road; Way]
Slide
Swim
Wagon
Well up [Flow]
Slip [Slide]
Thrust [Push]
Walk [Step]
Wheel
Sprinkle
Track [Hunt; Road; Track]
Wander
Yoke
Step [Go; Step]
Travel [Go]
Wash [Swim]
Physical World /
Ash 2
Frost [Ice]
Mud [Marsh]
Smoulder [Burn]
Blaze [Burn]
Glow [Burn]
Pebble [Stone]
Snow
Bum
Hail [Ice]
Pond [Lake]
Spring
Charcoal
Hill
Pool [Lake]
Star
Cistern [Lake]
Hoarfrost [Ice]
Rain
Stone
Clay
Ice
River
Sun
Cloud
Icicle [Ice]
River bank [Shore]
Swamp [Marsh]
Dew
Kindle [Bum]
' Roast [Bum]
Thunder
Dirt
Lake
Rock [Stone]
Valley
Drizzle [Cloud]
Lightning
Sand
Water [Lake; Marsh;
Dust [Dirt; Sand]
Marsh
Sea
Water]
Earth
Melt
Shore
Wave [Spring; Wavel
Estuary [River]
Mist [Cloud]
Singe [Bum]
Wind 1
Fire [Fire; Charcoal]
Moon
Sky [Cloud]
World
Foam
Mountain [Hill]
Smoke
Possession, Occupation and Commerce
Amass [Gather]
Find
Pay [Exchange]
Rich
Apportioner [Fortune]
Fortune
Pluck [Take]
Seek
Barter [Exchange]
Gather
Portion
Seize [Takel
Benefit [Reward]
Give
Possess [Hold]
Sell [Exchange]
Bestow [Give]
Goods [Wealth]
Possessions [Wealth]
Snatch [Take]
Booty
Grasp [Take]
Prize [Reward]
Steal
Burden
Guard [Feed]
Prosper
Success [Fortune]
Catch [Take]
Harm
Protect [Feed; Protect]
Take
Compensation
Herdsman
Purchase [Exchange]
Wealth
Cowherd [Herdsman]
Hold
Release
Destroy
Lack
Restitution [Compensation]
Exchange
Own
Reward
Quantity and Number
Abundant
Alone
Any [Some]
Both [Numerals]
Bundle [Heap]
Compute [Number]
Count [Number]
Empty
Fat [Abundant]
Few
Fill
First [Numerals]
Flock [Herd]
Full
Half
Heap
Herd
Less
Little [Few]
Measure
Much [Abundant]
Number
Numerals
Once
Other
Portion
Rich [Abundant]
Same
Series [Herd]
Single [Alone]
Some
Thick [Abundant]
Twin
Weigh [Measure]
xliii —
THEMATIC LIST OF ENTRIES
Religion and Comparative Mythology
Ancestor God
Fire Cult
Manu
Spell [Magic]
Binder-God
Fire in Water
Medical God
Spirit
Centaur
God
Pastoral God
Stelae
Comparative Mythology
Goddesses
Phantom [Spirit]
Sun Goddess
Consecrate [Sacred]
Goddesses (misc.)
Pray
Taboo [Sacred]
Consort Goddess
Hell-Hound
Priest
Threefold Death
Cosmogony
High-one
River Goddess
Three-headed Monster
Cosmology
Holy [Sacred]
Sacred
Thunder God
Craft God
Horse Goddess
Sacred Drink
Transfunctional Goddess
Creator
Horse Sacrifice [Horse]
Sacrifice
Trickster
Curse [Pray]
Impeller
Sea God
Underworld
Dawn Goddess
Inspiration
Seer [Poet]
War God
Death Beliefs
lntoxicator
Sky Daughter [God]
War of the Foundation
Divine Twins
King and Virgin Theme
Sky God [God]
Wild (God)
Earth Goddess
Libation
Smith God
Worship
Elf
Love Goddess
Son’s Death
Eschatology
Magic
Sorcery [Magic]
Sense Perception
Appear
Glance [See]
Point out [Show]
Spongy
Beautiful
Gray
Pure
Spotted [Speckled]
Bitter
Green
Red
Sticky [Slimy]
Black
Hear
Rough
Stiff
Blue [Green]
Heat
See
Striped [Speckled]
Bright
Heavy
Shade [Shadow]
Suffer [Pain]
Brown [Black; Brown]
Floney
Shadow
Sweet
Clean
Hot [Heat]
Shine
Taste
Clear [Bright]
Light 1
Show
Touch
Close (the eyes)
Light 2
Sign
Variegated [Speckled]
Cold
Long
Silver [Silver; White]
Visible
Color
Madder [Green]
Slimy
Warm [Heat]
Dark
Mark [Paint]
Slippery [Slimy]
Watch
Defile [Dirt]
Observe [See]
Smell
Wet
Difficult [Heavy]
Obvious [Visible]
Smooth
White
Dirty [Dirt]
Pain
Soft
Yellow
Dry
Paint
Soil [Dirt]
Enjoy [Taste]
Pale [White]
Sour [Bitter]
Firm
Perceive
Speckled
Social and Political Relations
Accustom
Craft
Friend
Residence
Age Set
Craftsman [Craft]
Guest
Rule
Allow [Release]
Crime
King
Servant
Assembly
Custom
Land [Country]
Social Organization
Brotherhood
Enemy [Enemy; Guest]
Leader [King; Leader]
Stranger [Guest]
Companion
Follower [Companion]
Meet
Troop [Companion]
Country
Freeman
People
Village
xliv —
THEMATIC LIST OF ENTRIES
Spatial Relations
About [Through]
Cover
Narrow
Sit
Above [Across]
Crooked
Near
Slack
Across
Curve
On [Near]
Slant
Adpreps
Deep
Out
Small
After [Back 2 ]
Direction
Over [Over; Through]
Space
Against
Divide
Peak
Stand
Ahead [Before]
Down
Place [Place; Put; Set]
Surround [Cover]
Among [Middle]
East
Point
Thick [Shrink; Thick]
Apart
Far
Pointed [Sharp]
Thin
Around
Flank [Side]
Position [Place]
Through [Across;
Arrange [Put in Order]
Flat
Put [Put; Set]
Through]
Asunder [Apart]
Further
Put in Order
^ To
Away
Hide 1 (conceal)
Quiet
Toward [To]
Back 2
High
Remain
Under
Before
In
Remains
Up
Behind [Back; Behind]
Into [Between; In]
Rest [Quiet]
Upright [High]
Between
Large
Right
Wide [Broad]
Beyond
Lean
Row [Line]
With
Border
Left
Separate [Divide]
Without
Broad
Lie 1
Series [Line]
Wrap [Cover]
Circle
Limit [Border]
Set
Wrinkle [Shrink]
Compact [Shrink]
Conceal [Cover]
Corner [ Curve 1
Line [Border; Line]
Low [Under]
Middle
Sharp
Short
Side
Speech
Yonder [Beyond]
Animal Cry
Drone [Noise]
Moan
Say [Speak]
Argue [Contend]
Express [Speak]
Mourn [Grieve]
Scream [Bird Cry]
Ask [Ask; Pray]
Grieve
Murmur
Shout [Call]
Beg [Ask]
Groan [Sigh]
Mutter [Noise]
Shout [Noise]
Assert [Contend]
Growl [Bark 2 ; Noise 1
Name
Sigh
Babble
Grunt
Nod
Silent
Bark [Animal Cry; Bark 2 ]
Hiss [Noise]
Noise
Sing
Bird Cry
Hoot [Bird Cry]
Persuade
Smile [Laugh]
Bleat
Howl [Bark 2 ; Bird Cry;
Poet
Snore
Cackle [Laugh]
Howl; Noise; Roarl
Poetry
Song [Sing]
Call
Hum
Praise
Sound
Caw [Bird Cry]
Hush [Silent]
Pray
Speak [Call; Praise; Speak]
Complain
Insult
Quarrel [Contend]
Sputter [Noise]
Contend
Invite [Call]
Rattle [Noise]
Stammer
Crack [Sound]
Invoke [Call]
Recite [Speak]
Swear
Crackle [Noise]
Lament [Grieve]
Resound [Sound]
Threaten
Cry [Animal Cry; Call]
Laugh
Revile [Insult]
Thunder
Curse [Pray]
Lie 2
Roar
Voice [Sound; Voice]
Declare [Speak]
Low [Animal Cry]
Rumble [Noise]
Yelp [Bark 2 ]
— xlv —
THEMATIC LIST OF ENTRIES
Time
Already [Now]
Autumn [Seasons]
Before
Begin
Dawn
Day
Early
Evening
Fast
Morning [Early]
New
Night
Now
Old
Quick [Fast]
Seasons
Soon
Spring [Seasons]
Summer [Seasons]
Time
Today
Winter [Seasons]
Year
Yesterday
Young
Vegetation and Agriculture
Trees
Linden
Bran [Chaff]
Mould [Moss]
Acorn [Oak]
Maple
Bristle [Grain]
Mow [Harvest]
Alder
Mistletoe
Cabbage [Vegetables]
Nettle
Apple
Mulberry
Carrot [Vegetables]
Oats
Ash 1
Needle [Branch]
Chaff
Pasture [Field]
Aspen
Nut
Chick-pea
Pea
Bark 1
Oak
Ear of Grain [Grain]
Plants
Bast [Bark 1 ]
Pine
Esculent root [Vegetables]
Pluck [Harvest]
Beech
Pitch [Sap]
Fallow [Field]
Poppy
Berry
Poplar [Aspen, Poplar]
Field
Reed
Birch
Resin [Sap]
Flax
Rush [Reed]
Birdlime [Mistletoe]
Root [Branch]
Flower
Rye
Blackthorn [Sloetree]
Sap
Fruit [Grain!
Seed
Branch [Branch; Fork]
Sloetree
Furrow
Shoot
Cherry
Sprout [Leaf]
Garden [Field]
Sow
Conifer [Pine]
Thorn [Branch]
Garlic [Vegetables]
Sprout [Leaf]
Elm
Tree
Grain [Grain; Millet]
Stalk
Fir
Trees
Grass
Stem [Stalk]
Forest [Tree]
Willow
Greens [Vegetables]
Straw [Stalk]
Fork
Wood [Tree]
Grind
Thorn
Fruit [Berry]
Yew
Harvest
Thresh
Grove
Hellebore
Turnip [Vegetables]
Hawthorn
Agriculture and Plants
Hemp
Vegetables
Hazel
Agriculture
Henbane
Vine [Wine]
Hornbeam
Angelica
Leaf
Wheat
Juniper
Awn [Grain]
Meadow [Field]
Wine
Knot 2
Barley [Barley; Grain]
Millet
Winnow
Leaf
Bean
Moss
Warfare
Age Set
Companion
Fort
Shng
Army
Conquer
Harm
Spear
Arrow [Bow and Arrow]
Cudgel [Club]
Hostile
Strike
Ax
Dagger [Sword]
Injure
Sword
Booty
Destroy
Knife
Troop [Companion]
Bow and Arrow
Enemy
Leader
Warband [Army]
Brotherhood
Fight
Overcome [Conquer]
Warfare
Captive
Fighter [Army]
People
War God
Club
Force
Shield
Warriors
xlvi —
Encyclopedia of
Indo-European
Culture
ABASHEVO CULTURE
The Abashevo culture, named from a cemetery in the
Chuvash Republic, is a Late Bronze Age culture (c seven-
teenth-sixteenth centuries BC) that spans the forest-steppe
from the area of Kazan to the southern Urals. It is divided
into three variants: Don- Volga, middle Volga and a southern
Ural variant that extends eastwards to the river Tobol. More
than two hundred settlements are known consisting of a series
of rectangular dwellings with large floor areas of about 150
to 200 m 2 .
Settlements have left remains indicative of a mixed
agricultural economy. Metal sickles and stone grinders suggest
agriculture while the animal remains are almost exclusively
those of domestic animals. Cattle predominate, then sheep/
goat, while pig and horse are found in smaller amounts.
Cheek-pieces, typical of neighboring steppe cultures (and also
of the Mycenaeans), reveal the use of the horse and (probably)
chariot.
Burial was inhumation on the back with the legs flexed.
Several burials might be placed either under a kurgan or
inserted into an earlier kurgan of the region and, in general,
the Abashevo culture continues the earlier mortuary tradition
of the Yamna culture. Some graves show evidence of a birch-
bark floor and a timber construction might form the walls
and roof of the burial chamber. In some instances there was
either a stone kerb or a series of wooden uprights set about
the circumference of the kurgan. The graves are poor with
respect to artifacts: usually a pot made with crushed-shell
temper (another typical feature of the steppe cultures), animal
bones, and rarely metal objects. On those few occasions where
metal objects have been uncovered, they have included
crucibles for smelting copper and moulds for casting. Such
burials are normally attributed to bronzesmiths. One of the
Abashevo a. Distribution of the Abashevo culture in the Volga-Ural
region.
more spectacular mortuary finds is the kurgan at Pepkino
which yielded the collective burial of twenty-eight men who
had apparently died violent deaths (at least some by ax-blows
ABASHEVO CULTURE
Abashevo b. Womans headdress that may have served as an ethnic marker; c. Reconstructed house (c 10 x 4 m) from Beregovskiye;
d. Cheek-piece for horse-bridle from Utyevka; e. Abashevo burial from Pikshiki.
to the head). Other cemeteries have produced evidence of
burials lacking skulls.
The Abashevo culture was an important center of metal-
lurgy as the southern Urals provided a major source of local
copper. High in arsenic, this provided a form of bronze. Axes,
spearheads and sickles are typical of the Abashevo range of
implements while metal appliques, associated with womens
headdresses, are regarded as a distinctive ethnic marker. In
addition, silver-bearing ores were also exploited and silver
ornaments were manufactured.
The Abashevo culture was later assimilated into the territory
of the Srubna culture which replaced it. The ethno-linguistic
identity of the Abashevo culture can only be a subject of
speculation. On the one hand, it appears to reflect a northern
penetration of the earlier steppe cultures which, during the
mid-second millennium BC, would have presumably been
Iranian and hence it offers one of a number of convenient
contact zones between the Indo-European and Uralic families
where loanwords passed northwards. On the other hand, it
also may be seen as an extension of the Fatyanovo-Balanovo
phenomenon to the southeast.
See also Fatyanovo-Balanovo Culture; Srubna Culture;
Yamna Culture. [J.RM.]
ABDOMEN
*udero- ‘abdomen, stomach’. [IEW 1104-1105
( *udero-)\ Wat 72 ( *udero-)\ Buck 4.46; BK 496 (*wa &-/
*w9f y -)]. Lat uterus ‘abdomen; womb’, Grk vSepog ‘dropsy’
(< * ‘swollen stomach’), Av udara- ‘stomach’, Olnd udara-
‘stomach’. With new full-grades; OPrus weders ‘belly’, Lith
vedaras ‘intestines; abdomen’, Latv veders ‘stomach’, Grk
(Hesychius) d8epoq{< *woderos ) ‘stomach’. From *ud ‘out,
up’ + *-ero- a suffix showing contrast; thus originally ‘the
outer or superficial abdomen’ (cf. *hien-teros ‘entrails’). The
wide distribution would seem to be a good guarantee of PIE
status.
*ud s tero/eh a - ‘abdomen, stomach’. [ IEW 1104-1105
( *udero-)\ Wat 72 ( *udero-)\ BK 496 ( *waf9V*wof y -)l. Grk
vozepG ‘womb’, (Hesychius) varpog ‘stomach’, TochB
wastarye (< *ustfio~) ‘± liver’. A variant of *udero- with
*-tero rather than *-ero-.
*yenVst(r)- ‘(ab)omasum’. [IEW 1105 ( *udero-)\ . Lat
venter ‘belly’ (if crossed with uterus), Nice vinstr ‘omasum
(third stomach of ruminants)’ and Norw (dial.) vinstr
‘abomasum (fourth stomach of ruminants)’, Olnd vanisthu -
‘part of entrails of sacrificial animal’; with new vowel-grades:
OHG wan(a)st ~ wenist ‘belly, omasum’, Grk fjvocrrpov
‘abomasum’. Though subject to phonological deformation, a
strong candidate for PIE status.
*reumn - ( *roumn -?) ‘rumen’. [ IEW 873 (*reu-smen-)l.
Lat rumen ‘gullet, rumen (first stomach of ruminants)’, Baluchi
romast (< *raum$p-ta-) ‘rumination’, Olnd romantha-
‘rumination’. The geographical spread strongly suggests PIE
status.
*pant- ‘stomach, paunch’, [cf. 7EW 789 {*pank-)\. Lat
pantex ‘belly, paunch, guts’, Hit vlv panduha- ‘stomach’.
Though not widely preserved, the geographical distribution
and presence in Anatolian are a strong argument for PIE status.
*g w 6tus ‘stomach, womb’ (in derivatives also more
generally ‘innards, entrails’). [IEW 481 (*g*et-)\ Wat 25
( *g w et-)\. ON kvidr ‘belly, womb’, OE cwip ‘belly, womb’,
OHG quid ‘vulva’, Goth qipus ‘belly’; Lat botulus (from Osco-
Umbrian?) ‘intestines, sausage’, MHG kutel ‘intestines’, (<
*g w otu-lo -), TochA kats ‘belly, womb’, TochB katso ‘belly,
womb’ (< *g w ot(u)ieh a -n-). Not derived from any attested
verbal root in PIE; at least regionally present in late PIE.
Within the sphere of Indo-lranian cosmology where the
universe, both physical and social, is partitioned from a
primeval body, the belly is homologous with the earth and
socially an alloform (along with the genitals) for the class of
commoners, the Third Function.
The emphasis on the omasum, abomasum and rumen of
I
ACCOMPLISH
ruminants may have been sustained by their importance in a
number of activities. In various societies they serve as
containers, e.g., the storage of offal to make sausages or haggis,
containers for holding butter (as in Tibet) or manufacturing
rennet for cheese processing; the rumen can also be used as a
cooking vessel. The stomachs of ruminants also play a
prominent role in blood sacrifices among various early IE
groups as the abundance of fatty tissue provided an
exceptional blaze.
See also Anatomy; Body; Cosmogony; Entrails. [D.Q.A.]
ABLE
*magh- ‘be able’. [IEW 695 ( *magh-)\ Wat 38 ( *magh-)\
Buck 9.95], ON mega ‘be able’, OE magan ‘be able’ (> NE
may), OHG magan ‘be able’, Goth magan 'be able’, Lith mageti
‘to please, be agreeable’, OCS rnogQ ‘am able’, Grk gfj%og
(Doric payog) (with lengthened-grade) ‘means, expedient’,
priyavri ‘machine’ (borrowed > Lat machina , borrowed > NE
machine ), Arm marVank 1 (< *mag-thra-) ‘means’. Possibly
related is OInd magha- ‘gift, abundance’; the form may,
however, be better related to OInd mamh- ‘give’. The forms
Av moyu- ‘magician’, OPers magu- ‘magician’, OInd maga-
‘magician’ probably are derived from this root (‘magician’ <
‘one who has power’); the etymology, however, is uncertain.
Forms with the meaning ‘great’, e.g., Lith magulas , Grk
peyaXr), OInd maha- have been cited in connection with this
root, but the relationship is very dubious. In spite of the
uncertain status of the Indo-Iranian data, the reasonably broad
distribution of the forms suggests that the word is solidly
reconstructible to PIE.
*gal- ‘be physically able’. [IEW 351 ( *gal - ~ *ghal-)\ Wat
18 ( *gal-)\ Buck 9.951. OIr gal ‘valor, fighting, Weis gallu ‘is
able’, Lith galiu ‘am able’. Possibly related is OCS golemo
‘much’. The limited geographical spread suggests a late,
northwestern dialectal status.
See also Attain. [M.N.]
ABUNDANT
*bh6nghus (gen. *bhpghdus) thick, abundant’. [IEW 127-
128 ( *bhengh-)\ Gl 684, 746-747 ( *b h eng h -); Wat 7
( *hhengh-)\ BK 28 ( *bun-/*bon -)] . Lat pinguis (with not well
understood p- rather than expected *[-) ‘fat’, ON bingr ‘heap’,
OHG bungo 1 lump’, Latv biezs ‘thick’, Grk nayug (< *phakhu-
< **bhaghu - ) ‘thick, compact’, Hit panku- ‘total, entire,
general’, pankur- (< *bhenghuf), ‘milk; clan’, pankar- (<
*bhpghrom) ‘en masse’, OInd bahu- ‘much, many; numerous,
compact; abounding in, rich in’. The Hittite words are
sometimes taken (e.g., by GI 746-747) to.be related to
*penk w e ‘five’ in the latter’s putative meaning ‘± totality, i.e.,
a full hand’. That the latter meaning is nowhere attested save
in the presumed Hittite derivative and that Hit panku- agrees
morphologically with Grk Ttayvg and OInd bahu-, both favor
the equation given here. From *bhengh- ‘draw together, be
thick’, attested as a verb only in OInd bamhate ‘increases’,
bamhayate ‘strengthens’. Widespread and old in IE.
*pilhi us (gen. *pjhidus) ‘much’. [/EW800 ( *pelu ); GI
177 ( *p h elH-/p b lH -); Wat 48 ( *peh-)\ Buck 13.15; BK 54
{*p[ h ]al-/*p[ h ]dl-)}. Olr il ‘much’, ON fjpl- ‘much’, OE fela
‘much’, OHG filu ‘much’, Goth filu ‘much, very’, Grk noXvg
‘much’, Av pouru- ‘much’, OInd puru- ‘much’. Cf. the
comparative *plehnos- in Olr lla ( D1L if) ‘more’, Lat plus
‘more’, ON flein ‘more’, Av frayah- ‘more’, OInd praya- ‘mostly,
commonly’ and the derived *pjhiu-k w id ‘abundantly’ in OInd
purQcid 1 abundantly’ and, somewhat rebuilt, Grk noXXaicig
‘abundantly’. Cf. OInd piparti ‘fills’ and PIE *plhinos full’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*g w honds ‘± thick, sufficient’. [/EW491 (*g' J hono-s), Wat
25 ( *g w hen -); Buck 13.18; BK 313 {*g w an-/*g w 3 n-)\. Lith
gana ‘enough’, Latv gana ‘enough’, OCS goneti ‘suffice’,
perhaps Grk evdeveco ‘flourish’, evOevrfg richly’ (otherwise
possibly from *hisu-dhhi-enos ‘well-placed’) , perhaps Arm
y-ogn ‘much’, OPers aganis ‘full’, OInd ghana- ‘thick’. If all
these words belong together, we have evidence for a word
that was widespread and old in IE.
*menegh - ‘abundant’. [IEW 730 ( *men(e)gh -); Wat 41-
42 (*men egh-)\ Buck 13.15], Olr meinic(c) ‘abundant,
frequent’, Weis mynych ‘frequent’, ON mengi ‘multitude’,
mangr ‘many’, OE menigu ‘multitude’, manig ‘many’ (> NE
many), OHG menigl ‘crowd’, manag ‘many’, Goth managei
‘people’, manags ‘sufficient, many’, managjan ‘make abundant’,
OCS munogu ‘abundant’, munoziti ‘increase, make to be
more’, Rus mnog ‘abundant’, perhaps OInd magha- ‘gift,
reward, wealth’, mamhate ‘give’. At least a word of the west
and center of the IE world; if the Old Indie words belong
here then it would be a stronger candidate for PIE status.
*spfrir6s ‘± fat, rich’. [IEW 983 ( *sph 3 -ro -); Wat 63
( *spe -), Buck 16.63], Lat prosper ‘lucky’, ON spa rr ‘sparing’,
OE sp^r ‘sparing’ (> NE spare), OHG spar ‘sparing’, OCS
sporu ‘rich’, OInd sphira- (- ph - rather than the expected *-p-
must be because of the affective meaning of the word) ‘fat’.
Sufficiently widespread to be a likely PIE term. From
*spehi(i)- ‘flourish’. Cf. Lat spes hope’, OE spowan ‘thrive’,
OHG spuon ‘thrive, prosper’, Lith sped ‘predict, foretell; be
on time’, Latv spet ‘be able’, OCS sped ‘thrive, prosper’, Hit
ispai- ‘get filled, be sated’, OInd sphiyate ‘grows fat, increases’.
See also Heap; Wealth. [D.Q.A.]
ACCOMPLISH
*sen(h a )~ ‘seek, accomplish’ (pres. *sdnh a ti, *sQ-n6u-ti)
[IEW 906 (*sen-); GI 170 ( *senH-)[ . Olr do-semn ‘pursues,
strives’, con-snE fights (for something), wins’, Weis cynyddaf
‘overrun, win’, Grk avvgi ~ ocvvco ‘accomplish, get
(something, somewhere)’, Hit sanhzV seeks, plans, demands’,
Av han- ‘gain, obtain’, OInd sanoti ‘wins, gets; grants’. Widely
enough attested to guarantee PIE status.
*kob- ‘fit, suit, accomplish’. [IEW 610 ( *kob -); Wat 32
( *kob -)]. Olr cob ‘victory’, ON happ ‘chance, luck’, OE gehaep
(adj.) ‘fit’, OCS kobi ‘divination’. A west IE dialectal form,
probably nominal rather than verbal.
See also Attain; Fortune |M .N ; D.Q.A.]
3
ACCUSTOM
ACCUSTOM
*hieuk- ‘become accustomed’. [/FW347 (*euk-);Wat 18
( *euk-)\ GI 97-98] . OIr do-ucci ( DIL do-beir ) ‘understands’,
Goth bi-uhts ‘used to’, Lith junkstu ‘become accustomed to’,
tikis ‘farm’, OCS uciti ‘teach’, vyknQti ‘become accustomed’,
Arm usanim ‘learn, be used to’, OInd ucyati ‘is accustomed
to’, okas- ‘abode, home, dwelling’. Widespread and clearly of
PIE date.
See also Learn. [D.Q. A]
ACORN see OAK
ACROSS
*terh2- ‘across, through, above’. [ IEW 1075 (*ter-); Wat
70 (*fem-); GI 367 ( *t h erH-)\ BK 149 ( *ty[ h ]ar-/*t>'[ h ]9r -)].
OIr tar{< *tares) ‘across, above’, Lat trans ‘across’, OE purh
(> NE through and thorough ) ~ perh ‘through’, OHG durh
‘through’, Goth pairh ‘through’ (Gmc < *terh 2 -k w e ~ tfh 2 -
k w e), Av taro ‘over, to’, OInd tiras ‘over, across, apart’ (Indo-
Iranian, like Celtic, < *tfh 2 es). Old in IE.
See also Adpreps; Through. [D.Q. A.]
ADHERE
*kol- ‘glue’. [IEW 612 ( *kol(i)i -)\ . MLG/MDutch helen
(< *haljan ) ‘to stick’, Grk KoXXa (< *kol-ia ) ‘glue’. To be
rejected is RusCS klejl ‘glue’, Rus klej ‘glue’, if from *kule/I-ji
(< *klhx-i-7). A word of the west and center of the IE world.
??*ghais- ‘stick’. [IEW 410 ( *ghais-)\ Wat 20 ( * ghats-)} .
Lat haereo ‘hang, stick’. Lith gaistu ‘shrink, hesitate’ has been
connected with the Latin form but the etymology is very
uncertain and, as Ernout-Meillet note, Latin forms with the
diphthong -ae- are generally without IE etymology.
See also Smear. [M.N.]
ADPREPS
The primary use of the adverb/prepositions (adpreps) in
PIE was to make spatial relationships more precise, by
specifying ‘above’, ‘below’, etc., and simultaneously to relate
a noun to the verb of the sentence. The adverb/preposition
and noun together formed an adverbial phrase as in, “he ran
behind the tree Or the adprep might be used alone, “he ran
ahead'. Finally, the adpreps were syntactically connected with
the verb also, often with aspectual meaning, e g., to show
completion of an action, “he ate it all up". One might note
that English preserves much of the PIE uses of the adpreps.
These adpreps could appear before or after their attendant
nouns or verbs. When located before a verb there was a strong
tendency in various IE stocks for the adprep + verb
combination to fuse into a single unit, e.g., NE understand.
It is often the case that a PIE adprep survives in a particular
stock only as a verbal prefix. Many, perhaps most, of the PIE
adpreps were originally case forms of nouns, e.g., *h 2 enti ‘in
front’ < *h 2 ent- ‘face’, though more often than not the noun
itself does not survive outside of these frozen forms. With
some frequency they show an extension *-(t)er-, originally
suggesting an (implied) contrast with its semantic opposite.
Thus we have *hien ‘in’ but *hien-ter ‘within’ (as opposed
to ‘outside’).
See also Across; Against; Apart; Around; Away; Back;
Before; Behind; Between; Beyond; In; Near; Out; Over;
Through; To; Under; Up; With; Without. [D.Q. A ]
Further Reading
Friedrich, P (1987) The Proto-Indo-European adpreps (spatio-
temporal auxiliaries), in Festschrift for Elenry Hoenigswald . On
the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday , ed. G Cardona and N.
Zide, Tubingen, Gunter Narr, 131-142.
ADVANCE see GO
AFANASEVO CULTURE
The Afanasevo culture is a south Siberian Copper/Bronze
Age culture dating to c. 3500-2500 BC that occupied the
Minusinsk Basin on the Yenisei river and the Altai mountains.
Approximately ten settlements and fifty cemeteries are known
from both the river valleys and open steppe. The domestic
economy included cattle, and sheep/goat; horse remains,
either wild or domestic, are also recovered. Tools were
manufactured from stone (axes, arrowheads), bone (fish-
hooks, points) and antler. Among the antler pieces are some
objects that have been identified as possible cheek-pieces for
horses. Among the ornaments are earrings made from copper,
silver and gold. The culture is primarily known from its
cemeteries which generally include both single and small
collective burials with the deceased usually flexed on his or
her back in a pit. The burial pits are arranged in rectangular,
occasionally circular, enclosures marked by stone walls and
it is argued that they represent family burial plots with four
or five enclosures (families) constituting the local social group.
Artistic representations of wheeled vehicles engraved on stone
have been found within the region and have been attributed
by some to the Afanasevo culture (alternatively to the later
Okunevo culture).
Although far from the European steppe, the Afanasevo
culture shares a considerable number of traits with its (distant)
European neighbors. These comprise burials in the supine
flexed position, the use ol ocher, animal remains in graves,
pointed-based pots, censers (circular bowls on legs) and a
Europoid physical type along with both horses and the
suspected presence of wheeled vehicles. In the western steppe
the use of kurgans (tumuli) is general while Afanasevo tombs
may have been covered by a very low mound. These
characteristics have often served to link the Afanasevo with
cultures of the Black Sea-Caspian region, specifically the
Sredny Stog, Yamna, Catacomb and Poltavka cultures. Con-
sequently, some see the Afanasevo culture as the easternmost
extension of the European steppe cultures.
The existence of an early metal-using culture with a number
of traits attributed to the early Indo-Europeans (horse, silver,
wheeled vehicles) and distant cultural relations with European
— 4 —
AFANASEVO CULTURE
Afanasevo a. Distribution of the Afanasevo culture in the Altai-Yenisei region.
Afanasevo b. Pointed-based vessel; c. Stone arrowheads; d. Silver ornament; e. “Censer”, presumably for aromatic and/or
narcotic substances; f. Globular vessel.
— 5 —
AFANASEVO CULTURE
M ‘y, utLU. idM^OJLU iV^,
Afanasevo g. Plan of stone-built burial enclosure with burials
in the supine position with legs flexed.
steppe cultures have all suggested that the Afanasevans were
Indo-Europeans. Their geographical location could
accommodate their identification with the linguistic ancestors
of either eastern Iranian- or Tocharian-speaking peoples,
particularly the latter as the Afanasevans appear to be so far
removed from the main line of steppe cultures that are
traditionally assigned to the Indo- Iranians, i.e. , the Andronovo
culture. Afanasevan sites have also been claimed for Mongolia
and western China and a possible association between them
and the Europoid mummies of Xinjiang has been proposed.
The Afanasevo territory was later occupied by the Okunevo
culture which is generally regarded as an extension of the
local (non-Indo-European) forest culture into the region.
See also Andronovo Culture; Catacomb Culture; Kurgan
Tradition; Poltavka Culture; Qawrighul Culture; Sredny
Stog Culture; Tocharian Languages, Yamna Culture.
U PM.]
Further Readings
Mallory, J. P (1995) Speculations on the Xinjiang mummies. JIES
23, 371-384.
Vasilev, S. A. and V A. Semenov (1993) Prehistory of the Upper
Yenisei area (southern Siberia). Journal of World Prehistory 7,
213-242.
Vadetskaya, E. B. (1986) Arkheologicheskie Pamyatniki v Stepyakh
Srednego Yeniseya. Leningrad, Nauka.
AFTER see BACK 1 ; BEHIND
AGAINST
*prot i ‘against, up to’. [IEW 815-816 (*prot/); Wat 50
(*proti)]. La tv pretl ‘against’, OCS protivU ‘towards’, Grk upon
~ koxi ~ Kpog ‘at, in front of, looking towards’, Av paiti
‘towards, against’, OInd prati ‘against’. From *pro ‘forward,
before’ + adverbial suffix *ti. A word of at least the center and
east of the IE world.
See also Adpreps. [D Q.A.]
AGE SET
Age set is a familiar concept in anthropology and refers to
divisions within societies based on age where, for example, a
person may pass through a series of “stages” in his or her life
that maybe reflected in initiations, status, duties, names, place
of residence, or any other culturally relevant marker. Such
practices have been widely observed, especially over Africa
and the New World, and traces of them are also evident in
the societies of the earliest attested IE traditions.
In a number of IE societies there is evidence for several
age sets which pertained, in particular, to males and their
relationship with warfare. At some time, generally twelve to
fourteen years, a male child would take up arms, e.g., in
Ireland a youth would literally ‘take gaisced', i.e., ‘spear and
shield’ as was also the case for a youth in ancient Germania
who would receive scutum frameaque ‘shield and lance’ from
his father, leader of the clan or war-band. According to
6
AGRICULTURE
Xenophon ( Kyropaedia 2. 2-15), the Persians of the court of
Cyrus the Great moved from child (naig) to marriageable
age (efprjpog) at the age of sixteen or seventeen while native
Iranian sources indicate that one moved from ‘schoolboy’ at
about fifteen to become a ‘youth’ ( yuvan mart ) until one was
twenty and then an adult after that. In ancient India one
similarly moved from ‘youth’ to ‘adult’ about the age of twenty.
Roman legal tradition, and hence western European tradition
in general, set adulthood at age twenty-one. In all these cases
there was also a class of ‘elders’ who were relieved of the
responsibility for participating in war and were rather called
upon to give advice.
Kim McCone has posited a similar age set system for PIE
where a child first moved into the category of a ‘(armed) youth’
(and was known under such terms as *h a iuh x -p-Fo- youth’),
i.e., took up arms as a member of the war-band ( *korios ) of
unmarried and landless young men who engaged in predatory
wolf-like behavior, living off hunting and raiding. Then at
about the age of twenty they entered into the tribe proper
( *teuteh a - ) as married adults ( *ui(hx)rds or *h a neres ) in which
they acquired their wealth through labor and/or were
incorporated into the more prestigious regular military units
of chariotry or cavalry. The leadership of the tribe was,
according to McCone, ascribed to the ‘king’ ( *h 3 regs). Finally,
(should they have lived so long) they became ‘elders’ ( *senos
or *gerh a ontes) and were excused from military duties and
occupied positions as advisers.
See also Army; King; Leader, Peofue;
Social Organizadon; Warriors. [J.P.M.]
Further Reading
McCone, K. (1987) Hund, Wolf und Krieger bei den Indogermanen,
in Studien zum Indogermanischen Wortschatz, ed. W Meid,
Innsbruck, 101-154.
AGRICULTURE
The overall pattern of agricultural terms has been a
persistent topic in IE studies, much of which has been
stimulated by the observation that while stockbreeding terms
appear to be widespread across the entire range of IE stocks,
agricultural terms tend to be confined more closely among
the European stocks and are, from a traditional point of view
at least, scarce in the Indo-Iranian languages. This pattern
has engendered different models of IE dispersions that
variously saw the homeland set in Europe among farmers
who spread across the steppe where the Asiatic IE-speakers
lost their agricultural vocabulary while maintaining those
terms pertaining to the keeping of livestock. Alternatively,
the homeland was placed on the east European or Kazakh
steppe and the earliest IE-speakers were regarded as primarily
pastoralists who only adopted their agricultural terminology
when they settled among the farming communities of Europe,
hence the vocabulary of agriculture was confined to the
European stocks. Finally, a middle ground could be held by
those who envisaged a homeland large enough to promote
both a mixed economy in the west and a pastoral one in the
east which might explain the discrepancy between the Asiatic
stocks and the rest of the IE world. But all three of these
models are to some extent defined too sharply as there is no
regime of stockbreeding known at the time prior to or during
IE dispersals where there was not some agriculture and hence
the dichotomization between the “steppe” and the “sown”
may suggest differences in the pnmary emphasis of subsistence
pursuits but cannot be used to characterize the entire range
of the subsistence strategies of either region.
The nature of our earliest reconstructible PIE agriculture
includes a series of terms for cereals which are strongly
reconstructed to PIE although the actual semantic range tends
to be frustratingly vague, where we must be uncertain as to
the precise species involved. Perhaps the most specific of the
solidly reconstructed terms is *ieijos ‘grain (particularly
barley)’. Barley belongs to the oldest known of the domestic
cereals, recorded in the Near East and Anatolia from at least
the ninth millennium BC and it appears in Europe by the
eighth or seventh millennium. The term *meig(h)- also
appears to indicate ‘barley’ in the Baltic languages although
in the language of its only Asian cognate, Khotanese, a
derivative means ‘field’ < *‘barley- field?’. There are other terms
for ‘barley’ ( *ghresdh(i ), *h 2 elbhit , *bhars ) but these are all
restricted to European stocks. Other terms for grain in general
include *ses(i)os y *g[h a nom, *dhoh x neh a - and *dfh x ijeh a -.
Conspicuous by its absence is a certain term for the most
prized of the cereals, wheat, which as *puh x ros is attested
only in Balto-Slavic and Greek and *sepit is known only in
Anatolian. There is no early agricultural regime known in
any of the relevant parts of Eurasia in which barley might
have been known to the exclusion of wheat. The original word
may have been *puh x ros y or it may be concealed in any one
of a number of terms that have undergone so much semantic
change that we can only reconstruct their meaning as ‘grain’
(cf. NE com which means ‘wheat’ in Britain but ‘maize’ in
America). Possibly the ‘awn’ ( *h a eksti -) and ‘ear’ ( *h a ekes- )
of the cereal grain are also known. In addition to the actual
cultivated cereals we have a word for ‘weed/ryegrass’
( *h 2 ereh a - ) whose semantic field might have been predicted,
as ryegrass was one of the primary ‘weeds’ known in the
earliest cereal assemblages of the Neolithic before rye was
intentionally cultivated. A word for ‘oats’ ( *h a eijisos ), which
is not only found in the European languages but also Iranian,
may well have originally referred to the wild cereal. It was
known since the early Neolithic where, like rye, it accom-
panied cultigens such as wheat and barley as a weed. The
only other plants certainly cultivated or gathered were an
‘esculent root’ ( *alu~) and ‘edible greens’ ( *k eh ikom ).
In addition to the specific names of plants we also can
securely reconstruct terms associated with the technology and
processes of cultivation. The old argument that the ancestors
of the lndo-Iranians either did not know agriculture or had
abandoned it in their movements across the steppe rested to
some extent on the reconstruction of a word for ‘field’
AGRICULTURE
( *h 2 egros ) which regularly indicated a cultivated parcel of
land in the European languages but only an uncultivated
‘plain’ in Old Indie. But such a hypothesis is harder to sustain
when we also have a term *Rapos- that indicates cultivated
land in both the European stocks and in Iranian. Moreover,
we have fundamental terms for breaking the soil either by
‘plowing’ ( *li 2 erh 3 ie/o -), or by a ‘harrow’ ( *h 3 eketeh a -),
‘sowing’ grain ( *sehi - ), employing a ‘sickle’ ( *sfpo/eh a - ) for
harvesting and ‘threshing’ the grain (*yers- ; and if an
Anatolian cognate is sufficient for Asia, *h 2 eh 2 er-), which
produces the ‘chaff’ ( *pelo/eh a ~). There are also several words
for ‘grind’ ( *melh 2 - , *peis - ). From this we can see that there
is no case whatsoever for assuming that the ancestors of all
the Indo-European stocks did not know cereal agriculture.
While there may have been speculation in the past as to
whether some terms might have applied originally to the
gathering and processing of wild plants, terms for the plow,
cultivated field, and techniques appropriate to the processing
of domesticated cereals whose home range lay outside of most
of Europe, suggest that all the earliest Indo-Europeans knew
agriculture before their dispersals.
The terminology concerning agriculture can also shed some
light on the timing of IE dispersals. The earliest agricultural
“package”, developed in the Near East and introduced into
Europe, consisted of wheat, barley, flax, pea, and chick-pea
plus a series of weeds that only later, at the end of the Neolithic
or during the Bronze Age, was demonstrably domesticated.
As we have seen, it is difficult to specify the precise word for
either ‘wheat’ or ‘barley’ in PIE. The other terms for the earliest
domesticated plants are geographically confined. A word for
‘flax’ ( *linom ), for example, is limited to European stocks
while the terms for ‘pea’ ( *hiereg w o -) and ‘chick-pea,
garbanzo’ (*kiker-) are confined to Italic-Germanic-Greek
(with inter-dialectal borrowing) and Italic-Macedonian-
Armenian and, in both cases, may be Mediterranean
loanwords. In the case of the ‘pea’ this does not demonstrate
that the earliest Indo-Europeans were not familiar with it as
the pea occurs in the earliest Neolithic plant assemblages over
most of Europe but this is not the case for the chick-pea which
is generally absent from Neolithic assemblages outside of the
Mediterranean and suggests the possibility that IE stocks only
came into contact with it when they entered the Mediterranean
region from somewhere else. Finally, the plow is the most
significant reconstruction as there is no evidence for its use
until about the fourth millennium BC, about three thousand
years after the initial dispersal of agricultural communities
through Europe. From all of this, one may conclude that: 1)
the Proto-Indo-Europeans knew the sowing, harvesting and
processing of domesticated cereals; 2) they possessed an agri-
cultural technology (the plow) that only appeared (at least
according to current archaeological evidence) about the fourth
millennium BC; and 3) there are a number of items associated
with the initial agricultural dispersions — flax, pea, chick-
pea — which we are unable to reconstruct at the level of PIE
status although we can reconstruct these at more geo-
graphically confined (i.e., temporally later?) horizons.
The most recent phases of IE agriculture are also reflected
in terms that are severely confined to a certain geographical
region, most specifically that of the northwest stocks running
from Celtic and Italic on the west across Germanic and ending
with Balto-Slavic. Some of these words refer to flora that is
generally found over most if not all of Europe, e.g., ‘angelica’
( *Kuendhro -), ‘henbane’ ( *bhel -), ‘(wild) turnip’ ( *repeh a -
which was borrowed into Greek). In some cases the terms
are associated with agricultural systems or field technology,
e.g., ‘waste land’ ( *lendh-) and ‘fallow’ ( *polReh a -). The latter
attests some form of crop rotation among the late IE speakers
antecedent to Celtic, Germanic and Slavic. Concepts asso-
ciated with the application of plow-agriculture are also
geographically confined, e.g., ‘furrow’ ( *pfKeh a -) which was
built on a PIE root to yield a term in Celtic, Italic and Germanic
and another term for ‘furrow’ ( *l(o)iseh a -) in Italic, Germanic,
and Balto-Slavic. Given the geographical distribution of these
terms, they may have been created as early as the TRB culture
of c 4300 BC or at any time subsequent, e.g, the Corded
Ware horizon of c 3300 BC or later during the Bronze Age.
That the probable horizon for these words was later rather
than earlier is suggested by several of the domestic cereals
found across the northwest languages. Although ‘flax’
( *lino-), for example, is known from the earliest Neolithic in
southeast Europe, it only appears in the peripheral areas of
Europe much later, e.g., in Ireland by c 2200 BC. More
importantly, the term for ‘rye’ ( *rughi -) indicates a plant
known only as a weed during the early Neolithic but which
appears as a domesticate first in the Bronze Age, c 2000 BC.
In short, we have a series of terms that are associated with
the northwest IE stocks whose ancestor was sufficiently
uniform to permit the spread of terms in the late Neolithic or
early Bronze Age.
See also Barley; Bean; Chafe; Chick-pea; Feed; Field; Flax;
Furrow; Grain; Grass, Grind; Harvest, Hemp, Millet; Oats,
Pea; Plants; Plow; Poppy; Rye; Seed; Sickle; Sow; Thresh;
Vegetables; Wheat; Wine; Winnow. {J RM.D.Q.A]
Further Readings
Diebold, A. R. (1992) The traditional view of the Indo-European
palaeoeconomy: Contradictory evidence from anthropology and
linguistics, in Reconstructing Languages and Cultures , eds. E.
Polome and W Winter, Berlin and New York, de Gruyter, 3 1 7-
367.
Markey, T. L. (1989) The spread of agriculture in western Europe:
Indo-European and (non-) pre-Indo-European linguistic
evidence, in Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant
Exploitation , eds. D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman, London, Unwin
Hyman, 585-606.
ALBANIAN LANGUAGE
Albanian is an Indo-European stock composed of a single
language whose historical location has been centered on
modem Albania and the adjacent parts of Yugoslavia (Kosovo-
8
ALBANIAN LANGUAGE
Metohija, Montenegro) and Macedonia, with outlying enclaves
in central and southern Greece (initiated in the fourteenth
century) and in Italy (colonized in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries AD). The first explicit reference to Albanian comes
only in 1332 when it was already apparently a written
language. The earliest preserved (sentence length) texts of
the language are datable to roughly 1480 and the earliest book
in Albanian was published in 1555. That Albanian was an
Indo-European language was first recognized in 1854 by Franz
Bopp. Its Indo-European nature had been obscured to early
investigators by the heavy lexical borrowing that had taken
place in Albanian from Greek, Latin, Slavic, and Turkish. The
earliest identifiable loanwords are from Greek, e.g., moker
‘millstone’ (< West Grk [Doric] paxocvd) or draper'sickle’ (<
West Grk Spanavov). As in these two cases, the evidence
suggests that Greek influence came from western Greece, more
particularly from Greek colonies on the Adriatic coast. Much
more extensive was the later influence of Latin. Even very
common words such as mik ‘friend’ (< Lat amicus) or kendoj
‘I sing; read’ (< Lat cantare) come from Latin and attest to a
widespread intermingling of pre-Albanian and Balkan Latin
speakers during the Roman period, roughly from the second
century BC to the fifth century AD. The Greek and Latin loans
have undergone most of the far-reaching phonological changes
which have so altered the shape of inherited IE words while
Slavic and Turkish words do not show these changes. Thus
Albanian must have acquired much of its present form by the
time the Slavs entered into the Balkans in the fifth and sixth
centuries AD.
Since Albanian would appear to be autochthonous in the
Balkans it is natural to suppose that it is the medieval and
modem descendant of one of the IE groups inhabiting the
Balkan Peninsula in classical times. These IE groups include
the Illyrians inhabiting Albania, Bosnia and Croatia, the
Thracians in the southeast quarter of the Balkans, and the
Dacians inhabiting modem Romania. Albanian has indeed
been derived from each of these groups (or even taken as a
mixture of two of them) but the evidence for doing so is
essentially non-existent. The linguistic records of the Illyrians,
Thracians, and Dacians are just sufficient to make it reasonably
certain that they were all Indo-European. Nothing in what is
known of them so far shows any particular connection with
what we know of Albanian.
The dialects of Albanian are divided into two major groups,
Gheg (in the center and north of Albania and in the adjacent
parts of Serbia and Macedonia) and Tosk (in southern Albania
and in the outlying enclaves of Greece and Italy). Gheg dialects
are characterized by the preservation of Proto-Albanian single
*-n- between vowels and a full set of phonemically distinct
nasalized vowels. Tosk dialects, on the other hand, show a
change of single intervocalic *-n- to -r- and the merger of
nasalized and non-nasalized vowels. In these two respects
Tosk varieties are innovative vis-a-vis Gheg. However, Tosk
preserves far better Proto-Albanian unstressed -e- and thus
also preserves Proto-Albanian syllable structure better than
Albanian Distribution of Albanian and its two dialects (Gheg and
Tosk) against the background of Iron Age languages of the Balkans
and southern Italy.
does Gheg. Albanian as a standardized literary language dates
back only to the beginning of the twentieth century. The
standard before World War II was a variety of southern Gheg
while the post-war standard has been a northern variety of
Tosk (all examples given here are in the contemporary
standard).
Description
The Albanian language that is first attested to us in the late
Middle Ages is moderately conservative from the point of view
of morphology. It preserves three genders and two numbers,
and four cases in the noun. The dual is lost and the neuter is,
even at the time of the language’s earliest attestation, being
merged with the masculine — a process almost completed in
the current standard language. The verb preserves the
distinction between active and middle (e.g., quaj ‘I call;
consider’, quhem ‘I am called, am named’), between the
present and aorist, and among the indicative, subjunctive,
and imperative moods. Phonologically Albanian is not so
conservative. Like many IE stocks it has merged the two series
of voiced stops (thus both *d and *dh become d, etc.). In
addition the voiced stops tend to disappear when between
vowels. There is the almost complete loss of final syllables
and the very widespread loss of other unstressed syllables
(compare mik ‘friend’ from Lat amicus). PIE *a and *o appear
as a (as e when a high front vowel follows) while *e and *a
become o and PIE *6 appears as e. Perhaps most remarkable
is the fate of the tectals: the palatals, velars and labio-velars
all remain distinct before front vowels, a conservatism found
otherwise only in Luvian and related Anatolian languages.
Thus PIE *k, *k, and *k w become th, q, and s respectively
(before back vowels *K becomes th while *k and *k w merge
as k). Another remarkable conservatism is the preservation
of initial *h+ as Alb h (all other laryngeals disappear
completely).
9 —
ALBANIAN LANGUAGE
Proto-Indo-European and Albanian Phonological Correspondences
PIE
Albanian
PIE
Albanian
*P
>
P
*pek w e/o- ‘cook’
pjek ‘cook’
*b
>
b
*sorbeie/o- ‘drink, slurp’
gjerb ‘eat, drink’
*bh
>
b
*bhakeh a - ‘bean’
bathe ‘bean’
*t
>
t
*tuh x ‘thou’
ti ‘thou’
*d
>
d
*dih x tis ‘light’
dite ‘day’
*dh
>
d
*dheg w he/o- ‘burn’
djeg ‘burn’
*R
>
th
*Rehimi ‘I say’
thorn 1 1 say’
*g
>
dh
*gombhos ‘tooth, peg’
dhemb ‘tooth’
*gh
>
d
*ghfsdhi ‘grain, barley’
drithe ‘grain’
*k
>
k
*kapmi ‘1 take’
kam ‘I have’
*g
>
g
*h 3 lfgos ‘sick’
lige ‘bad’
*gh
>
g~gj
*ghordhos ‘enclosure’
gardh ‘fence’
*ghednie/o- ‘get’
gjej ‘find’
*k w
>
k ~ s
*k w eh 3 sleh a - ‘cough’
kolle ‘cough’
*k w ele/o- ‘turn’
sjell ‘fetch’
*g w
>
g~z
*^f- ‘stone’
gur ‘stone’
*g*erh x u- ‘heaviness’
zor ‘heaviness, trouble’
*g w h
>
g~z
*dheg*he/o- ‘burn’
djeg ‘burn’
*h 1 en-dhog*heie/o- ‘kindle’
ndez ‘kindle’
*s
>
gj - sh ~ 0 ~ d
*seKstis ‘six’
gjashte ‘six’
*septiptis ‘seven’
shtate ‘seven’
*pumsos ‘body-hair’
push ‘fuzz, nap, pile’
*h 1 esmi ‘am’
jam ‘am’
*suorgeie/o - ‘be ill’
dergjet ‘lies ill’
>
gj
*iese/o - ‘ferment’
gjesh ‘knead’
*u
>
V
*yoseie/o- ‘dress’
vesh ‘dresses’
*m
>
m
*meh 3 tr-eh a - ‘maternal’
moter ‘sister’
*n
>
n
*nos ‘we’
na ‘we, us’
*1
>
1-11
*h 3 ligos ‘sick’
lige ‘bad’
*k w ele/o- ‘turn’
sjell ‘fetch’
* r
>
r
*repe/o- ‘take’
rjep ‘peel’
>
e
*h 1 Qmen- ‘name’
emer ‘name’
>
e
*uikijiti ‘twenty’
-zet ‘twenty’
>
ul
*uJk w os ‘wolf’
ujk ‘wolf’
*r
>
ri
*ghj-sdom ‘grain, barley’
drithe ‘grain’
*i
>
i - e
*sinos ‘bosom’
gji ‘bosom’
*dyigheh a - ‘twig’
dege ‘branch’
*i
>
i
*dih x tis ‘light’
dite ‘day’
*e
>
je~ja
*u6tos ‘year’ (loc.)
vjet ‘last year’
*s6lpos ‘fat’
gjalpe ‘butter’
*e
>
0
*ghesr- ‘hand’
dore ‘hand’
*a
>
a - e
*bhakeh a - ‘bean’
bathe ‘bean’
*h a elbhit ‘barley’
elb ‘barley’
*0
>
a - e
*gh6rdhos ‘enclosure’
gardh ‘fence’
*ghdrdhoi ‘enclosures’
gjerdh ‘fences’
*0
>
e
*h 2 oktdtis ‘eight’
tete ‘eight’
*u
>
u
*supnos ‘sleep’
gjume ‘sleep’
*u
>
y~i
*suh x sos ‘grandfather’
gjysh ‘grandfather’
*mds ‘mouse’
mi ‘mouse’
•h,
>
0
*h 1 esmi ‘am’
jam ‘am’
*h 2
>
0
*h 2 ftkos ‘bear’
ari ‘bear’
*h 3
>
0
*h 3 onf ‘dream’
enderr ‘dream’
*h 4
>
h
*h 4 orghiieh a - ‘testicle’
herdhe ‘testicle’
— 10
ALDER
Origins
The origins of the Albanians cannot be separated from the
problem of assigning their linguistic ancestors to one of the
three main groups of the Balkans: Dacians, Thracians or
Illyrians. Although there are some lexical items that appear
to be shared between Romanian (and by extension Dacian)
and Albanian, by far the strongest connections can be argued
between Albanian and Illyrian. The latter was at least attested
in what is historically regarded as Albanian territory and there
is no evidence of any major migration into Albanian territory
since our records of Illyrian occupation. The loan words from
Greek and Latin date back to before the Christian era and
suggest that the ancestors of the Albanians must have occupied
Albania by then to have absorbed such loans from their histori-
cal neighbors. As the Illyrians occupied Albanian territory at
this time, they are the most likely recipients of such loans.
Finally, as Shaban Demiraj argues, the ancient Illyrian place-
names of the region have achieved their current form through
the natural application of the phonetic rules governing
Albanian, e.g., Durrachion > Alb Durres (with Albanian initial
accent) or Illyrian Aulona > Alb Vlone ~ Vlore (with rhotacism
in Tosk). Demiraj suggests that the transition from Illyrian to
Albanian began during the fifth and sixth centuries AD and
was clearly completed before the immigration of Albanian-
speakers to Greece and Italy in the fourteenth-sixteenth
centuries.
See also Illyrian Language; Messapic Language.
(D.Q.A., J.PM.]
Further Readings
Language
Demiraj, S. (1994) L’albanais, in Les indo-europeennes, ed. E Bader,
Paris, CNRS Editions, 221-232.
Hamp, E. P (1957) Albanian and Messapic, in Studies Presented to
Joshua Whatmough, ed. E. Pulgram, The Hague, Mouton, 73-
89.
Hamp, E. P. (1966) The position of Albanian, in Ancient Indo-
European Dialects , eds. H. Birnbaum and J. Puhvel, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 97-122.
Mann, S. E. (1977) An Albanian Historical Grammar. Hamburg,
Helmut Buske.
Newmark, L., P Hubbard, and P Prifti (1982) Standard Albanian: A
Reference Grammar for Students. Stanford, Stanford University
Press.
Dictionaries
Huld, M. E. (1984) Basic Albanian Etymologies. Columbus, Ohio,
Slavica.
Mann, S. (1948) An Historical Albanian-English Dictionary. London
and New York, Longmans.
ALDER
*yemo/eft a - ‘alder’. [IEW 1169 (*uer-( e )na): GI 546
( *wer-n)\ Fried 149; BK 493 ( *wir-/*wer-)\ . Mir fern ‘alder’,
Weis gwem ‘alder’, French veme ~ vergne ‘alder’ (borrowed
from Gaulish), Alb verr~ verri ~ verre ‘alder’. Arm geran ‘alder’,
OInd varana- ‘ Crataeva roxburghii (used in medicine and
supposedly containing magical virtues). The distribution,
which includes the periphery of the IE world, suggests PIE
status for this word.
*h a iliso/eh a - ‘alder ( Alnus barbata)'. [/EW302-303 ( *e/-);
Wat 16-17 {*el-)\ GI 546 ( *ehso ~ *aliso ); Fried 70-73).
From *h a elisos or the originally adjectival *h a elisnos\ Gaul
Alisanos (if ‘Alder God’), OHG elira ~ erila ‘alder’, Goth *alisa-
(attested by the Spanish borrowing aliso ‘alder’), Lith aliksnis
‘alder’, Rus ollkha ‘alder’. Maced (Hesychius) aA ‘whitb
poplar’, possibly also Grk ’OAzftSv ‘place of alders’ (and home
of the lliadic Philoctetes); from *h a elsno-: Lat alnus ‘alder’,
OPrus *alskande (for abskande ) ‘alder’, Lith alksnis ‘alder’,
Latv alksnis ‘alder’ (Lith elksnis , Latv elksnis , both ‘alder’ have
secondary e-). If they belong with this etymon Alb hale ‘black
pine’ and Hit alanza(n)(a type of tree) are also from *h a elsnos
(the Hittite with metathesis to *h a elnsos). The Hittite and
Albanian, presuming they belong, both argue for an initial
ft 4-. ON p/r ‘alder’ and OE alor ‘alder’ (> NE alder) appear to
reflect a Proto-Gmc *aluza-. Without the Anatolian form, this
would appear to be a word of the west and center of the IE
world. If the Hittite word is accepted, then this etymon could
claim PIE status; however, there are also linguists who propose
that *h a elisos is a non-IE substratal term of north(central)
Europe which may derive from a non-IE proto-form *a-li-sa
which is argued to underlie the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and
Macedonian forms.
*klehadhreh a - ‘alder’. [IEW 599 ( *kladhra ); Fried 1491.
NHG (dial.) lutter ‘dwarf birch, mountain alder’, Grk xA fjOpa
‘sticky alder’ (cf. Homeric xArj^prj for the alders before
Calypso’s cave and the dried alders employed by Odysseus
for his raft). The correspondence is sound and points to some
antiquity in Indo-European.
The alder, a usually shrubby tree marked by woody cones
(which may help to explain the possible semantic shift in Alb
hale from ‘alder’ to ‘black pine’) and male catkins, flourished
throughout most of Europe: the grey alder ( Alnus incana ) to
the north, the bearded alder ( Alnus barbata ) toward the
Caucasus, the mountain alder ( Alnus viridis) in many high-
land areas, the black alder ( Alnus glutinosa) throughout the
central zones. While alder forests sometimes form, this tree
is usually an understory in deciduous forests, or an ecological
pioneer, or even dominant in ecological niches such as river
bottoms or along river banks, where early Indo-Europeans
presumably preferred to dwell. The archaeological context
for alder finds on prehistoric sites ranges from implements to
structural posts in the construction of houses.
During the period c 6000-3000 BC, the alder is only absent
in pollen diagrams from the southernmost region of the
Mediterranean, i.e., southern Spain, Italy and Greece, but even
here it is present in the northern halves of these countries.
Alder is also known from this period from southwest Anatolia,
the forest-steppe region of the Pontic-Caspian and in the
Caucasus but it appears to have been absent from south
— 11 —
ALDER
Central Asia. Thus, although at least one term for ‘alder’ can
be reconstructed to PIE, the wide distribution of this tree
prevents it from being diagnostic of the earlier location of the
Indo-Europeans.
See also Trees. [PE]
ALONE
*oinos ‘one alone’. [IEW 286 (*oi-nos); GI 741 ( *oi-no-)\
Wat 45 ( *oi-no -)] . OIr oen, oin ‘only one, single’, oena ‘units’,
oenan (adv.) ‘alone, in the same way’ (not adjectival or numeral
in early Irish), OLat (acc. masc.; Scipio inscription) oino(m),
Lat unus ‘one, alone’, SC id ‘other’, Grk oivr\ ‘one (on dice)’,
otvog ‘alone’, Arm -in, particle as in so-in ‘the one here’, OInd
ena- ‘he’. Derivatives: OE eall-ana, NE alone (< *‘all one’),
Goth ains-hun ‘no one’. With *-ko- suffix: *oinokos ‘only’:
Lat unicus ‘only, unique’, Goth ainaha ‘only’, OCS inoku
‘alone; hermit’; with final syllable accent: ON einga ‘only’,
OE anga ‘only’, enig ~ anig ‘some, any’ (> NE any), OHG
einak ‘only’ (> NHG einig ‘at one’, pi. einige ‘some’); *oino-
go-\ with *-go- suffix and PIE diminutive *-lo- : OSwed (masc.)
senkill ‘widower’, Goth *ainakls ‘standing alone’; with *oi-
plus -yo-: Grk ot(f)og ‘alone’, Av aeva- ‘one, alone’, OPers
aiva- ‘one, alone’, OInd eva ‘thus, just so’, iva ‘as, like’; *oi-
plus ko-: ON ekkja ‘widow’, Nice ekkill ‘widower’.
*sem-go-(lo)s ‘single one’. [IEW 902 ( *sem-)\ Wat 57
(*sem-); BK 184 ( *sam-/*s9m-)]. Lat singull ‘single,
individual’, singularis ‘single, alone; unique’; in compound:
Grk with one (uncloven) hoof’ ( *srp - + *h 3 nog w h-)\
without *-go-(lo)- : g.ovog ‘alone’ (perhaps not < *men- ‘small’
[IEW 728-729 (*men-)], but possibly *sm-on-os- ‘one’?);
other formations in Arm mekin ‘single’ (< *mea- < *miya-
< *smiya-), TochA snaki ‘alone’, TochB seske ‘alone’, sesketstse
‘quite alone’. Independent innovations on both *oino- and
*sem- with suffixes *-ko-/-go- and *-lo~.
*kai-velos ‘alone’. [/EW519 (*kai-)\ BK 252 ( *k[ h ]ay -)].
Lat cae-lebs (< *kaiijelo~lib(h)) ‘living alone, celibate’, ?Latv
kails ‘barren, childless’, OInd kevala- ‘alone’.
See also Numerals (One); Some. [C.EJ.]
ANATOLIAN LANGUAGES
The archaeological discovery of the extensive archives of
the Hittite empire in the Turkish village of Bogazkoy (ancient
Hattusa) in the early years of this century, and the linguistic
discovery that some of the languages represented there (Hittite,
Palaic, Cuneiform Luvian, but not Hattie or Human) were
Indo-European, caused something of a sensation among
historians and linguists alike. Their discovery forced a re-
evaluation of Near Eastern history and Proto-Indo-European
linguistics that has not yet come to an end. Historians now
had evidence of another major Near Eastern power, the Hittite
empire, that treated even with Egypt as an equal: linguists
had evidence for a group of Indo-European languages where
no such languages had been known before or even suspected.
Hittite, Palaic, and Cuneiform Luvian were in the age of their
attestation earlier by almost a thousand years than any other
Anatolian I Distribution of the early languages of Anatolia and
adjacent regions. The early (IE) Anatolian languages were Hittite,
Palaic and Luvian. The later languages, certainly or probably related
to Luvian, included Lydian, Carian, Milyan, Lycian, Pisidian and
Sidetic. The non-IE languages of the region were Hattie, Hurrian,
Semitic, and the very poorly known Kasgian.
IE language (though the discovery of Mycenaean Greek in
the 1950s has shortened the gap a good deal). Later evidence
from other parts of Anatolia has added to the list of Anatolian
languages Hieroglyphic Luvian (at first thought to be a form
of Hittite written in hieroglyphs and therefore formerly called
“Hieroglyphic Hittite”), and the previously known but not
well-understood Lycian, and Lydian. Even more recently the
sparsely attested Sidetic, Pisidian, and Carian languages have
been joined to this group. Palaic, Hittite, and Cuneiform
Luvian are written in the cuneiform syllabary originally deve-
loped for Sumerian and transferred to the Anatolian languages
via the Akkadians. Hieroglyphic Luvian, as its designation
presupposes, is written in hieroglyphic symbols while the
other languages are all written in alphabetic scripts similar in
many respects to the various Greek alphabets of Asia Minor.
Hittite, Palaic, and Cuneiform Luvian are all attested in
the archives of Hattusa, the capital of the Hittite empire . Hittite
was by far the most common language attested there, being
the administrative language of the Hittites and probably the
native language of the Hittite elite and of a substantial portion
of the inhabitants of central Anatolia. However, the Hittite
pantheon was an eclectic one and included Palaic and Luvian
gods and thus the archives of Hattusa also contain ritual texts
in those languages as well. Though all three languages are
attested in the same place, it would appear that natively they
were spoken (or at least had been spoken) north of the Halys
River in the case of Palaic, in central Anatolia in the case of
Hittite (both Palaic and Hittite coexisting with the non-IE
Hattie) and in south-central Anatolia in the case of Cuneiform
Luvian. Hieroglyphic Luvian is closely related to Cuneiform
Luvian but is not identical with it and is attested somewhat
later and then in south-central Anatolia and extending into
adjacent northern Syria. To the west of Luvian country we
-12 —
ANATOLIAN LANGUAGES
find Sidetic (in the city of Side), Pisidian, Lycian (and its dialect
Milyan, both in extreme southwestern coastal Anatolia), and
then moving north along the Aegean coast to Carian and finally
Lydian. While adjacent languages in this chain (Palaic, Hittite,
Luvian, Sidetic, Pisidian, Lycian/Milyan, Carian, Lydian) tend
to share linguistic features with their neighbors that they do
not share with their more distant kin, it is possible to see two
major divisions of the Anatolian stock: Hittite-Palaic and
“South/West-Anatolian” (i.e., the reasonably well-known
Luvian, Lycian, and Lydian, along with Sidetic, Pisidian, and
Carian).
Hittite-Palaic
Hittite is overwhelmingly the best attested Anatolian
language, with some 25,000 written tablets and fragments of
tablets, and thus the best known. So much better known that
the other Anatolian languages was Hittite that for most of
this century the knowledge of Hittite and the knowledge of
Anatolian languages has been essentially synonymous. The
primary subject of our Hittite texts concerns the admini-
stration of the state religion and mythology. The latter has
borrowed very extensively from non-IE traditions; however,
the core vocabulary is still very solidly of Indo-European
derivation. We can distinguish Old Hittite (1570-1450 BC),
Middle Hittite (1450-1380) and New Hittite (1380-1220).
Palaic, the language of Pala, is known only from a relatively
few tablets in the Hattusa archives; it may have already been
extinct by the time of our earliest written testimony and by
the thirteenth century BC it is presumed that the language
was long dead. Hittite and Palaic are characterized by the
change of PIE *-eh\- to -e-, *-e- to when before the stress,
and to -a- when after the stress (and in an open syllable), and
of *-k- to - k -.
South/West-Anatolian
It has been argued that the earliest evidence for Anatolian,
personal names recorded in Assyrian texts in the centuries
around 2000 BC, tend to appear already as differentiated
Luvian. The main evidence for Luvian comes from Cuneiform
Luvian which is attested from 1600 to 1200 BC. Hieroglyphic
Luvian, which was written in a hieroglyphic script apparently
devised in Anatolia, is attested from 1300 to 700 BC. The
hieroglyphic script is primarily found in the form of
inscriptions on stone which include both material of a
dedicatory nature and also historical texts. Lycian/Milyan,
Carian, and Lydian are all attested from about 500 to 300 BC
while Sidetic and Pisidian are attested later yet (Sidetic from
200-100 BC and Pisidian from 100-200 AD). None of these
languages has left anywhere near as extensive a record as
Hittite and some have left very meager remains indeed. Lycian
is attested by some two hundred inscriptions, almost
exclusively found on tombs. Lydian, known from over a
hundred inscriptions, is primarily attested in the form of
funerary memorials from the fifth and fourth centuries
although some coin inscriptions may be several centuries
earlier. Uniquely, some of the Lydian inscriptions are also in
verse. Carian is known from both Anatolia and in the form of
graffiti from Egypt which absorbed Carian immigrants from
the seventh to fourth centuries BC. Pisidian is known from
about thirty mortuary inscriptions of the type ‘X Isonl of Y\
Sidetic, known only from a half-dozen inscriptions, derives
from third century BC contexts. On the basis of the moderately
well-known Luvian, Lycian, and Lydian, this subgroup of
Anatolian is characterized by the change of *-ehj- to -a-, of
*-e- to - 1 -, and of *-k- to *-ts- (the evidence, one way or
another, for the last is lacking in Lydian).
Relationship of Anatolian to Proto-Indo-European
It is clear that the Anatolian languages are remarkably
conservative in some respects but they also show clear differ-
ences from other Indo-European languages. Thus, on the one
hand, Hittite and the other Anatolian languages preserve at
least one PIE laryngeal, */i 2 , as a regular phoneme, written
‘IT or ‘hh’, and traces of a second laryngeal, *hj, also written
‘h\ Most Anatolian languages have reorganized the inherited
three-way distinction of stops, e g., *r, *d, *dh , into a single
series whereby they all show as a voiceless stop in word initial
position and as voiced in word final position. Within a word
the originally voiceless stops are geminate or long (and
coincidentally voiceless) while the other two series are single
or short (and coincidentally voiced?). Thus the apparent
orthographic distinction between b/p, dJt, g/k (where the
difference between ‘b’ and ‘p’, for instance, reflects a phono-
logical difference in Sumerian and Akkadian) is not real: in
Hittite and other Anatolian languages written in cuneiform
script ‘b’ and ‘p’ can be used interchangeably, though one or
the other may be preferred, even strongly so, in a given word.
On the other hand, the orthographic distinction, say, k/kk in
the middle of words, is real. This rearrangement, however,
seems to have affected all the Anatolian languages after the
period of Anatolian unity. In the accompanying table Proto-
Indo-European developments in Anatolian are exemplified
by Hittite.
Turning to morphology we may note that Anatolian has
numerous examples of neuter nouns that have their nomina-
tive/accusative shapes ending in -r while the other cases have
-n- instead. This heteroclisis is a very old pattern in Indo-
European but nowhere else is it preserved so commonly. On
the other hand, Anatolian shows no traces of a separate dual
number, having only singular and plural, and its verb has
only two moods (indicative and imperative, but no subjunc-
tive or optative) and two tenses (present and past — and in
the past no distinction of imperfect and aorist, and no perfects
indicating states that result from some prior action). In these
respects Anatolian seems to have a simpler morphological
system than most of the other anciently attested IE groups. It
might be noted that the absence of a feminine gender, which
has often been cited as a further example of the simplicity of
the Anatolian morphological system, may be a mirage and
the presence of an a-vocahsm in Lycian animate nouns
— 13 —
ANATOLIAN LANGUAGES
Proto-Indo-European and Anatolian Phonological Correspondences
PIE
Hittite
PIE
Hittite
*p
>
p/pp
*pedom ‘place’
pedan ‘place’
*bh
>
P
*bherghus ‘high’
parku- ‘tali’
*nebhes- ‘sky, cloud’
nepis ‘sky’
*t
>
t/tt
*uet- ‘year’
wett- ‘year’
*d
>
d
*doru ‘wood, tree’
taru ‘wood, tree’
*dh
>
d
*dhurh x - ‘shaft, pole’
turiye- ‘hitch’
*k
>
k/kk
*k(u)udn ‘dog’
kuwan- ‘dog-man’
*g
>
k
*genu ‘knee’
genu ‘knee’
*gh
>
k
*ghesf ‘hand’
kissar ‘hand’
*g
>
k
*iugdm ‘yoke’
yukan ‘yoke’
*k w
>
kw
^is ‘who’
kuis ‘who’
* g w
>
kw
*g v enh a ‘woman’
kuinna- ‘woman’
*g w h
>
kw
*g v hen- ‘strike’
kuen- ‘kill’
*s
>
s
*ses- ‘sleep’
ses- ‘sleep’
*1
>
y
*iugom ‘yoke’
yukan ‘yoke’
*u
>
w
*yeyok- ‘demand’
wewakk- ‘demand’
*m
>
m
*mo!dh- ‘speak solemnly’
maid- ‘speak solemnly’
*n
>
n
*neuo- ‘new’
newas ‘new’
*1
>
1
*loukeie/o- ‘kindle’
lukke- ‘kindle’
*r
>
r
*ddru ‘wood, tree’
taru ‘wood, tree’
>
an
*ysos ‘us’
anzas ‘us’
i
>
al
*plh 2 i- ‘broad’
palhi- ‘broad’
*r
>
ar
*kfd- ‘heart’
kard- ‘heart’
*i
>
i
*k w is ‘who’
kuis ‘who’
*e
>
e, e, a, i
*ueuok- ‘demand’
wewakk- ‘demand’
*g6nu ‘knee’
genu ‘knee’
*h itndo ‘within’
anda ‘within’
*kes- ‘comb’
kiss- ‘comb’
*e
>
e
*htes- ‘sit’
es- ‘sit’
*a
>
a
*atto- ‘father’
attas ‘father’
*o
>
a ~ a
*udd[ ‘water’
watar ‘water’
*h,endo ‘within’
anda ‘within’
*6
>
a
*uiddr ‘waters’
witar ‘waters’
*u
>
u
*iugom ‘yoke’
yukan ‘yoke’
*h,
>
0
*hies- ‘be’
es- ‘be’
*h 2
>
h/hh
*h 2 argi- ‘white’
harki- ‘white’
*h 3
>
h
*h 3 oron- ‘eagle’
haran- ‘eagle’
*h 4
>
0
*h 4 orghi- ‘testicle’
arki- ‘testicle’
suggests that Common Anatolian may have inherited the three language” among a variety of different peoples and therefore
genders of PIE and then merged the masculine and feminine experienced brusque simplification to facilitate
together. communication between linguistically diverse populations.
Two general explanations for these differences between The second explanation assumes that the common ancestor
Anatolian on the one hand and the rest of the IE stocks on of Anatolian and the other IE stocks did not have these features
the other have been advanced. The first explanation assumes either and thus that Anatolian is conservative in not having
that pre -Anatolian had all the categories and distinctions that them and the other IE stocks underwent a significant period
are traditionally reconstructed for PIE and the absence of the of common development after the Anatolian group had lost
dual, feminine, perfect, etc., represent losses, either induced contact with the rest. It was during this period of common
by the influence of the languages which existed in Anatolia development that the dual, aorist, etc., came into being,
before the IE Anatolian groups arrived (e.g., Hattie in central Proponents of the latter explanation see Hittite and the other
Anatolia) or because Anatolian was employed as a “trade Anatolian languages as a group co-ordinate with all the other
14
Troy ;Demi^ci
“7 / HiiyOk
ANATOLIAN LANGUAGES
IE groups also taken as a single group. The label given to this
hypothesis is that of “Indo-Hittite”. While not going so far
proponents of the first hypothesis also tend to think that the
Anatolian group may well have been the first IE group to
have separated itself from the rest and that some of the
differences distinguishing Anatolian from the rest of IE may
be attributed to late features developing only in the remaining
PIE after that separation but that most of the differences that
set Anatolian apart are the result of purely Anatolian
innovations. Certainly belonging in the class of Anatolian
innovations is the special (“ergative”) case-form in *-ants that
neuter nouns take when they are the subject of transitive verbs.
Anatolian Origins
The search for Anatolian origins is complicated by the fact
that when they first enter the historical or written record, the
Hittites are already occupants of late Bronze Age urban centers.
These towns were already literate, cosmopolitan and included
a variety of ethno-linguistic groups. These factors render it
nearly impossible to isolate out a particular IE Anatolian
“identity” in either material culture or behavior that may be
traced to earlier periods of prehistory or to foreign sources.
The Hittites, for example, referred to themselves as Nesa and
their ethnonym derives from the Hatti, who are widely
regarded to have been the previous occupants of the Hittite
capital of Hattusa. The “true” Nesa might then have occupied
their early capital Nesa (Kanes) and their language then spread
over much of Anatolia when they had secured the throne of
Hattusa. The Hittite language would then have served as a
chancery language which was spoken by ministers of state,
scribes and traders but may have required centuries to become
the predominant spoken language of the region.
The evidence of Hattie, a non-IE language which is
occasionally related to one of the Caucasian groups (North
Caucasian is often suggested), is not abundant but the Hittite
archives at Hattusa retain both tablets in Hattie and, more
usefully, bilingual texts in Hattie and Old Hittite (or NeSite).
Hittite is thus represented as a symbiosis between at least
two different languages and cultures, the Indo-European
Nesite and the non- Indo-European Hattie from which the
Hittites borrowed a number of terms relating to government
(‘throne’, ‘lord’, ‘queen mother’, etc.) and religion (‘libation’,
etc.) as well as personal names, including those of a number
of their kings. This pattern has generally been interpreted as
indicating that at some time in their past the proto-Hittites
had either come into contact with and/or superimposed
themselves on a Hattie population which was resident in
north-central Anatolia. This “Hattie culture”, identified
archaeologically for the period c 2500-2000 BC, gradually
found itself placed under Hittite control and absorbed
linguistically by the Hittite language which served as the
chancery and trade language of central Anatolia. An alternative
explanation, that it was the Hattie-speaking peoples who
penetrated Hittite territory and influenced its language and
ritual before dying out, is seldom contemplated. Only
S .Horoziepe
# *Alaca Hiiyilk
Anatolian U Bronze Age sites of Anatolia. The sites of Demirci HUyiik,
Tepecik and Korucu Tepe have revealed horse remains from fourth
millennium BC contexts. Kanes was the major Assyrian trading post
while Hattusa was the Hittite capital (formerly a Hattie town).
proponents of an indigenous Anatolian homeland for the
Hittites (and all other Indo-Europeans) have been forced to
suggest such a displacement, such as the Hatti temporarily
pushing the Indo-Europeans out of central Anatolia and then
later becoming subject to the Hittites when they later returned
to regain their earlier homeland. That this latter model is very
unlikely is supported by the nature of Hattie loans into Hittite.
These loans seem to reflect the indigenous Anatolian urban-
ism, and the presence of these loans in Hittite would appear
to be the result of Hittite occupation of what were originally
Hattie towns such as Hattusa, the Hittite capital, and Puru-
shanda. Consequently, it seems far more plausible to derive
the terms borrowed from Hattie from within Anatolia itself
and assign the Hittites to the role of intruder.
The other major non-IE language to occupy Anatolia is
Human. Human names are recorded in documents from
Babylon and Syria as early as the third millennium BC but as
an ethno-linguistic group they do not impinge on IE
Anatolians until after the Old Kingdom (c 1400 BC) when
the Hittites had spread toward upper Mesopotamia and greatly
absorbed elements of Human culture, especially religion,
where the Hurrian pantheon largely replaced most of the
earlier Hittite deities. As Hittite represented a symbiosis
between the IE Nesites and the non-IE Hatti, so did the
Luvians find themselves in a similar relationship with the
Humans. With a major non-IE block occupying the region
south of the Caucasus to the upper reaches of the Tigris and
Euphrates, it is unlikely that this area could be regarded as
an earlier homeland of the Anatolians.
In the absence of diagnostic ethnic markers, attempts to
trace the Anatolians in prehistoric Anatolia have generally
relied on evidence of invasions or destructions in the
ANATOLIAN LANGUAGES
archaeological record which might accommodate some model
of Anatolian movements prior to their emergence in the
historical record. The most recent candidate for an Indo-
European intrusion into Anatolia is associated with the
destruction level (one meter thick) that marks the end of Troy
II c 2200 BC. The candidate here, however, remains invisible
in that there is no evidence for a new people at Troy in the
subsequent period.
Some would attribute a major “destruction horizon” of
Early Bronze Age II (c 2700-2600 BC) to the arrival of the
Anatolians. The evidence is found on most major sites of
western Anatolia and it has been suggested that the destruction
of early Bronze Age towns as well as the abandonment of
sizeable portions of western Anatolia were due to the
infiltration of nomads from the northwest. Much later links
seen in new ceramic types found in central Anatolia with those
known from Troy (V) as well as the diffusion of the megaron,
the distinctive ‘large-house’, have also been cited as evidence
for a west to east spread of putative proto-Anatolians. It must
be emphasized that as there are no decisive cultural markers
that might link such models of population movement
specifically with the IE Anatolians (although the horse does
first appear in Troy V), it is very difficult to advance such
hypotheses with a great deal of confidence. But it might also
be said that a series of population movements from northwest
Anatolia, presumably initiated in the east Balkans, does
conform to one of the widely held solutions to the IE problem
that sees PIE origins north of the Black and Caspian seas with
subsequent movement southwestward through the Balkans
and on into northwest Anatolia.
A fourth or third millennium intrusion from the northeast
has also been proposed which relies on the general similarity
between tumulus burials in the Ukraine-south Russia, then
the Caucasus and finally eastern Anatolia and eventually, at
Alaca Huytik, north-central Anatolia. An advantage of an
intrusion from the northeast would be that it would place
between the Anatolians and any other IE stocks (or PIE if one
prefers the Indo-Hittite hypothesis) a block of non-IE groups
of the Caucasus as well as the Hurrians of eastern Anatolia
and north Syria (who some suggest may have had Caucasian
origins). This model would provide the Anatolians with a
conveniently early and solid separation from its linguistic
relations and perhaps account for its differences from the rest
of the IE continuum. The archaeological evidence here rests
largely on the introduction of exotic high-status burials
involving large chambers, walled with stone and roofed with
logs, then covered with earth and the remains of the heads
and hooves of cattle. Such burials, found for example at Alaca
Hiiyuk and Eloroztepe, find parallels north of the Black Sea.
Some have interpreted these tombs as the burials of Hittite
princes who were establishing themselves in the lands of the
Hatti.
An earlier intrusion from the Balkans has also been pro-
posed for the period c 3500-3000 BC. This model would
attribute the foundation of the major Bronze Age culture of
northwestern Anatolia, that represented in the foundation of
Troy and related sites, to the movement of Anatolians from
the east Balkans. That there were connections between the
Balkans and Anatolia at this time is not in doubt. Ceramics
and other items of material culture show a broad similarity
between Troy in Anatolia, the Ezero culture of Bulgaria, and
more distantly, the Baden culture of the northern Balkans and
adjacent territories. The emergence of stone-built citadels is
also to be found from Anatolia (Troy) north across the western
portion of the Black Sea (Ezero) and then on around to the
steppe and forest-steppe regions of the North Pontic (Mikhay-
lovka in the Ukraine). A metal-working province also develop-
ed that extended from Anatolia to northwest of the Black Sea.
The cultural priority of the spread of such features is still a
topic of debate although the creation of some form of inter-
action sphere around the shores of the Black Sea might well
have provided a medium for language dispersals.
It has also been suggested that the Anatolians did not come
from elsewhere but are autochthonous to Anatolia, at least
since the Neolithic period, i.e. , the eighth-seventh millennia
BC. In this solution Anatolian origins are seen to be closely
related to those of the Indo-Europeans in general: the Proto-
Indo-Hittite homeland is set to Anatolia and while the
Anatolians remained in the homeland, the ancestor of the
other IE stocks moved west to develop independently in
Europe. This model is directly linked to the generally held
belief that the Neolithic economy, i.e., an economy based on
the raising of domestic plants and animals, spread from
Anatolia into southeastern Europe about 7000-6500 BC.
There are other models of IE origins that would have the
Anatolians as essentially autochthonous but these generally
presume a later date and offer either very poor or non-existent
archaeological correlations.
An autochthonous origin for the Anatolians in Neolithic
Anatolia c 7000 BC is very difficult to support in the face of
the reconstructed cultural vocabulary of Proto-Indo-
European. Such an early date of separation would require
the Anatolian stock to possess only the most archaic Indo-
European cultural vocabulary to the exclusion of later
innovations evident in the subsequent development of the
other Indo-European languages. The rest of (Proto-) Indo-
European possesses a cultural vocabulary containing items
that should not have been known anywhere prior to the fifth
or fourth millennium BC, e.g., words associated with the
yoking of animals, wheeled vehicles, wool. But as Anatolian
also possesses cognates of these terms that are commonly
assigned a late date, it is very difficult to suggest that the
ancestor of Anatolian could have been separated from the
rest of the IE continuum much before about 4000 BC.
The evidence for Anatolian origins is still very inconclusive
and is likely to remain so given the nature of both the
archaeological evidence and the possible vectors of language
dispersals in Anatolia.
.See also Agriculture; Indo-European Homeland;
Indo-European Languages; Proto-Indo-European;
Subgrouping; Time-Depth; Troy. [D.Q.A., J.RM ]
16
ANATOMY
Further Readings
Language
Melchert, H. C. (1993) Historical phonology of Anatolian. JIES 2 1 ,
237-258.
Melchert, H. C. (1994) Anatolian Historical Phonology (= Leiden
Studies in Indo-European 3). Amsterdam, Rodopi.
Oettinger, N. (1978) Die Gliederung des Anatolischen Sprachgebiets.
KZ 92, 74-92.
Sturtevant, E. H. and A. Hahn (1951) A Comparative Grammar of
the Hittite Language. 2nd ed. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Etymological Dictionaries
Friedrich, J. and A. Kammenhuber (1975-) Hethitisches
Worterbuch. Heidelberg, Winter.
Puhvel, J. (1984-) Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin, Mouton
de Gruyter.
TischlerJ. (1977-) Hethitisches etymologisches Glossar. Innsbruck,
Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft.
Origins and Culture
Akurgal, E. (1996) Anatolia, in History of Humanity, Vol. II: From
the Third Millennium to the Seventh Century BC , eds. A. H.
Dani and J. P Mohen, London and New York, Routledge, 205-
223.
MacQueen, J. (1986) The Hittites and their Contemporaries in Asia
Minor. London, Thames and Hudson.
Puhvel, J. (1994) Anatolian: autochthon or interloper. JIES22, 251—
263.
Steiner, G. (1981) The role of the Hittites in ancient Anatolia. JIES
9, 150-173.
ANATOMY
We are able to reconstruct a very detailed list of PIE words
designating parts of the body and its products. Our knowledge
of the PIE names for external parts of the body is particularly
full and certain; there can be no real doubt that Proto-Indo-
Europeans called the ‘eye’ *h^ 6 k w or the ‘foot’ *p 6 ds. Indeed,
such words and similarly “basic” ones such as designations
of family relationships within the nuclear family play a central
role in any demonstration of PIE family relationship. The larger
internal organs are also generally reconstructible. Thus there
is no doubt that the ‘heart’ was *Kerd for the Proto-Indo-
Europeans. However, our knowledge of most of the internal
organs is less certain than it is for the external body parts and
that relative lack of certainty presumably reflects their
somewhat more specialized status as vocabulary items in
Proto-Indo-European, knowledge of them being gained
through butchery rather than casual observation as an infant.
Our ability to reconstruct terms for the smaller internal organs
and structures, e.g., nerves, blood vessels, what Matisoff has
called “obscure internal channels and connectors”, is most
restricted. It is most probable that the Proto-Indo-Europeans
themselves did not have a very elaborate or specific vocabulary
for these portions of the anatomy.
If we adhere to a fairly strict criteria of identifying roots to
PIE, then the following anatomical terms may be reconstructed
with relative confidence.
External Anatomical Parts
Head . *kjreh2'head\ *h2ent- ‘forehead’, *hieni-h3k w -o/eh a -
‘face’, *Kripo- ‘head and facial hair’, *h26us l e ar’, *h x nass l nose’,
*hjdk w ‘eye', *bhruhj(S eyebrow’, *hi/^ohi(e)s- ‘mouth’,
*ghelun~eh a - L lip’, *sme£- ‘chin’, Asmo/cup ‘beard’, *genu jaw’.
Upper Torso and Limbs: *h}/4dmsos ‘shoulder’, *pl(e)t-
‘shoulder blade’, *h2epes- ‘limb’, *h2eks- shoulder joint’,
*h2erh x mos ‘arm’, *bhaghus ‘arm, foreleg’, *dous- ‘upper arm,
shoulder’, *ghes-r- ‘hand’, *koks-o/eh a - ‘hollow of major
joint’, *me(m)s ‘flesh’, *monis ‘neck’, *h3elVn- ‘elbow’,
*h3nobh- ‘navel’, *h3nogh(u)- ‘nail’, *pant- ‘stomach,
paunch’, *poums ‘body hair’, *poksos ‘side, flank’, *pstenos
‘breast’, *kreps ‘body’, *tueks ‘skin’.
Lower Torso and Limbs: *gdnu ‘knee’, *klounis ‘haunch, hip’,
*hiors(o)- ‘rear-end’, *h2epes- ‘limb’, *h4orghis ‘testicle’,
*isghis- ‘loins’, *koks-o/eh a - ‘hollow of major joint’, *konh a m
‘lower leg’, *me(m)s ‘flesh’, *persn-eh a - ‘heel’, *peses- ‘penis’,
*poums ‘body hair’, *poksos ‘side, flank’, *putos ‘vulva, anus’,
*p 6 ds ‘foot’, *sek w t ‘upper leg’.
Internal Anatomical Parts
*udero- ‘abdomen’, *hiesh 2 f ‘blood’, *kreuh a (s) ‘blood
outside the body’, *h20st ‘bone’, *hien-t(e)rom ‘innards’,
*gutf ‘gullet’, *kerd ‘heart’, *h2eh2(e)r- ‘kidney’, *iek w p(t)
‘liver’, *h\ehitr- ‘lung, interior of body’, *pleumon ‘lung’,
*mus(tlo)~ ‘muscle’, *spelgh- ‘spleen’, *d$ghuh a - tongue’,
*hidont- ‘tooth’, *gdmbhos ‘tooth’.
There is a relatively long list of reconstructible words for
various diseases of the skin and for visible bodily deformities,
while there appears to be no reconstructible words for non-
visible diseases as anemia, a heart attack, a stroke, etc.
Unlike the case with many other semantic fields, recon-
structing PIE body-part terms does not tell us anything about
the geographical location of the speakers or of their cultural
level. The wealth of reconstructible words for hair may suggest
that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were closer to the more hirsute
end of the human spectrum than the other end but such
knowledge, if true, hardly throws much new illumination on
the Proto- Indo-Europeans as a people. More significant is our
ability to reconstruct specific, apparently underived, names
for the rumen (the first stomach of a ruminant) and either
the omasum or abomasum (the third and fourth stomachs of
ruminants). This specificity and unanalyzability suggest that
the association of Proto-Indo-Europeans with cattle is both
old and intimate, reinforcing our notion that animal
husbandry, particularly cattle-raising, formed a central part
of PIE culture.
In addition to purely physical denotation, human physio-
gnomy was integral to the IE myth of creation, the severed
— 17 —
Anatomy The human anatomy according to the reconstructed Indo-European lexicon
ANCESTOR GOD
parts of a primordial giant’s anatomy serving as alloforms for
both the physical and social world of the early Indo-
Europeans. The most common physical correspondences saw
the following equations: flesh = earth, bone = stone, hair -
plants, blood = water, eyes = sun, mind = moon, brain =
clouds, head = heaven, breath = wind. In terms of social
tripartition, the head was associated with the priests, the upper
torso with the warriors and the lower torso, which included
both the lower support limbs and genitalia, was seen as the
alloform of the commoners who physically supported society
and were most closely tied to such concepts as fertility and
sexuality.
See also Abdomen; Anus; Arm; Back; Blood; Body; Bone;
Brain; Breast; Buttocks; Cosmogony; Ear; Elbow; Entrails;
Eye; Face; Foot; Gullet; Hair; Hand; Haunch; Head; Heart;
Heel; Jaw; Kidney; Knee; Lip; Liver; Loins; Lung; Marrow;
Medicine; Mouth; Muscle; Nail; Navel; Neck; Nose; Sexual
Organs; Shoulder; Side; Skin; Skin Disease; Spleen; Tongue;
Tooth; Uterus; Wound. [D.Q.A.]
ANCESTOR GOD
The theme of a deity ancestral to a tribe, people or humans
in general is a near universal in mythology although there are
no linguistic grounds to reconstruct a specific deity of this
nature for the Proto-Indo-Europeans. At best, there is a
common Indo-Iranian deity, Indie Vivasvat, Iranian Vlvahvant,
who appears to occupy this function. In the RV Viv&svat
marries Saranyu of whom is begotten the Divine Twins, Yama
and Yarn!, who here only vestigially reflect their role as the
progenitors of humans in the IE creation myth. Similarly, the
Iranian Vlvahvant is the father of Yama Xsaeta who establishes
the first earthly kingdom, a virtual paradise. Both the Indie
and Iranian names reflect an Indo-Iranian *Vivasvant~. In
addition to being ancestor to humankind, as father of Manu,
Vivasvat is connected with the first sacrifice and this Indie
deity, whose name means ‘brilliant one’, also occupies a clearly
“solar” position in early Indie religion. One motif in the story
of Vivasvat that is encountered elsewhere is his transformation
into a stallion in order to mate with his wife Saranyu after she
had turned herself into a mare; cf. Poseidon’s ‘covering’ of
Demeter, again in hippomorphic guise, to produce the horse
Areion or his coupling with Medusa to produce PegasOs, or
in Norse mythology, more distantly and without the hiero-
gamic features, where Loki turns himself into a mare and
gives birth to Sleipnir, the eight-legged horse of Odinn.
The Scythian origin myth produces another Indo-Iranian,
here specifically Iranian, ancestor figure in Targitaos
(Herodotus 4.5-6), the father of three sons — Lipoxais,
Arpoxais and Kolaxais^ — whose contest for the kingship of
Scythia yields the three Scythian peoples and/or social classes.
The motif of a common father for the representatives of the
three social classes is widespread and is also found, for^
example, in the Old Norse Rlgspula where Rigr (Heimdallr)
fathers Frzell, Karl and Jarl, the eponymous representatives
of the Germanic social classes (slaves, freemen, nobles).
Kingship in Heaven Theme
The only set of ancestor figures ever to have had at least a
putative claim to IE antiquity emerge from the “kingship in
heaven” theme, an account of the creation found in Greek
(Hesiod’s Theogony , Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca, Nonnos’
Dionysiaca), Hittite (the Kumarbi myths, the “Song of Ulli-
kummi”) and Iranian (Firdousi’s Shahnameh ) myth. In the
Greek accounts an autochthonous ancestor figure, Ouranos,
sires a variety of off-spring which he mistreats; one of them,
Kronos, emasculated him with a sickle and reigns in his place.
Hearing that he too will be overthrown, he devours his own
children until killed by his son Zeus who assumes the kingship
of heaven but his rule is only secure when he has dispatched
a further challenger, Typhoeus or Typhon, a gigantic monster
with snakes growing from his body. In the Hittite version, the
initial ancestor Alalu is deposed by his son Anu, and is then
deposed by his son Kumarbi who bites his father’s loins and
thus absorbs his manhood. Kumarbi undergoes a most
unwanted pregnancy himself and (apparently) attempts to
devour his children but is overthrown by his son Teshub, the
“weather” god. Kumarbi attempts to revenge himself on
Teshub by engendering the gigantic Ullikummi who is
ultimately dispatched by being cut (cf. the castration sequence
in the Greek myth) from the shoulder of Upelluri, the giant
Atlas-like figure from which he grew. In the Iranian tradition,
the sequence of ancestors begins with the fourth Iranian king,
Jamshid (the euhemerized Yama Xsaeta, son of Vlvahvant),
who is overthrown by Zohak, the second king who, like
The Kingship in Heaven Theme
Version
1st generation
Greek
Ouranos begets
Hittite
Anu begets
Iranian
Jamshid is overthrown by
Norse
Buri begets
Ymir begets
Phoenician
Ouranos begets
2nd generation
Kronos who castrates Ouranos
and begets
Kumarbi who castrates his
father and begets
Zohak who is deposed by
Bor who begets
Prudgelmir who begets
El who castrates Ouranos and begets
3rd generation
Zeus who deposes
Kronos but must kill
Teshub who deposes Kumarbi
but must kill
Feridun (grandson of Jamshid)
Odinn who kills
Bergelmir
Baal who deposes El
Monster
Typhon, offspring of Kronos
Ullikummi, offspring of
Kumarbi
Zohak, monster killed by Feridun
Ymir
— 19 —
ANCESTOR GOD
Typhon, has snakes growing out of his shoulder, and rather
than castration, saws his father in half. Zohak is then himself
overthrown byjamshid’s grandson, Feridun. A possible Old
Norse reflection of this motif has been suggested on the basis
of the creation myth where the first being, Ymir (followed by
Frudgelmir and then Bergelmir), is cut up by the leader of
the final generation, Odinn.
Although the “kingship in heaven” theme with its three
generations of ancestors and motifs of castration or, at least,
cutting, and monsters is found in several IE sources, it is also
well anchored in Near Eastern mythologies as well, e.g.,
Babylonian, Phoenician, and its presence in the adjacent IE
cosmologies of Greece, the Hittites and Iran (but not India),
has suggested that its origins lay in the Near East rather than
in Indo-European antiquity.
Elements of the structure of the “kingship in heaven” myth
have also been interpreted within an IE context in Jean
Haudry’s “cosmic” interpretation of IE mythology that
envisages a three-heaven model of the IE universe. Here he
interprets the order of the deities as representatives of the
three heavens: Ouranos is the night sky, Kronos (possibly the
‘cutter’ < *kr-ono- from PIE *ker- ‘cut’) fills the role of the
dawn and twilight to separate the night sky from his successor
Zeus, the diurnal sky.
See also Cosmology; God. [j.P.M.l
Further Readings
Haudry, J. (1987) La religion cosmique des Indo-Europeens. Paris,
Arche.
Littleton, C. S. (1970) The “Kingship in Heaven” theme, in Myth
and Law among the Indo-Europeans, ed. J. Puhvel, Los Angeles,
University of California, 83-121.
AND
*-k w e ‘and’. [IEW 635 We); Wat 33 (*k w e)- GI 308-
309 ( *-k ho e-)-, BK 326 ( *k w [ h la-/*k w l h l9-)\ . OIr na-ch ‘not',
MWels nac ‘not’, Lat -que ‘and’, Goth - h ‘and’, Myc -qe ‘and’,
Grk te ‘and’, Arm -k“and’, Hit -ki ‘and’, Av ca ‘and’, OInd ca
‘and’. Widespread and old in IE.
*-io ‘and’ [GI 308-309 ( *-yo -)]. Myc jo- ‘and’, Hit -ya-
‘and’, TochA -yo (< *io + *u) ‘with’. Sufficiently widespread
to suggest real antiquity in IE.
[D.Q.A.]
ANDRONOVO CULTURE
Andronovo is a blanket term for a series of Bronze Age
cultures that spanned western Siberia from the southern Urals
to the Yenisei river and which are broadly identified with
prehistoric Indo- Iranians. The culture dates c 2000-900 BC
and embraces communities that were largely mobile
pastoralists as well as those settled in small villages, especially
in Central Asia.
Employing Andronovo as a very broad cover term for
Bronze Age cultures of the steppelands east of the Urals, the
earliest period is assigned to the Sintashta-Petrovka culture
which should begin c2300 BC. The distribution at this time
comprises both the northern and western steppe (southern
Urals-Kazakhstan) and is marked by the emergence of
defensive sites such as Sintashta. Fortifications include ditches
and earthen banks as well as timber palisades; an estimated
twenty such sites exist. There is a general expansion of the
Andronovo phenomenon to the south and east with the Alakul
phase (c 2 100- 1400 BC), the Fedorovo phase (c 1400-1200
BC) and the final Alekseyevka phase (c 1200-1000 BC). South
of the Andronovo border in the strict sense are a series of
cultures which are believed to have either had an origin in
the Andronovo culture (or neighboring Srubna) such as the
Tazabagyab culture, or are represented as an amalgam of
steppe cultures with those of the oasis cultures of Central
Asia, e.g., the Bishkent and Vakhsh cultures.
Andronovo villages, of which at least 150 are known, might
range from two to about twenty timber houses (exceptionally
up to a hundred), constructed of pine, cedar and birch, the
last being one of the few IE arboreal names retained in Indo-
Iranian. The houses were usually aligned overlooking the
banks of rivers. The large semi-subterranean Andronovan
houses (80 to 300 sq m) have been interpreted as the
residences of extended families as one would expect from the
Indo-Iranians. Livestock included cattle (c46%), sheep/goat
(c 37%), and horse (c 17%), the latter of which was well
represented on Andronovo sites and was employed both for
riding and traction. The percentage of cattle among the
remains tends to be greater than their western steppe
neighbors, the Srubna culture. The camel is also present
among the faunal remains. The domestic pig is conspicuous
by its absence although this absence is entirely predictable in
a largely mobile economy.
The Andronovo dead were buried in timber or stone
chambers under both round and rectangular kurgans (tumuli).
Burials were accompanied by the remains of livestock,
wheeled vehicles, cheek-pieces for horses, and weapons,
ceramics and ornaments. Among the most spectacular remains
are the burials of chariots, dating from c2000 BC if not earlier.
The chariots are found with paired horse-teams; the ritual
burial of the horse in a “head and hooves” cult is also known.
The association between the Andronovo culture and the
Indo-lranians is supported by their pastoral lifestyle, by the
distribution of Iranian place names across the region of their
occupation, and by the historical evidence of the first
millennium BC which indicates that their territory was
occupied by Iranian speaking tribes — Sarmatians, Alans, Saka,
etc. Comparisons between the archaeological evidence of the
Andronovans and textual evidence of the Indo-lranians are
frequently made and employed to support the Indo- Iranian
identity of the steppe tribes. Moreover, current explanations
of the process of the “Indo-Iranianization” of greater Iran and
the Indian subcontinent rely heavily on a model which
requires Andronovo tribes to have settled in Central Asia (the
Tazabagyab culture) or, at least, achieved linguistic dominance
across the Bronze Age urban centers of the region, such as
20
ANGELICA
the Bactrian-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC). They
also play an important role in explaining the origins of the
more pastoral societies such as the Bishkent and Vakhsh
cultures. Generally, the earliest Andronovan phases are
regarded as co-ordinate with the period of late Indo-Iranian
linguistic unity while the later period sees them identified
specifically with a branch of the Iranians.
See also Afanasevo Culture; BMAC; Bishkent Culture;
Indo-Iranian Languages; Sintashta; Srubna Culture;
Tazabagyab Culture; Vakhsh Culture. Q.PM ]
Further Readings
Kuz’mina, Ye. Ye. (1986). Drevneyshiye Skotovody ot Urala do Tyan’-
Shanya. Frunze, Him.
Kuz’mina, Ye. Ye. (1994) Otkuda Prishli Indoarii. Moscow, Russian
Akademy of Science.
ANGELICA
*F\}6ndhro- ~ *foj6ndhno- angelica ( Angelica silvestrisy.
[IEW 631 ( *Kijendh-ro-/*Kijendh-no-)\ . From *Kuendhro-
— 21 —
ANGELICA
Andronovo d. Andronovo vessel (Fedorovo period); e.
Spearhead; f. Socketed ax; g Cheek-piece for horse-bridle; h.
Stone-lined tomb from Buguly l; i. Timber-built grave from
Verkhnaya Alabuga.
we have ScotsGael contran ‘wild angelica’, Lat coinbretum an
unidentified aromatic plant, Lith svendras ‘reed; reed-mace
( Typha latifolia )’; from *k uendhno- we have Nlr cuinneog
‘ Angelica silvestris ’, ON hvQnn 1 Angelica silvestris'. A word
of the northwest of the IE world. In Iceland angelica was
employed to flavor ale (it is a flavoring agent in Benedictine
and Chartreuse liqueurs) while its more common pharma-
ceutical uses generally include ameliorating indigestion and
anemia. It also had a reputation for warding off evil spirits
and plague during the Middle Ages. In the wild form, i.e.,
Angelica silvestris , it is found all over Europe.
See also Plants. [D.Q.A. J. PM]
ANGER
*bhorg w os angry, violent’. [IEW 163 (*bhorg' J o-s)\. Olr
borb ‘stupid, violent’, Latv bargs ‘hard, unfriendly’, Arm bark
‘angry, violent’. At least a word of the west and center of the
IE world, though an “expressive” word that owes much of its
shape perhaps to onomatopoeic factors.
?*£et-‘be angry’, [cf. JEW 534 (*kat-)\ cf. Wat 27 ( *kat -);
cf, GI 126 ( *k h M h -); BK 273 (*k[ h latt h l-/*kl h M h l-)). Grk
KOTOg spite, anger’, OInd satru- ‘enemy’. OInd satru- is often
taken to be from *Kh a et- ‘fight’ instead. It is possible that the
*ket- reconstructed here is but a phonological and semantic
variant ( *kh a ot-7 ) of *kat- (or *kh a et-).
?*hi6istro/eh a - ‘anger, any strong feeling’ (< *‘that which
rouses one to motion’). [/EW300 ( *ois-tro-)\ Wat 16 ( *ois -
tro-)\ Buck 16.42]. Lith aistra ‘passion’, Grk oiorpog ‘gadfly,
sting, anger’. From *hjeis- ‘set in motion’. If not the result of
independent creations, a word confined to the center of the
IE world.
?*rabh- ± ferocity’. f/£W852 ( *rabh-)\ Wat 53 ( *rebh -)].
Lat rabies ‘violence’, OInd rabhas- ‘ferocity’. The underlying
verb is attested in OInd rabhate ‘seizes, takes’. It is not certain
that these words belong together and TochA rapurne ‘desire,
cupidity’, sometimes cited here, should be rejected on
semantic grounds. If the Latin-Old Indie correspondences
are accepted, this would seem to suggest at least late PIE status.
See a Iso Fight. [D.Q.A]
ANIMAL
Gathered under this heading are those words we can
reconstruct for PIE whose natural translation in English would
be either ‘animal’ or some generic subset of animals, e g. , ‘wild
animal’ or ‘small animal’. With the probable exception of the
dialectally restricted *g w ieh3Uiom , however, all of these words
for ‘animal’ reflect the English meaning of ‘non-bird’, ‘non-
fish’, etc., i.e., that meaning where animal is the equivalent of
the more formal ‘mammal’, rather than the sense of ‘any
member of the (biologists’) animal kingdom’. Since most
languages do not have a word with the latter meaning, the
meanings we are able to reconstruct for these PIE words
occasion no surprise. Actually, what is a little surprising is
that some of the dialects of PIE, those at least ancestral to
Greek and Tocharian, apparently did have a word for ‘animal’
— 22 —
ANIMAL
in the larger, more generic, sense.
*k w etQor-pod- ‘animal’ (i.e., ‘quadruped’). [IEW 643; GI
395]. Lat quadrupes ‘quadruped, animal’, Umb petur-pursus
‘quadruped, animal’, Lith ketur-kojis ‘quadruped, animal’,
Myc qe-to-ro-po-(d)- ‘quadruped, animal’, Grk rezpdnovg
‘quadruped, animal’, Alb shtaze (< *k w etuor-(p)dieh a -)
‘animal’, OInd catuspad- ‘quadruped, animal’, TochB
stwerpew ‘quadruped, animal’. The exact shape of this word
in PIE is difficult to reconstruct because as a more or less
transparent compound there has been a tendency to rebuild
it if, by action of regular phonological changes, the compound
became less transparent. Nonetheless, this is clearly a word
that is both widespread and old in IE and one that
distinguished animals from humans on the basis of physical
attributes.
*gh]}Sr (gen. *ghu6roi) ‘wild animal’. [IEW 493
(*ghuer-)\ Wat 23 ( *ghwer-)\ GI 390 (*g b wer-)\ Buck 3.11;
BK 236 ( *gu w-ir-/*go w-ir-/*gu w-er-/*gow-er-) ] . Lat ferns (<
*ghuer-o) ‘wild’, fera ‘wild animal’, ferox ‘wild, bold, fierce ’
(< *ghuer-h 3 dk w s ‘wild-eyed’ or ‘wild-looking’), OPrus (acc.
pi.) swlrins ‘wild animals’, Lith zveris (pi. zveres ) ‘wild beast’,
La tv zvfrs ‘wild animal’, OCS zverl ‘wild animal’, Grk 0fjp
‘wild animal’, TochB serwe ‘hunter’ (< *ghqer-uo- ‘he of the
wild animal’), seiitsi (< *ghueru(e)ie/o-) ‘to hunt’. Widespread
and old in IE. This word and the next divided the world of
animals into “wild” and “domesticated” categories.
*p6kdl ‘livestock’. [7EW797 ( *peku-)\ Wat 48 ( *peku-)\
GI 391 (*p h ek h u-)\ Buck 3.15]. Lat pecu ~ pecus ‘cattle,
livestock’, pecunia ‘money’, peculium ‘possessions’, ON fe
‘livestock, property, money’, OE feoh ‘livestock, property,
money’ (> NE fee), OHG fihu ‘livestock, property, money’,
Goth faihu ‘money, movable goods’, OPrus pecku ‘cattle’, Lith
pikus ~ pekas ‘cattle’ (with Baltic as if with PIE *-k- rather
than perhaps because the word is borrowed from some
western IE group), Av pasu ‘cattle’, OInd pasu ‘cattle’.
Widespread and old in IE. Nowhere does the primary meaning
of this word seem to mean ‘sheep’; thus the connection
sometimes made with the verbal root *pek- ‘pluck, shear’
(that is *‘the animal with wool’) seems unlikely. This word
and the previous one seem to have divided the animals, more
particularly the mammals that the PIE speakers knew, into
two fairly neatly divided groups, domestic and non-domestic.
Since a person’s livestock, his moveable wealth, was apparently
the major form which wealth took in early IE society, it is not
surprising that we find the semantic transition from ‘livestock’
> ‘moveable wealth’ > ‘wealth (in general)’. This word also
designated (domesticated) animals as opposed to human from
the point of view of the social order. Thus A v pasu vira
‘animal(s) and man/men’ is a formula for representing the
community’s wealth — the same formula appears in Umb
u(e)iro pequo (cf. OInd virapsa- ‘abundant of people and
animals’ = Old Persian (Elephantine) personal name Wrps).
In Old Indie pasu might even, on occasion, include men, as
the ‘biped pasu', along with horses, cattle, sheep, and goats
which were designated as the five sacrificial animals
(. Atharvaveda 11.2,9).
*g w i 6 h 3 yiom ‘animal’ (< * ‘living thing’). ] IEW 468
(*g«io-); Wat 24 ( *g w yo-yo-)\ cf. GI 387; Buck 3.11] Grk
f<5ov ‘animal’, TochB saiyye ‘sheep’. From *g w ieti 3 - ‘live’.
Though found only in Greek and Tocharian it is unlikely to
represent two independent creations. Possibly of late PIE date.
*l 6 uhxpn (gen. *Iuh^i 6 s) ‘animal’ (< *‘the one of the hunt’),
[cf. GI 427], Grk Xecov ‘lion’ (< *‘the hunter’), TochA lu
‘animal’, TochB luwo ‘animal’. Cf. OCS lovu ‘hunt’, loviti ‘to
hunt’. (From Grk Xecov was borrowed Lat led, whence the
word for ‘lion’ in most western European languages.) Like
the previous word, possibly of PIE date.
*h 2 / 3 if 6 df (gen. *h 2 / 3 v£dnos) ‘creatures, (wild) animals,
wolves’, [cf. GI 413 (weit’-n-); Puhvel 3:355], ON vi[nir(<
*h 2 / 3 Uedniios ) ‘animal; wolf’, Hit huetar (gen. huelnas , pi.
huitaf) ‘creatures, (wild) animals, wolfpack’. Though only
certainly attested in these two stocks, the archaic heteroclitic
stem argues strongly for PIE antiquity Probably from *fi 2 Ued-
‘be alive’, otherwise seen only in Luvian. Possibly belonging
here too are certain Slavic words for werewolf: Slov vedanec
(~ vedomec ~ vedavec) ‘werewolf’, Ukr viscun ‘werewolf’,
OCzech vedi (pi.) ‘she-we re wolves’, though particularly in
Ukrainian this word has been subject to phonological
deformation. The agreement of Germanic and Hittite would
seem to assure a reconstructed meaning ‘(wild) animal’ but
the association with ‘wolf’ is obviously very old (as the ‘wild
animal par excellence’?).
Small Animal
*mehil- ‘small animal’. [ /E W 7 24 (*me/o-~ *smelo-)\ Wat
41 ( *melo - ~ *smelo-)\ Buck 3.1 1]. OIr mil ‘(small) animal’,
Weis mil ‘animal’, NDutch maaV young cow’, Rus malu ‘young
sheep’, Grk pf}Xov ‘small animal; sheep’, Arm mal
(< *mfcilo-) ‘sheep, ram’. Related adjectives are: Lat malus
‘bad’, Osc mallo- (with expressive gemination) ‘bad’, OCS
malu (< *mohilo~) ‘small’. In Germanic we have also
*smfril-: ON smali ‘small domestic animals, esp. sheep’, OE
smael ‘small, little’ (> NE small), OHG smal ‘small, little’, Goth
smals ‘small, little’. Widespread and old in IE. The meaning
of this word in Slavic, Greek and Armenian parallels NHG
kleinvieh ‘small domestic livestock’ (cf. Rus melkij rogatyj
skot ‘small horned livestock’), i.e., sheep, goats, as opposed
to cattle, a distinction made only in the sphere of stock-
breeding. But it is uncertain that such a meaning can be
attributed to PIE antiquity as the Celtic examples mean only
a small animal, i.e., Old Irish mil can specifically refer to a
hare or a louse while Weis mil usually designates a non-
domestic animal.
Large Animal
*steuros ‘large (domestic) animal’. [IEW 1010 ( *steu-ro-)\
Wat 65 ( *s[eu-ro-)\ GI 439 (*st h euro-). Buck 3.21—3.24] . OE
steor ‘young bull, steer’ (> NE steer), stirc(< *steur-iko-) ‘calf’,
OHG stior ‘young bull, steer’, Goth stiur ‘calf, young steer’
(the meaning of the Germanic word has been influenced by
— 23 —
ANIMAL
the Germanic descendants of *tauros ‘aurochs; bull’), Av
staora- ‘large (domestic) animal (i.e., horse, ass, cow, camel)’,
MPers stor ‘draft animal, horse’. Though not widely attested,
the geographical spread of those attestations suggests PIE
status for this word.
Animal Young
*\}6telos ‘yearling’. [ IEW 1175 ( *uet-elo-)\ Wat 78
(*wet-); Buck 3.24; BK 503 (*wat[ h ]~/*wdt[ h ]-)}. Lat vitulus
‘calf, young of animal, yearling’, Umb vitlo- ‘calf’, Grk exeXov
~ exaXov ‘yearling’, Olnd sa-vatara- ‘having the same calf.
Cf. Osc Vfteliu ‘Italy’, whence, via Greek, Lat Italia ‘Italy’ <
*‘land of young cattle’ (named for the god of cattle, Mars). A
derivative of *yefes- ‘year’. Sufficiently widespread to reflect
probably at least a late PIE term. Similar derivatives of *uetes-
are to be found in OIr feis (< *uet-si-) ‘sow, young female
pig’, Weis gwys ‘sow, young female pig’, Alb viq (< *ueteso-),
Olnd vatsa- ‘yearling, calf’; and in ON vedr ‘wether’, OE weder
‘wether’ (> NE wether), OHG widar ‘wether’, Goth wiprus
‘lamb’ (Gmc < *uet-ru-).
?*per- ‘offspring (of an animal)’ < *‘what is brought forth’.
[IEW 818 ( *per-)\ Wat 50 ( *per-)\ BK 39 ( *p[ h ]ir -/
*p[ h ]er-)]. Weis erthyl ‘abortion’, ON farri ‘bullock, steer’,
OE fearr ‘bullock, steer’, OHG far ‘bullock, steer’ (< Proto-
Gmc *farzan-), MHG verse (< *farsl~) ‘heifer’, OCS za-prutuku
‘wind [i.e. , unimpregnated or imperfect] egg’, Czech s-pratek
‘newly bom calf’, Grk itoptq- Ttopxiq- Kopxalq' calf, heifer’.
Arm ort‘ ‘calf’, Olnd pphuka- ‘child; young of an animal’.
From *per- ‘appear; bring forth’. Though derivatives of this
verbal root with the meaning ‘± young animal’ are common,
they appear to be very largely independent creations in the
stocks where they are attested.
?*ghim- ‘yearling’. [IEWA26 (*ghimo-)]. Lat blm us ‘two-
year old’, ON gymbr ‘one year old sow’, Grk x^ocipa ‘goat’.
Probably independent derivatives of *ghimos ‘winter’.
See also Animal Cry; Bird; Birds; Dragon; Egg; Fish; Fly;
Frog; Leech; Life, Mammals; Shellfish; Snail; Snake,
Tortoise; Year; Worm. [D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Livestock and money: pecu and pecunia , in
Indo-European Language and Society. Coral Gables, Florida, 40-
51.
Brown, C. H. (1984) Language and Living Things: Uniformities in
Folk Classification and Naming. New Brunswick, New Jersey,
Rutgers University Press.
PuhvelJ. (1986) Huidar and vitnir. Creatures and critters in Anatolia
and Iceland. Die Sprache 32, 54-57.
ANIMAL CRY
?*gher- ‘± cry (of animals or birds)’. [IEW 439 {*gher -);
Wat 22 ( *gher-)\ BK 235 (*gur-/*gor-), 350 (* Gar-/* Gar-)].
Lat hirrire ‘howl like a rabid dog’, ON garpr ‘warlike man’,
RusCS gQrkatFc oo’, Slov grgati' gurgle, coo’, Olnd gharghara-
‘gurgling’. A collection of onomatopoeic words, likely to be
independent creations in the stocks where they occur.
?*bhrem- ‘± make a noise (of animals)’. [IEW 142-143
( *bherem-)\ Wat 9 ( *bhrem -); BK 33 (*bar-/*bar-) ]. Weis
brefu ‘bleat’, Lat fremo ‘growl, roar’, OE bremman ‘roar’, OHG
breman ‘roar’, NHG brummen ‘growl, grumble, hum’, Pol
brzmiec ‘resound’, Olnd bhramara- ‘bee’. Perhaps reflecting
a PIE onomatopoeic word for some sort of buzzing or roaring
sound. It is also possible that each stock that shows a word of
this phonological shape has independently created it.
See also Bark, Bird Cry; Bleat; Dog, Grunt; Noise. [D.Q.A.l
ANOINT
*h 3 eng w - ‘anoint (with salve), (be)smear’. [IEW 779
{*on^-)\ Wat 46 ( *ong w -)\ GI 609 (*on^°-)\. Lat ung(u)o
‘(be)smear, anoint’, Arm awcanem ‘anoint’, Olnd anakti
‘anoints’. Cf. OIr imb ‘butter’, OHG ancho ‘butter’, OPrus
anctan ‘butter’, Olnd anjas- ‘salve, ointment’. Widely enough
distributed to assure its PIE status. The range of meanings
suggests the multiple uses of the substance which not only
included a foodstuff but also something to be rubbed on
bodies.
See also Smear. [D.Q.A.l
ANT
*mojyis~ *morm- ~ *mouros ant’ [/EW749 ( *monji-)\
Wat 43 ( *morwi-)\ GI 149 ( *morw -)]. From *monji-: OIr
moirb ‘ant’, Weis myr(ion) ‘ant’, OCS mravi ‘ant’, Av maoirl
‘ant’; from *morm-\ Lat formica ‘ant’, Grk pvppoq 1 ant’; from
*mouro- : ON maurr ‘ant’ (whence ME mire ‘ant’ and NE pis-
mire), CrimGoth miera ‘ant’. A further variant *uorm- is seen
in Grk (Hesychius) bpgiKaq ‘ants’, Olnd valmfka- ‘ant’, vamra-
~ vamrt- ‘ant’, vamraka- ‘small ant’, TochB warme ‘ant’ (a
phonologically similar form appears as ‘worm’ in a number
of IE stocks). The number of phonological variants suggest
that the designation for the ‘ant’ in IE traditions was more
than usually subject to phonological deformation (via
metathesis, etc.) owing to some sort of affective semantics of
the word. Though it is hard to reconstruct the exact PIE shape
of this word, it is clearly of PIE date.
See also Insects. [D.Q.A.]
ANUS
*pfh 3 ktds ‘anus’. [IEW 846 ( *prokto-)\ Wat 53
( *prdkto-)] . Grk npcoKToq 1 anus’. Arm erast-ank‘ (pi.) ‘anus’.
Its unanalyzability suggests great age, but its geographical
distribution is compatible with a late, dialectal IE status.
Probably related is Olnd plasi- (< *proh 3 ki-) ‘part of entrails’.
See also Anatomy; Buttocks; Entrails. [D.Q.A.]
ANY see SOME
APART
*sen-iAi- ‘apart’. [/EW907 {*seni-/ u-); Wat 57 ( *sen-)\ GI
104; Buck 12.23], OIr sain (< *s e n-i- ‘different’) ‘especially’,
OWels han ‘other’, Weis o-han- ‘from’, banner ‘half (< *'the
24 —
APPLE
separated [part]’), Lat sine (< *snni ) ‘without, out of, outside’,
Hit sanizzis ‘excellent’, Av hanaro ‘except, without’, TochA
sne ‘without’, TochB snai ‘without’. Zero-grade suffixed form
*sn-ter ‘alone, separate’: ON sundr ‘asunder’, OE sundor
‘asunder, apart; differently’ (cf. NE sunder), OHG suntar(adv)
‘alone, apart, asunder’, MHG sunder (prep.) ‘without’, Goth
sundro ‘apart 1 , Grk arep ‘except, without, far from’. Compare
also OInd sanutar ‘apart, except for’, sanitur ‘apart from’,
Geographic distribution assures PIE status.
*dis- ‘apart, asunder’. [IEW 232 ( *dis-)\ BK 119 (*t'aZ-/
*f’aZ-)]. Lat dis- ‘apart’, Goth dis- ‘apart’, Alb sh- ‘apart’, Grk
did (< *dis-h 2 e) ‘through, on account of’. Presumably a
reduced form of *duis - ‘in two’.
*yi- ‘apart, in two, asunder’. [JEW 11 75-1 176 (*uf-); Wat
78 ( Buck 13. 131 • Av vi- ‘apart, off’, OInd vi- ‘asunder’,
TochA tpuk- ‘hide’ (< *ui-dhug- ‘hide away’). Cf. also Lat
vitium (< ui-ti-om ) ‘defect’ and *uiteros: ON vidr ‘against’,
OE wider- ‘against’, OHG widar ‘against’, Goth wipra ‘against’,
Av oiOra (< *vi6ra ) ‘separated’, OInd vz tara- ‘leading further’.
Also grouped here by some are words in Balto-Slavic and
lndo-lranian meaning ‘± all’: OPrus wissa ‘all’, Lith visas ‘all’,
Latv V7ss‘all’, OCS v/sCall’, Rus ves/‘ whole’, Av vispa- ‘whole,
every; (pi.) all’, OInd visva- ‘whole’. The presumed semantic
development is something on the order of ‘plurality as unity’.
See also Adpreps. [A.D.V, D.Q.A.]
APPEAR
*k w eK/g - ‘appear’. [IEW 638-639 (*k y ek-); Wat 33
(*k w ek-)\ GI 132 (*k h oek h -)\. OCS kazp ‘show’, Grk TEKgap
‘sign’, TEKgcop'end, goal’, Av caste ‘teaches’, akasaV perceived’,
xsa- ‘look at’, casman- ‘eye’, OInd caste ‘sees, appears’, kasate
‘appears, is brilliant, shines’, ksa- ‘look at’. Perhaps TochA
kakmartik, TochB kamartike ‘ruler’ (< *‘brilliant one’?) belong
here as well. Certainly a word of the center and east of the IE
world.
*prep- ‘appear’. [7EW845 (*prep-); Wat 53 ( *prep-)\ GI
83 (*p h rep b -)]. Olr richt ‘form’, Weis rhith ‘species’ (Celt <
*pfptu~), Grk Kpenca ‘appear’, Arm erewim ‘be evident,
appear’. Perhaps OHG furben ‘clean’ belongs here as well. A
word of the west and center of the IE world.
*y eik- ‘appear (whether the appearance is into the speaker’s
sphere of reference or another’s)’, [cf. 7EW 1129 ( *ueik-)\ BK
510 ( *wuy-ik[ h ]-/*woy'ik[ h }-)\ . OE wig ~ wlh ~ weoh ‘image,
idol’, Lith vykti'come, go’, i-vykti ‘happen, occur; come true,
be fulfilled’ (< *‘come into sight’), Latv vikt ‘prepare’, Grk
eiKe ‘it appeared good’, eoike (< *ueuoike ) ‘it is proper,
suitable’, igkco (< *uik-ske/o- ) ‘compare’, eikwv ‘image,
likeness’ (borrowed > NE icon), eixog ‘likely, probable;
reasonable, equitable’, eoixcog ~ eiiccdg ‘seeming, like; meet,
likely, probable’, Av visaiti ‘presents oneself’, OInd visati
‘enters’. Widespread and old in IE.
See also See; Visible. [D.Q.A.l
APPLE
*h a ebVl- (nom. *h a 6bl or *h^bol?) ‘apple ( Malum spp.)’.
[7EW 1-2 (*abel-): Wat 1 (*abel): GI 548-551 (*am/u-);
Fried 57-64; Camp 163-1661. Olr ubull ( DIL uball) ‘apple’,
Weis afal~ a fall ‘apple’, OWels Aballo (town name), Osc Abella
(the name of a city in Campania which Vergil calls malifera,
i.e., ‘apple-bearing’), ON epli ‘apple’, OE aeppel ‘apple’ (> NE
apple), OHG apful ‘apple’, CnmGoth apel ‘apple’, OPrus
woble ‘apple’, Lith obuolys ~ obuolas ‘apple’, Latv abuol(i)s
‘apple’, OCS (j)abluko ‘apple’, Rus jabloko ‘apple’. Cf. the
names for the apple-tree: Olr aball(< *abalna), OWels aball,
ON apaldr, OE apuldor, MHG apfalter, OPrus wobalne, Lith
abelis, Latv abels- abele, OCS (j)ablanu, Rus jablon. V Blazek
suggests that we add certain lndo-lranian forms here also.
Thus Pashai wall ‘apple’ is perhaps from a Proto-lndic
*abalika- or the like but such a form is otherwise isolated
within Indie and the connection remains speculative . There
are a number of East Iranian forms, however, which seem very
promising, e g., Sogdian ‘mn’k 1 apple’, Pashto mana ‘apple’,
Shughni mun ‘apple’, from Proto-Iranian *amarnaka- ~
*amama-. If we assume an assimilation in nasality from *b. .n
to *m. n we can reconstruct an earlier Iranian *abama/a- from
PIE *h a ebe/olne/eh a -. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov suggest that
OInd amra- ‘mango ( Mangifera indica)', amrataka- ‘hogplum
{Spondias mangifera)', Ashkun amar ‘pomegranate ( Punica
granatum)' belong here and we should add Kashmiri
ambaf-trel ‘a kind of small apple’. However, in these cases
both the semantic (except in Kashmiri) and phonological
distance invites caution. A semantic specialization of pre-lndic
*amla- or Proto-lndo-Iranian *amra - ‘sour’ would be at least
as plausible a source for ‘pomegranate’ or ‘apple’. If the East
Iranian and Indie data is considered cognate we can recon-
struct a word of at least late PIE date.
*meh 2 lom ‘apple ( Malum spp.)’. [Wat 41 (*me/on); GI
552 ( *maHlo)\ Fried 57-64], Lat malum ‘apple’ (Greek
loanword?), Alb molle ‘apple’ (Latin or Greek loanword?),
Grk (Homer) fu fjAov ‘apple, cheek’, Hit mahla- ‘grapevine?,
apple?’ A word of the IE center. Often, but incorrectly, put
here are TochA (pi.) malan ‘nose’, TochB (pi.) meli ‘nose’;
they do not mean ‘cheek(s)’ as sometimes supposed and a
PIE *meh 2 lo- should have given TochA *malan, TochB *mali.
Of the two putative IE terms for this tree/fruit, *h a ebVl- is
based on fairly good correspondences in five, probably six
stocks, as in Olr ubull ‘apple’ and the Italic (Oscan) town
Abella, ‘of many apples’ (i.e., as in English ‘Appleton’). The
medial b has indicated a borrowing to most scholars and the
Italic cognate has been dismissed as a “northernism”. With
the possible East Iranian data not a part of the equation, it
has often been thought that it may reflect a residual non-IE
substrate term in north(central) Europe. If the Iranian words
do belong, as seems most probable, it is still possible that we
have here an early borrowing, either from Semitic, or from
the same source as such Semitic words as Arabic ubullal-
‘arak, fruits; dried figs pressed in a mass’, Tigre 'obal ‘tamarisk’.
Taking a very different position, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have
argued that the European terms are cognate with Hit sam(a)lu-
‘apple’ and that the underlying PIE form should then be
— 25 —
APPLE
*samlu- ‘apple’. They have also noted the similarity between
the Hittite form and the Hattie sawat ‘apple, apple tree’ which,
under observed sound changes elsewhere seen in Anatolian
(i.e. , Hattie t ~ Hit I, cf. Hattie tabama but Hit labarna ), could
have been identical with the Hittite form. Still, the likelihood
that the Hittite word is a borrowing from Hattie and thus
unrelated is very high. The Indie and Nuristani words are
somewhat more probably related, but both the semantic and
phonological distance invites caution.
The second term, *meh 2 lo-, is fragilely attested by forms
in four stocks, some of them semantically tenuous (albeit
credible). Otherwise, the Hittitologists involved insist that
Hit mahla- meant ‘grape(vine)’ but the actual evidence says it
could also have meant ‘apple’ or both, or simply the fruit of a
tree or bush. As with the first term, some would also dismiss
*meh 2 lo- as a (southern) substrate term and place the ‘apple’
beyond the ken of the earliest PIE society The two forms are
more or less similar although they may not be historically
related at all in terms of a strict phonologically based position.
Or they may be cognate: a (a laryngeal?), plus l plus a bilabial
(note shifts between m and b in other places in some of these
stocks). A staple PIE food like nuts and milk, the apple was
probably denoted by one form which cannot be fully
recaptured. In addition to the two IE terms, a much wider
areal background has been suggested by the similarity of other
‘apple’ terms across Eurasia, e.g., Chuvash olma ‘apple’,
Mongolian alima ‘apple’.
Since the Mesolithic, i.e., before PIE times, the wild apple
was spread across Europe, especially to the north, and is
relatively ubiquitous on Neolithic and Bronze Age sites from
Ireland to the Ukraine, including Anatolia and the Caucasus.
Evidence for the domestication of the apple from its wild
predecessor, Malum sylvestris , is difficult to establish and may
theoretically lie anywhere in the temperate zones of Europe,
west and central Asia. Since the cultivation of apples required
grafting rather than simple vegetative propagation, it is held
unlikely that the apple was among the earlier domestic fruits
and the date of its presumed domestication tends to fall after
the dispersion of the Indo-Europeans. Since the earliest
evidence for grafting derives from China (citrus trees) and
this is also the region of greatest genetic diversity of the apple,
it is possible that the late domestication of the apple derived
from western China.
The linguistic evidence notwithstanding, the wild apple is
found so widely (and that includes Mesolithic contexts) that
it is difficult to imagine a geographical situation for the earliest
IE-speakers where they would not have been acquainted with
the ‘(wild) apple’. Many varieties of apple were known and,
consonant with its dietary importance, the term may have
been used generically for ‘fruit’. The apple figures prominently
in IE mythologies such as the “judgement of Paris” (who gave
the “apple of discord” to Aphrodite, hence eventually
precipitating the Trojan War). Those who regard the apple as
a recent acquisition to IE speakers note the number of legends
that depict the theft of apples by IE deities from non-IE
pantheons, e.g., Herakles’ theft of the apples of the Hespendes.
5ee a Iso Trees. [PE]
Further Readings
Adams, D. Q. (1985) The Indo-European word for apple’ again. IF
90, 79-82.
Hamp, E. P (1979) The North European word for 'apple'. Zeitschnft
fiir celtische Philologie 37, 158-166.
Huld, M. E. (1990) The linguistic typology of the Old European
substrate in north central Europe. JIES 18, 389-424.
Joki, A.J. (1963) Der wandernde Apfel. Studia Onentalia 28, 12. 7—
12 .
Markey, T. L. (1988) Eurasian ‘apple’ as arboreal unit and item of
culture. JIES 16, 49-68.
ARM
*h a 6rh x mos (Latin, Germanic, Slavic) or (Baltic,
Indo-Iranian) ‘arm, forequarter’. \IEW 58 ( *ara-mo-)\ Wat 3
( *ara-mo-)\ GI 687 ( *arH-mo -); Buck 4.31]. Lat armus
‘forequarter, shoulder (of an animal)’, ON armr' arm’, OE earm
‘arm; foreleg’ (> NE arm), OHG arm ‘arm’, Goth arms ‘arm’,
OPrus irmo ‘arm’, Lith irm-ede ‘gout’, OCS ramo ‘shoulder’,
Av arama- ‘arm, forearm’, OInd Irma - ‘arm’. Probably from
*h a er(h x )- ‘fit, attach’. A strong candidate for PIE status. Arm
armukn ‘elbow’ has also been placed here; however, it is
probably an independent creation.
*bhaghus(o r *bhehaghusl) ‘(fore)arm, foreleg’. [/EVV108
( *bhaghu-s), Wat 5 ( bhaghu -); GI 687 ( *t^ag^u-)\ Buck 4.3 1 ) .
ON bogr ‘arm, shoulder’, OE bog ‘shoulder, arm; bough’ (>
NE bough), OHG buog ‘shoulder’, Grk nrjxvg ‘elbow, forearm’,
Av bazu- ‘arm; foreleg’, OInd bahu- ‘forearm, arm, forefoot of
an animal’, TochA poke ‘arm’, TochB pokai- ‘arm; limb’.
Unanalyzable root with good distribution and a very strong
candidate for PIE status.
*ddus- ‘(upper) arm, shoulder’. \ IEW 226 (*dous-)\ Buck
4.31]. OIr doe(DILdoe) ‘arm’, Latv pa-duse ‘armpit’ (< [parti
under the arm’), Slov paz-duha ‘armpit’, Av daos- ‘upper arm,
shoulder’, OInd dos- ‘forearm, arm’. Another unanalyzable
root and very strong candidate for PIE status.
See also Anatomy. [D .Q .A.]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1956) Analyse d’un vocable pnmaire: i.-e. *bhaghu-
. BSL 52, 60-71.
Hamp, E. P (1982) Arm, shoulder. JIES 10, 187-189
Pedrero, R. (1985 [86]) Las nociones de mano, brazo y codo en
mdoeuropeo. Ementa 53, 249-267.
ARMENIAN LANGUAGE
Armenian is a single Indo-European language group,
centered throughout its history in northeastern Asia Minor,
in contemporary terms northeastern Turkey and the Armenian
Republic. The Armenian people enter history on their
Christianization in the first years of the fourth century AD,
converted by missionaries from Cappadocia and Mesopo-
— 26 —
ARMENIAN LANGUAGE
tamia. At first the written languages of the Armenian Church
were Greek and Syriac but in the early fourth century one
Mesrop Mastoc 1 , a learned cleric (and later bishop), devised a
special alphabet for Armenian and translated the Bible from
Greek into Armenian. Thus inaugurated, the fifth century
became the “golden century” of Armenian literature with
numerous translations, besides that of the Bible, and original
compositions. It is the language of that period which is
Classical Armenian (in Armenian itself this kind of Armenian
is called Grabar) and it remained the written norm of
Armenian writers until the emergence of the modern literary
language in the nineteenth century. The modern literary
language comes in two variants, an eastern one based on the
variety of Armenian spoken around Yerevan in the Armenian
Republic, and a western one based on the variety of Armenian
spoken in Istanbul.
It has been calculated that no more than 450, certainly no
more than 500, Armenian words are directly inherited from
Proto-Indo-European. The rest are from the unknown or very
imperfectly known languages that were in northeastern Asia
Minor when the ancestors of the Armenians arrived there,
from Iranian, from Greek, from Syriac, etc. From the seventh
century BC Armenia would seem to have been in the political
and cultural “orbit” of the Iranian world, particularly from
the time of the Parthian ascendancy in northwestern Iran. As
a result the lexical influence of various Iranian languages, but
especially Parthian, has been enormous. The Iranian lexical
influx has been compared to the penetration of (Norman)
French words into Middle English. However, the Iranian
influence on Armenian lasted much longer than the Norman
French influence on English and is consequently even more
massive than the French influence on English. So great were
the number of Iranian borrowings, including everyday words
of all descriptions (e.g., anapat ‘desert’, pastern ‘1 worship’,
ma(r)h ‘death’), that Armenian was long thought to be just
another Iranian language. It was not until the 1870s that
Armenian was generally recognized as an independent IE
language, albeit one heavily disguised.
The early non-Iranian words, though much smaller in
number, are not without their interest as well. The language
that preceded Armenian in northeastern Asia Minor was
Urartian, itself a close relative of the better-known Hurrian.
Armenian words with Urartian or Hurrian antecedents include
xnjor ‘apple-tree’ (cf. Hurrian hinzuri), maxr ‘fir-tree’ (cf.
Hurrian mahri (a kind of tree), ull ‘camel’ (cf. Hurrian ukd),
cov 1 sea’ (Urartian sua). The close agreement in shape of these
Classical Armenian words and their presumed sources is
remarkable, especially as the actual borrowing is likely to have
taken place a millennium or millennium and a half before
Armenian is first attested. The phonological shape of
Armenian must have been substantially established before
these borrowings occurred, though there may be evidence in
these borrowings that original final syllables were lost only
after this period of borrowing was complete (e.g., Hurrian
mahri borrowed > pre-Armenian *maxri > Arm maxr).
Classical Armenian shows no traces of dialectal divergence.
All writers of Classical Armenian, no matter where they came
from, wrote in essentially the same way. The testimony of the
modern varieties of Armenian also suggests that Classical
Armenian did not have dialect divergences since all modern
varieties can be derived from Classical Armenian with little
residue. However, there are certain discrepancies within the
inherited word-stock of Classical Armenian. Thus some
Armenian words descending from PIE forebears with initial
*p-have an initial h- and some have nothing (e.g., hun 'ford,,
channel’ from *ponth a - ‘way’ or het footstep’ from *pedom
but otn ‘foot’ from *pod- ‘foot’) and others have p‘(e.g., p'eiur
‘feather’ from *petelro-)\ PIE *-rs- sometimes appears as
Armenian -r- and sometimes as -rs- (e.g., t'aramim ‘I wither’
and t‘arsamim ‘I wither). There are several other unexplained
divergences such as these. These discrepancies suggest to some
that Classical Armenian may originally have been a koine,
the amalgamation of more than one dialect, which eventually
replaced all other dialects (much as the Hellenistic Greek koine
replaced [most of] the Greek dialects known in antiquity).
Description
The criterion that most clearly characterizes Armenian
among the IE languages is phonological rather than morpho-
logical. The three series of stops that we can reconstruct for
PIE, here represented by *t, *d, *dh , underwent a shift, much
like we see in Germanic (there called “Grimms Law”) and
appear in Classical Armenian as f‘ (voiceless and aspirated),
t, and d. Evidence from contemporary Armenian dialects
suggests that voiced series d , etc., may have been voiced
aspirates in actuality and thus not very different, if at all, from
the phonetic pattern classically reconstructed for this series
in PIE. Recent suggestions concerning PIE stops would make
Armenian even more archaic on this particular point than
has usually been thought (cf. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s
reconstruction of *r, *d\ and *d h which look much more
like Armenian t\ t, and d [especially if the latter is aspirated]
than do the traditional *t, *d , and *dh). Whether the
phonetics of the Armenian stop system is archaic or
innovative, it clearly sets it apart from other IE groups.
Armenian is a satom language, meaning that the dorso- palatals
of PIE (e.g., *£). appear as affricates and sibilants (Armenian
s) while the labio-velars (e.g., *k w ) have lost all trace of
labialization (Armenian k‘) and thus have fallen together with
the non-labialized dorso-velars. Like Greek, Armenian
preserves the distinction among PIE *e, *a, and *o (though
Armenian shows a number of instances of a where we might
expect to find either e or o). Like Anatolian, with which
Armenian does not seem to share any significant innovations,
Armenian preserves word-initial *h 2 - (at least sometimes) and
perhaps also *hj- as well. One of the more unusual
phonological changes to be found in Armenian is known as
Meillet’s Law and refers to the shift from *du- to Arm erk
e.g., *dud> Arm erku two’, *dua-ro- > Arm erkar'long’ (cf.
Grk Srjpov).
27 —
ARMENIAN LANGUAGE
Proto-Indo-European and Armenian Phonological Correspondences
PIE
Arm
PIE
Arm
*P
>
h~ 0 ~p‘~y~w
*ponth a - ‘way’
hun ‘ford, channel’
*pod- ‘foot’
otn ‘foot’
*petetro- ‘feather’
p'etur ‘feather’
*p}} a tr-ou- ‘stepfather’
yawray ‘stepfather’
*h t epi ‘upon, also’
ev'and, also’
*b
>
P
*steibe/o- ‘stamp, shove’
stipem ‘1 urge, compel’
*bh
>
b
*bhere/o- ‘bring’
berem ‘I bring’
*t
>
t‘ ~ d ~ y
*torsos ‘drying place’
Par ‘stake for drying fruit’
*mjtos ‘mortal’
mard ‘man’
*pfr a ter- ‘father’
hayr ‘father’
*d
>
t
*doh 3 rom ‘gift’
tur ‘gift’
*dh
>
d
*dhur- ‘door, gate’
durk‘ ‘gate’
*k
>
s
*del up ‘ten’
tasn ‘ten’
*g
>
c ~ t
*gonu ‘knee’
cunr ‘knee’
*g}h r ‘husband’s sister’
tal ‘husband’s sister’
*gh
>
j
*ghesr- ‘hand’
jern ‘hand’
*k
k‘~g
*h 2 erk- ‘contain’
argel ‘obstacle, prison’
*g
>
k
*ger- ‘crane’
krunk ‘crane’
*k w
>
k‘ ~ h ~ g
*Ieik"- ‘leave’
Ik'anem ‘1 leave’
*k w i - (interrogative pronoun)
him ‘why’
*penk w e ‘five’
hing‘ five’
*g w
>
k
*g"eneh a - ‘woman’
kin ‘woman, wife’
*g w h
>
g~J
*g v hermos ‘warm, hot’
Jerm ‘warm, hot’
*s
>
h ~ 0
*senos ‘old’
hin ‘old’
*sal- ‘salt’
al ‘salt’
>
Z ~ 0
*sterjos ‘sterile’
sterf ‘sterile’
*trejes ‘three’
erek‘ ‘three’
*u
>
g
*VaiIos ‘wolf’
gayl ‘wolf’
*m
>
m
*medhios ‘middle’
me] ‘middle’
*n
>
n
*snusos ‘daughter-in-law’
nu ‘daughter-in-law’
*1
>
1
*leik w - ‘leave’
lk‘anem ‘I leave’
*r
>
r
*treies ‘three’
erek‘ ‘three’
*tn
>
am
*Ui(d)kipt ‘twenty’
k san ‘twenty’
*1
>
al
*glhr ‘husbands sister’
tal ‘husband’s sister’
*r
>
ar
*mftos ‘mortal’
mard ‘man’
*i
>
i
*bhidros ‘biting’
bin ‘rigid, rude’
*1
>
i
*kIion ‘column’
siwn ‘column’
*e
>
e ~ i (~ a)
*m6dhios ‘middle’
me] ‘middle’
*s£nos ‘old’
hin ‘old’
*dekrp ‘ten’
tasn ‘ten’
*e
>
i
*kird ‘heart’
sin ‘heart’
*a
>
a
*sal- ‘salt’
al ‘salt’
*a
>
a
*nih a us ‘boat’
naw ‘boat’
*0
>
o ~ u (~ a)
*h 3 orbhos ‘heir, orphan’
orb ‘orphan’
*ponth a - ‘way’
hun ‘ford, channel’
*h 3 6k w ‘eye’
akn ‘eye’
*6
>
u
*h 3 ondrio- ‘dream’
anur] ‘dream’
*u
>
u
*srutis ‘flowing’
aru ‘brook’
*u
>
u
*mQs ‘mouse’
mukn ‘mouse’
*h,
>
0
*hiesmi ‘I am’
em ‘1 am’
*h 2
>
0 ~ h
*h 2 ftkos ‘bear’
ar] ‘bear’
*h 2 euh 2 os ‘grandfather’
haw ‘grandfather’
*h 3
>
0 ~ h
*h 3 or- ‘bird’
oror ‘gull’
*h 3 od- ‘smell’
hot ‘odor’
*h 4
>
0
*h 4 orghis ‘testicle’
orjik “scrotum’
— 28 —
ARMENIAN LANGUAGE
Armenian The territory of the Armenian language appears to have
been roughly coincidental with that of the earlier non-IE Human
and closely related Urartian (with dark shading). The poorly known
and presumably related non-IE Etio language was to its north. Many
of these languages occupied partially or wholly the earlier territory
of the Kuro-Araxes culture (light shading). The nearest IE neighbors
of the Armenians were the Hittites (and related Luvians and Palaic-
speaking populations) who were not closely related to Armenian.
Assyrian and Gutian are non IE languages. Burials with wheeled
vehicles have been uncovered at Trialeti and Lchashen.
Though historically attested Armenian has changed rather
slowly (though the modem verbal system shows a radical
restructuring of the classical system), prehistoric Armenian
underwent a good deal of change and thus Classical Armenian
already presents a rather “modern” appearance when
compared to its contemporary cousins. In nouns gender and
the dual are lost, though there is still a maximum of five
different case shapes. Though there are some conservative
features of the Armenian verb, for instance the retention of
the “augment” (a prefix denoting past time) in monosyllabic
verbs (e-ber ‘he brought’, e-git ‘he found’), in general it would
seem that the verb has been very thoroughly rebuilt in the
interim between PIE and the emergence of Classical Armenian.
The verb is inflected for both person and number (singular
and plural) but of the several tenses and moods that the
Armenian verb indicates only present and aorist (itself a
combination of the PIE imperfect and aorist) among the tenses
and the imperative among the non-indicative moods can be
traced back directly to PIE antecedents.
Herodotus (7.73) reported that the Armenians were in
origin Phrygian emigrants or colonists. Thus, there has been
a continuing assumption that Armenian is linguistically closely
related to Phrygian. From the point of view of geographical
propinquity as well as the tradition recorded by Herodotus
such an assumption makes sense. However, the linguistic
remains of Phrygian are so scant that they afford no
confirmation (or disconfirmation). What does seem to be
certain is that Armenian is a member of a “southeast” group
of IE languages that includes Greek and Indo-Iranian as well.
For instance, only Armenian, Greek, and Indo-Iranian show
clear traces of the reconstructed PIE imperfect tense. Likewise
they, and Phrygian, are the only IE languages to show the
“augment” in past tense formations. Within this smaller group
Armenian appears to be most closely allied with Greek show-
ing a number of shared lexical items with it (e.g. , Arm awelum
‘I increase’ and Grk oyeXXo) ‘I increase’ from *^bhel- y or
Arm siwn ‘column’ and Grk trfcov ‘column’ from something
like *K lion).
Armenian Origins
The starting point for any discussion of Armenian origins
must emphasize that the territory in which the Armenian
language has been historically attested, the contemporary
Republic of Armenia and eastern Turkey, was occupied during
the Bronze Age by speakers of Human and the closely related
Urartian. The earliest Hurrian inscriptions are dated to the
mid third millennium BC and these run into the second
millennium BC. The southern border of the Humans extended
to Syria and southeast into the area inhabited in modem times
by Kurds along the Iran/Iraq frontier. To the south of the
Hurrians, even overlapping with them, were the lands of
Semitic-speaking peoples. It has been suggested that the
Hurrian language is related to the modem Northeastern
Caucasian language group (Nakh-Daghestani). By the first
millennium BC the Hurrians had disappeared. They were
replaced in the southeastern portion of their former territory
by the Urartians who spoke a language closely related to
Hurrian. North of the Urartians, in the northern part of the
formerly Hurrian area, were the Etio or Etiuni, who extended
as far north as central Transcaucasia (i.e. , the modem Republic
of Armenia). Though the linguistic remains of the Etio are
very meager, it is usually assumed that their language too
was related to Hurrian. To the east of the Hurrian-Urartian-
Etio complex were the Gutians (or Qutians), known only from
personal and place-names that suggest a different and
unrelated language grouping, who occupied the territory
south of. Lake Urmia in what is now Iran. To the west of the
Hurrian-Urartian-Etio complex were various members of the
(Indo-European) Anatolian group: Luvians in southern
Anatolia and Hittites (who had replaced the non-IE Hatti and
taken their name) and Palaic-speakers in central Anatolia. To
the northwest were the non-IE Kaskians.
This linguistic picture really leaves no room for indigenous
Armenians and forces one to conclude that they migrated to
their historical seats from elsewhere. That they share a series
of isoglosses, both morphological and lexical, with Greek has
suggested that it is more likely that they originated to the
west of their historical territory; to reverse the direction of
movement and presume that it was the Greeks who moved
off to the west raises serious chronological problems, e.g.,
the late attestation of Armenian in eastern Anatolia would
suggest that the Greeks should not have arrived in their own
— 29 —
ARMENIAN LANGUAGE
historical territory until long after we actually have evidence
for the Greek language in the fourteenth century BC Linear B
inscriptions.
In the period immediately prior to the emergence of the
Hurrians, the northern area of their distribution was occupied
by the Kuro-Araxes culture (c 3400-2500 BC). The distri-
bution of Kuro-Araxes sites would encompass the territory
of the Etio and Urartians as well as the northern part of the
Hurrians. It is often presumed that the Kuro-Araxes culture
is an archaeological reflection of the Hurrians. Its successors
boast sites such as Lchashen and Trialeti with their abundant
evidence for wheeled vehicles placed in tombs, a useful
reminder that wheeled vehicles need not be a particular
marker of IE cultural identity in western Eurasia (wheeled
vehicles were also buried in the Sumerian tombs at Ur and in
the royal burials of the Shang dynasty in China).
The emergence of the Armenians has proven, so far at least,
invisible from an archaeological standpoint. Historical texts
tell us of the Hurrians and their successors in the various
Urartian states, detailing their incessant wars with their Hittite,
Luvian and Assyrian neighbors and the later penetration of
their territory by Kimmerians and Scythians (Iranian-speaking
or at least Iranian-lead groups originally from north of the
Black Sea). By the seventh century BC the Urartian state was
collapsing, ultimately in the face of the (Semitic) Babylonians
and the Medes (Iranians of what is now northwestern Iran).
By c 590, the Urartian kingdom no longer existed. By this
time we find the rise of the first Armenian kingdom and by
the reign of Darius 1 (525-485 BC), the Persians, who were
the heirs of the Medes, had organized two satrapies in Armenia
(or, in Persian, Armina).
Armenian presence in their historical seats should then be
sought at some time before c 600 BC; how much earlier it is
very difficult to imagine and the historical evidence for the
Armenian highlands does not provide any reliable candidates
although Igor Diakonoff has made an extensive case for
seeking Armenian origins among a people known to the
ancient world as the Muski. The Muski were first recorded
about 1 165 BC when they crossed the upper Euphrates from
the west and by 1115 some 20,000 of them under their five
chieftains are recorded as advancing on the upper Tigris.
Diakonoff has suggested that the Muski entered Anatolia from
the Balkans about the twelfth century and represented one of
the peoples who contributed to the collapse of the Hittite
empire and who are repeatedly mentioned in early texts. The
term was certainly applied to the Phrygians who occupied
central Anatolia and Diakonoff, accepting some form of
relationship between Phrygian and Armenian, identifies the
eastern Muski as Proto-Armenians. Hence as we find Muski
in the historical seats of the Armenians by about the twelfth
century and we know the same name was applied to IE
Phrygians to their west, then at least a case can be made for
presuming that the Muski reflected an intrusive IE-speaking
population. Diakonoff suggests that the Armenian name for
themselves, Hayk 1 , derives from *Hattiyos, the name applied
by the Urartians to all the peoples from west of the Euphrates,
i.e., the Hittite (or better, Hattie) lands.
The Armenians, according to Diakonoff, are then an amal-
gam of the Hurrians (and Urartians), Luvians and the Proto-
Armenian Muski who carried their IE language eastwards
across Anatolia. After arriving in its historical territory, Proto-
Armenian would appear to have undergone massive influence
on the part of the languages it eventually replaced. Armenian
phonology, for instance, appears to have been greatly affected
by Urartian, which may suggest a long period of bilingualism.
Loanwords from Luvian can be identified (and perhaps from
Hittite also) as can loanwords from Aramaic, though these
strata are dwarfed by the massive influx of Iranian words,
mainly from the neighboring Parthian in northwestern Iran.
In this process not only was the Armenian lexicon affected
but also the grammar.
See also Indo-European Languages . [D.Q.A..J.PM.1
Further Readings
Language
Godel, R. (1975) An Introduction to the Study of Classical Armenian.
Wiesbaden, Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Greppin, J. A. C. (1988) Laryngeal residue in Armenian, in Die
Laryngaltheone und die Rekonstruktion des indogermamschen
Laut- und Formensy stems, ed. A. Bammesberger, Heidelberg,
Winter, 179-194.
Meillet, A. (1913) Altarmenisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg, Carl
Winter.
Meillet, A. (1936) Esquisse dune grammaire comparee de I'armenien
classique. 2 ed. Vienna, Imp. Des. Pp. Mechitaristen.
Solta, R. G. (1960) Die Stellung des Armenischen im Kreise der
indogermanischen Sprachen. Vienna, Imp Des. Pp. Mechitar-
isten.
Winter, W (1966) Traces of early dialectal diversity in Old Armenian,
in Ancient Indo-European Dialects, eds. H Birnbaum and J.
Puhvel, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press,
201 - 212 .
Etymological Dictionaries
Hiibschmann, H. (1897) Armemsche Grammatik /. Armenische
Etymologie. Leipzig.
Origins
Diakonoff, 1. (1984) The Pre-history of the Armenian People. Delmar,
N. Y., Caravan.
ARMY
*koijos ‘army, war-band, unit of warriors’. [ IEW 6 1 5-6 1 6
( *koro-s ); Wat 32 ( *koro-)\ cf. G1 644; Buck 20.151. Mir
cuire ‘troop, host’, Gaul Tri-corii (tribal name: ‘[consisting
of 1 three tribes’), ON /ierr‘army’, OE here ‘army’, OHG hen
‘army’, Goth harjis ‘army’, OPrus kargis ‘army’, Lith karias
‘army’, karas ‘war’, Latv kajrs ‘army’, Grk Koipavog ‘army
leader’, Kotpo- in personal names (cf. the similar use of this
element in early Germanic personal names, e.g., Hario -,
Chario -, including that of Odinn, i.e., Henan (< *koryonos).
30
ARMY
Perhaps also OPers kara- ‘people, army’. Distribution suggests
at least a word for ‘army’ from the west and center of the IE
world.
*leh 2 U&s ‘people (under arms)’. [Gl 644 ( *laH(w)o -)1 . Myc
ra-wa-ke-ta (= [Doric} Xayhag) ‘leader of the people’, ra-wi-
ja-ja ‘captives’, Grk Xa(p)og ‘people, (pi.) army’, Xeia (Ionic
Xtj'it]) ‘booty’, Xrji^ofiai ‘plunder’, Phryg la wagiaei ‘military
leader’. Cf. Hit lahha- ‘campaign’. The presence of Hit lahha-
suggests PIE status for *leh 2 - ‘± military action’. The derivative
*leh 2 Uds ‘± army’ would appear to be regionally restricted to
Greek and Phrygian.
*ieudhmds ‘fighter’. [ IEW 511 (*ieu-dh-)\ Wat 79
( *yeudh-)] . OCS o-jlminu ‘warrior’, OInd yudhmA- warrior’.
A word of the southeast of the IE world. From *ieudh- ‘to
fight’. Cf. OWels Mor-iud ‘sea-fighter’.
War-bands
The word *korios has been examined in detail by Kim
McCone and provides the basis for his reconstruction of PIE
society. The emphasis found in the Germanic cognates
suggests war-bands engaged in predatory behavior, cf. the
related verbal forms in ON herja ‘harry, despoil, waste’, OHG
herian ‘to make a foray’, etc., and the use of this word as an
appelative of Odinn ( Herjann ) who leads a war-band of the
dead. It may also underlie one of the tribes mentioned by
Tacitus, the Harii , which may have designated a specific type
of military unit (or warriors disguised as phantoms) rather
than a tribe. According to McCone this military unit may
broadly be described as a Mannerbund, an organization of
young unmarried men. The size of the unit may range from a
minimum of two but usually more, and frequently about
twelve. They lived off the country by hunting and raiding
and engaged in berserkr-like behavior. The frenzied behavior
is very often likened to that of wolves, and such social groups
were frequently termed wolves (or dogs) and adopted the
headdress, apparel and iconography of the wolf. It is from
such groups that one may also derive the frequent application
of personal names containing the element wolf, e.g., ON
Herjolfr , OE Herewulf 1 Wolf of the war-band’.
The Irish cognate cuire ‘troop’ is archaic and cognate with
a series of names of Gaulish tribal confederacies, e.g., Vo-
corii , Tricorii , Petru-cori, which indicate units of two, three
and four ‘troops’ respectively. The early Irish exhibited an
institution very similar to that of the Germanic war-band, the
diberga or feindidi , which consisted of young unmarried men
who lived off the country (hunting and raiding). Their bands
consisted usually of groups of three, five, nine or twelve (with
nine the most frequent) and their behavior was also explicitly
that of a wolf or dog. Irish also produces a series of personal
names where ‘wolf’ and ‘dog’ is a major element, e.g., Cenn
Faelad ‘Wolf-head’, Coin-chenn ‘Dog-head’.
On the basis of Celtic-Germanic comparisons, one can posit
the specific institution of the war-band in at least the western
periphery of the Indo-European world. To what extent it may
be ascribed to a broader region or an earlier antiquity in IE
depends on what further evidence can be adduced. The
existence of cognate terms in Baltic, Greek and Iranian would
at least indicate that the *koiios itself is of PIE antiquity. Other
possible cognates may be found in Italic, e.g., the personal
name of Coriolanus and the town of Corioh.
The derivative of this word in Greece (Grk icoipavog ‘army
leader’) is taken by Benveniste to indicate a military com-
mander who may control his troops but does not lead them
in battle but McCone has shown that the term was still
regularly applied to active warriors in the field. Ancient Greece
also employed war-bands very similar to those of the Celts
and Germans. The Ephebes, for example, reflected an age set
of young unmarried males, between 16 and 25, who lived
like wolves in the wild; warriors in Arcadia bore wolf and
bear hides instead of shields (the Trojan Dolon wears a
wolfskin in the Iliad) and another parallel would be the
Spartan Krypteia. ‘Wolf’ is a frequent enough element in early
Greek names, e.g., Avicoopyog , AvKotpovTrjg, and the frenzied
behavior of Greeks in battle is described with the word Xvooa
(< *Iuk w ih a -) ‘wolfish rage’. Although there is no certain lexical
associations between Koipavog and these war-bands, the
structural similarities do exist.
The Old Persian form kara is isolated (there is no cognate
in Indo-Aryan) and where it does occur, it implies the concept
of a people under arms rather than a specialized military unit.
Yet both ancient Iran and, especially, early India, yield evidence
of the classic Mannerbund. The OInd marya- ‘young man’
(cf. Av mairyo ‘villain, scoundrel’) is employed to describe
the wildly aggressive war-band assembled around the
leadership of Indra or Rudra in the Vedas. Although the Indo-
Iranian form is usually derived from an e-grade *meijo- with
cognates in other IE stocks, McCone suggests that the
underlying form may well be an o-grade ( *mor\os ) with a
precise cognate in OIr muire ‘leader, chief’.
McCone suggests that there is sufficient lexical and certainly
structural correspondences to reconstruct a PIE ‘war-band’
comprising an age set of young unmarried and landless (but
free) men who lived off the land, engaged in predatory
activities, had a particular association with wolves (less so,
dogs or bears), were famous for their berserkr-like behavior
in battle, and might form the “shock troops” in military
engagements. This was a distinct age set which, when married
and settled on their land, entered the *teuteh a the tribal
organization of adults who were still liable to military service.
See also Age Set; Booty, Captive, Companion; Conquer;
Fight; Leader; People; Social Organization; Warfare;
War God, Warriors; Wild (God); Young. [J.PM., E.C.PJ
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami, 91-94.
McCone, K. (1987) Hund, Wolf und Krieger bei den Indogermanen,
in Studien zum Indogermanischen Wortschatz, ed. W Meid,
Innsbruck, 101-154.
Wikander, S. (1938) Der arische Mannerbund Lund, Ohlsson.
— 31 —
AROUND
AROUND
*h2ent-bh-i ‘around, on both sides’. [IEW 34 ( *ambhi)\
Wat 2 ( *ambhi)\ GI 59; BK 414 (*haij-t[ h ]-/*fi3ij-t[ h ]-)]. Olr
imm - ~ imb- ‘about, mutually’, Weis am- ‘about’, Lat ambi-
‘on each side of, around, about’, ON umb ‘about’, OE ymb(e)
‘about’, OHG umbi ‘about’, Goth bi ‘near’, Alb mbi ‘over’,
Grk dfifpi ‘about, near’, Arm amb-oij ‘complete’, Av aiwito
‘on both sides’, Olnd abhi-ta - ‘on both sides’. Cf.
*h 2 ent-bh-d ‘both’. A derivative of *h 2 ent- ‘face’. Old in IE.
See also Adpreps. [D.Q.A.]
ARROW see BOW AND ARROW
ARYAN see FREEMAN
ASH 1
*h 3 es(k)- ( *h 20 s(k)-T) ‘ash ( Fraxinus excelsior , perhaps F.
omus, F. oxycarpa , F. pallisiae , Sorvus aucuparia)' . \IFW782
(*os); Wat 46 (*os-); GI 537-538 ( *Hos~); Buck 8.62; Fried
92-98; Camp 166-168; BK 415 ( *ha& -^Tids^ -) J. Olr uinnius
‘ash’, Weis onn(en) ‘ash’ (< Celt *osna-), Lat orn us ‘mountain
ash; spear’, ON askr ‘ash; spear’, OE aesc ‘ash; spear’ (> NE
ash), OHG asc ‘ash’ (< Gmc *askiz ), OPrus woasis ‘ash’, Lith
uosis ‘ash’, La tv uosis ‘ash’ (< Baltic *osis), Rus jasenl ‘ash’
(< Slavic *os-en-), Alb ah ‘beech’, Grk o^vi] ‘beech; spear-
shaft’, Arm hac l i ‘ash’. Perhaps also Hit hassikk- ~ hassikka-
some form of tree with edible fruit (perhaps the olive which
botanically belongs with the ashes as Oleaceae). It may be
noted that the Celtic, Italic, Baltic and Slavic forms all derive
from an underlying */i 3 es- while Germanic, Greek, Albanian,
Armenian (and Hittite if accepted) all come from *hjesk-.
Several species of ash and possibly the ‘mountain ash’ were
perhaps distinguished by modifiers of PIE *vs- (with con-
siderable consonantal extensions). A strong association of the
tree name with the spear or other pointed weapons is indicated
by texts in several stocks. The lexical associations in Germanic
are obvious where both ON askr and OE aesc meant ‘ash’ and
‘spear’ and similarly in Latin where omus indicated both the
‘mountain ash’ and ‘spear’. Even where we find the PIE ‘birch’ -
word semantically shifted, i.e., Lat fraxinus ‘ash’ it is employed
metonymically for javelin (Nam Clytii per utrumque grauui
librata lacerto fraxinus acta femur ‘For through both thighs
of Clytius went the ashen spear, hurled by his mighty arm’,
Ovid’s Metamorphoses 5.143). In Greek too the root o^v-
appears variously in forms for ‘ash’, ‘spear’ and as an epithet
for ‘sharp, pointed’. In the Old Irish tree-list, the uinnius ‘ash’
is singled out as a “noble” wood because of its use in the
manufacture of weapons and uinnius can also be used for
‘spear-shaft’. The lexical associations are borne out by the
numerous archaeological contexts for prehistoric ash. While
it was employed in construction, it was probably most utilized
as a medium for hafting; implements discovered in Europe of
stone, copper or bronze with their handles intact are almost
predictably of ash, e.g., the hafts to both the ax and dagger of
Otzi, the “ice-man” found in the Tyrolian Alps.
Another semantic association of the ash term was with the
mountain ash or rowan tree in Italic, and with the beech in
Greek and Albanian (where shifts of the ash term to beech’
seem to have been co-ordinate with shifts of the corresponding
‘beech’ words l from PIE *bheh il gos] to ‘oak’).
Some forms in Finno-Ugric such as Mari osko ‘ash’ may
have come from early IE; excepting the problematic Armenian
reflex, *os- is a northern dialectal form. While its absence
from Tocharian occasions no surprise given the semantic
content of the texts of this stock, its absence from Indo-lranian
does occasion problems in assigning it to PIE with certainty
although the existence of a potential Hittite cognate does help
secure PIE antiquity. Moreover, given the wide distribution
of the ash and its critical technological value, it may be argued
that the ash (probably the common ash, but possibly involving
some combination of the common, flowering, mountain and
oxycarpal varieties) was integral to PIE speakers and perhaps
even the pre-PIE vocabulary.
Botanically, the pollen evidence for the common ash
( Fraxinus excelsior) c 6000-3000 BC finds it widely
distributed across Europe with few exceptions, e.g., Iberia
(where Fraxinus angustifolia can be found) and Scandinavia.
It is, however, confined to northern Italy throughout most of
the Holocene except the Bronze Age where it is found to
extend as far south as the Tiber. Fraxinus omus ‘Manna ash’
is limited almost entirely to southern Italy, Greece and south-
east Europe during the period c 3000 BC and, although it is
present in lake cores from southwestern Anatolia, the evidence
suggests that it appears relatively late in the Neolithic or Bronze
Age. The ash is far too ubiquitous to count for much — taken
by itself — as diacritic for locating the Indo-European
homeland.
See also Spear; Trees. [PE]
Further Reading
Normier, R. (1981) Zu Esche und Espe. Die Sprache 27, 22-29.
ASH 2
*h 2 ^hxds ash’ (< ‘± burnings’). Hit has (acc. hassan) ‘soda
ash, potash; soap; (pi.) ashes’, Ormuri yanak (< *as-naka -),
Olnd isa- ‘ash, dust’. From the derivative *h 2 fa x s-ko- we have
ON aska ‘ash’, OE asce ‘ash’ (> NE ash), OHG asca ‘ash’; from
*h 2 h x s-g(h )- we have Goth azgo ‘ash’, ? Arm aciwn ‘ash’. From
*h 2 ehx- ‘burn’.
?*kenh x is- ‘ash’. {IEW 559-560 (*kenis)\ Wat 29
( *keni-)\ Buck 1.213, 1.84b Lat cinis (masc.) ‘ash’, Grk Koviq
(fern.) ‘dust, ash’, TochB encuwanne kentse(< *konis-o-) ‘rust’
(lit. ‘iron ash/dust’). The Latin and Greek forms have been
much debated. The Latin form is an s-stem while there are
also indications that the Greek form derives from an earlier s*
stem. Lat cinis may derive from *kenis- but need not; this
again might derive from *knhx-is-. The different ablaut grades
(Lat e-grade, Grk o-grade) may point to a static inflexion.
The difference in gender between Latin and Greek may reflect
an underlying PIE neuter (the Tocharian word may be either
— 32 —
ASS
masculine or neuter, we do not know). No verbal root from
which this noun might be derived is known. The Greek word
means ‘dust’ and only in a few cases ‘ash’ so this may be a
secondary meaning. Quite uncertain is the entire PIE status
of the root.
See also Burn; Dry; Fire. [D.Q.A.]
ASK
•peri l- ‘ask, ask for (in marriage)’ (pres. *pfkske/o- ~
*proReh a ,-). [IEW 821-822 (*perk-)\ Wat 53 (*prek-)\ GI 93
( *pY^-); Buck 18.35; BK 67 ( *p[ h ]ir-/*p[ h ]er -)] . Olr arcu
‘ask’, Weis archaf 1 ask’, Lat posed ‘ask’, precor ‘ask for’, prex
‘request’, procus ‘wooer’, OHG forscon ‘ask, examine’, fragen
~ frahen ‘ask’, f ergon ‘demand’, Goth frai'hnan ‘ask’, fragan
‘test’, Lith persu ‘propose in marriage’, prasau ‘request’, OCS
prositi ‘ask’, Arm harc'anem ‘ask’, e-harc ‘ ‘has asked’, harsn
‘bride’, Av parasaiti ‘asks’, OInd pfcchati ‘asks’, TochAB park -
‘ask’. Widespread and old in IE.
?*jeh a - ‘ask for, beg’. [IEW 503 ( *ia- ~ *io-)\ . Av yas- ‘beg,
entreat’, Olnd ya- ‘beg, entreat’, TochB yask- ‘beg’, yassu ‘alms’.
A word limited to the most easterly stocks of IE.
See also Marriage, Pray, Speak. [D.Q.A.J
ASPEN, POPLAR
*h 2 S 3 <>sp- ‘aspen, poplar ( Populus spp.)’. [IEW 55 ( *apsa)\
Wat 3 ( *apsa)\ Gl 538-539 ( *(H)osp^-)\ Fried 49-53; Camp
157-159J. ON psp ‘aspen’, OE aespe ‘aspen’, OHG aspa
‘aspen’, OPrus abse ‘aspen’, Lith apusi ‘aspen’, Latv apse
‘aspen’, Rus osina ‘aspen’, Arm op‘i (< *h2/3opsiio/eh a -)
‘poplar’; possible cognates in Indo-Iranian include NPers fih
‘oar’, Wakhi pei ‘shoulder blade’, OInd sphya- (< *sph2-io-
with metathesis from *h2sp-io-?) ‘oar; pole; shovel’.
A northern IE *li2/30sp- is attested in three stocks,
Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, and consonant with its north-
eastern distribution, we find similar forms in at least six Turkic
languages of Siberia ( apsak in three of them), several Finno-
Ugric forms such as Finnish haapa ‘aspen, poplar’, and another
dozen Finno-Ugric forms to the east (pi in six Samoedic
languages). All of this argues for an areal term in a “language
group” of northeast Europe and southern Siberia during the
second millennium BC. Most scholars agree that the German-
ic, Baltic and the Slavic forms are cognate even though the
different orderings of s and p have never been explained
satisfactorily. This northern *h2/30sp- is probably cognate with
both Arm op‘i and OInd sphya- and related Indo-Iranian
languages. These Indo-Iranian forms mean things like ‘front
oar, punting pole, shovel, sacrificial instrument’ for all. of
which poplar wood may be, although it is not necessarily,
used. The last of these meanings is reinforced by the use of
poplar wood instruments and tools in early IE and Finno-
Ugric religious ritual. If the cognates in Armenian and Old
Indie are accepted, then this word is of PIE status.
The main species of Populus tend to thrive in moist grounds
and are particularly prominent in the flood plains of the major
European rivers. Only the aspen ( Populus tremula) tolerates
relatively dry ground and is by tar the most widespread
species, found almost everywhere in Europe except for
southern Iberia and the Mediterranean basin. It is specifically
the quaking aspen that constitutes large forests of eastern
Europe and much of south Siberia, where the seeds, buds,
twigs, and shoots provide food — particularly in the winter —
for many wild animals such as deer, rabbit and bear. The
prehistoric distribution of the poplars and aspens is difficult
to determine as the pollen for these species are not easily
recognizable. Preliminary pollen maps for the period c600Q-
3000 BC would find the Populus primarily confined to
northern Europe with a marked presence also in the Alps.
While such maps may indicate the presence of Populus , they
cannot be reliably utilized to reveal where it was absent.
Similarly, while *h 2 / 30 sp- may be assigned some degree of
antiquity in IE, it is not clear whether it can be assigned a PIE
date which would make its botanical distribution — as either
‘aspen’ or ‘poplar’ — relevant to locating the earlier distribution
of the IE languages although the evidence for contacts between
those northern stocks possessing the term and members of
the Uralic family are clear enough.
See also Trees. {PE]
Further Reading
Normier, R. (1981) Zu Esche und Espe. Die Sprache 27, 22-29.
ASS
?*gordebhds ‘wild ass (Equus hydruntinus)' or ‘onager/
kulan ( Equus hemionus )’ or ‘domestic ass/donkey ( Equus
asinus)’. IVW 214-215; Buck 3 .461 OInd gardabha - ‘ass’,
gardabhl- ‘she-ass, jenny’, TochB kercapo ‘ass’. This word is
typically taken to reflect a borrowing on the part of Tocharian
from some form of pre-Indic or the borrowing on the part of
both pre-Tocharian and pre-Indic from some third source.
Logically also possible is that pre-Indic borrowed the word
from pre-Tocharian. Any of these theories presupposes a very
early borrowing, before the falling together of *-o-, *-a-, and
the *-e- in Indie and before palatalization in Tocharian. Both
these processes are very ancient in these stocks. Since the
putative ancestor of the Tocharian and Indie words,
*gordebhos has the look of a PIE word, including the suffix
*-bho -, which is often found with animal names, it is perhaps
the case that *gordebhos is a late PIE word found in the east
of the IE world. But if that is the case, another problem emerges
(as it does in the case of the early borrowing scenario) and
that is that it is unlikely that the pre-Tochanans and pre-
Indies, located somewhere in central Asia (Kazakhstan,
southern Siberia, Xinjiang), lived in an area where there were
any wild asses. However, they would have been in an area
where there were onagers or kulans. Perhaps *gordebhos was
a dialect word for ‘onager’ that was transferred, probably
independently, by speakers of (pre-)Tocharian and (pre-)lndic
to the economically more important, and perceptually similar,
ass. Alternatively, the underlying form referred to the ‘domestic
ass’ which may have appeared in areas ancestral to later Indo-
— 33 —
ASS
Iranian and Tocharian movements by c 2000 BC if not
somewhat earlier.
?*mu(k)skos ~ *muksl6s ‘ass/donkey ( Equus hydruntinus )’
or ‘onager/kulan ( Equus hemionus)'? Lat mulus
(< *mukslo-) ‘mule’, Late Lat muscellus ‘young he-mule’,
muscella ‘young she-mule’ (< *mukslolo/eh a -), ORus musku
‘mule’. Alb mushk 1 mule’ (very likely a borrowing from Slavic),
Grk fivx^oq (< *mukslo-) ‘he-ass’. In this case, if as seems
likely, we have the remnant of a PIE word here (rather than,
as is often supposed, a borrowing from some “Asianic” source),
we have a shift from ‘ass’ or ‘onager’ in Latin and Slavic to the
hybrid offspring of an ass or an onager and a horse. Since the
languages reflecting this word are all from the west and center
of the IE world there is a reasonable chance that the original
meaning, preserved in Greek, was that of ‘ass’ rather than
‘onager’.
??*os(o)nos ‘ass’. [Wat 4 ( * asinus) \ GI 480; Blazek 108-
109]. Lat asinus ‘ass’, Myc o-no ‘donkeys’, Grk ovog ‘ass’,
HierLuv tarkasna- ‘ass’ (< *tark-asna- ‘draught-ass’). Even if
the Luvian word is to be divided this way and even if the
Latin and Luvian words are thus related, there is no reason to
suppose that the relationship is one of inheritance rather than
borrowing (compare Sumerian ansu ‘ass’, Hebrew athon ‘ass’).
The lack of any trace of the reconstructed PIE *-s- in the
putative Greek cognates makes this inclusion difficult for
either a hypothesis of inheritance or borrowing. Most dubious
for PIE.
Archaeological Evidence
Wild asses seem to have been widespread during the
Pleistocene (they are depicted in Palaeolithic cave paintings)
and were found in southern Europe to northern Africa,
including Anatolia. The European variant ( Equus
hydruntinus ), however, appears to have become quite
restricted by the end of the Ice Age and in Neolithic contexts
is limited to the territory of southern Europe from Iberia across
eastern central Europe (Moravia, Hungary) to the steppe
regions of the Ukraine-south Russia. Even in territories where
it was likely to have been numerous, it is only marginally
attested on archaeological sites and seems to have become
extinct in the Carpathian basin by the middle Neolithic. The
most recent finds are from Iberia at c 3000 BC and at a similar
date from Romania. From a linguistic standpoint, the PIE
community may have known the wild ass but whatever word
they may have had for it should either have died out with the
animal itself or been transferred to another animal.
The domestic ass or donkey ( Equus asinus ) evolved in
north Africa c 4000 BC and was very well known in ancient
Egypt. The domestic ass began appearing in southwest Asia
by the late fourth millennium BC and asses were employed
as pack animals by the Assyrian merchants who dealt with
the Hittites in the second millennium BC. The earliest evidence
for the domesticated ass in northwest India is c 2000 BC
(although there is some evidence for wild asses in the
. Palaeolithic) and it is presumed that it was acquired in the
exchange relationships between the Indus Valley civilization
(Harappan culture) and Mesopotamia. The domestic ass was
apparently introduced into Europe via Turkey (the Hittites)
and the Black Sea and it begins to appear on archaeological
sites of the Balkans, Ukraine and south Russia by at least the
first millennium BC. The spread of the domestic ass to Greece
was followed almost as fast by its spread to Rome whence it
was introduced to the rest of the empire. The pattern of
presumably loan relationships concerning *os(o)nos ‘ass’ and
its possible derivation from a southwest Asian word such as
Sumerian ansu- (which was also employed to designate the
‘ass’ in Hittite texts) makes a reasonable fit with the archaeo-
logical evidence which suggest the diffusion of the domestic
ass from southwest Asia to Anatolia and then on into Greece
and the rest of the Mediterranean. The other possible route
of the domestic ass into Europe, which involves a diffusion
from North Africa to southern Spain as early as the third
millennium BC, is without such a linguistic “trail”. The other
linguistic alternative for the ‘ass’, *gordebhos, is
chronologically and geographically unlikely to extend into
deep antiquity although it may have been applied to the
domestic ass, presuming that the latter had reached Central
Asia by c 2000 BC. Such an early arrival is possible as remains
of Bronze Age domestic ass have been uncovered at Gonur
depe in Central Asia.
The “non-horse” equid that is most likely to have been
encountered by the earliest IE-speaking peoples is the so-
called “half-ass” or onager ( Equus hemionus) . In the
prehistoric period it ranged across the steppe regions from
Romania and the Ukraine east to Mongolia, and also
southwards including Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and
India. It is identified on wall paintings from Catal Huyiik
from the sixth millennium BC and in the form of animal bones
from Neolithic sites in eastern Anatolia in the seventh millen-
nium and in Iraq as early as the fifth millennium BC. The
onager had several uses. It appears to have been specifically
hunted, e.g., the Yamna-culture site of Mikhaylovka, often
presented as a fourth-third millennia BC settlement of early
IE-speakers, yielded the remains of 1 18 onagers compared to
656 horses. Onager hunting, specifically for hides, is also
suggested for early Neolithic sites in northern Iraq. But some
have suggested that onagers also had other uses, such as
serving as draft animals. Given the onager’s widespread
reputation for a bad and irascible temperament, claims that
the onager was deliberately bred (and not just tamed or kept)
from perhaps the fifth millennium BC onwards are contro-
versial. Those who support the idea of its domestication cite
depictions of what are presumably onagers pulling battle-carts
in Mesopotamia from the third millennium BC onwards and
Herodotus records that Xerxes’s army still fought from onager-
driven chariots in the fifth century BC. Those who find such
statements incredible in light of the behavior of the animal
have suggested that these draft animals are probably a hybrid
of a male onager and a domestic ass. The geographical range
of the onager encompasses the historical territories of
34
ATTEMPT
Anatolian-, Indo-lranian- and Tocharian-speakers, and
possibly of some of the more eastern European stocks. These
same territories comprise most although not all of the current
IE homeland theories and so it is probable that PlE-speakers,
and certainly early east IE stocks, would have been acquainted
with the onager. It is for this reason, and possibly because the
crossbreeding of onagers and domestic asses may have been
widespread, that *gordebhos is as likely to have indicated
the ‘onager’ as the ‘domestic ass’.
The mule, which is the meaning provided by the Latin
and Slavic cognates of *mu(k)skos , is the product of an ass
and a mare (the opposite ancestry, i.e., a stallion and a female-
ass or jenny yields a hinny). Obviously, its existence in any
society is predicated on the presence of both domestic horses
and domestic asses and as the latter are not known in southern
Europe until about the first millennium BC, this would set a
lower time-depth of the reconstruction of an IE *‘mule’. Mules
seem to have followed the path of the ass, first appearing in
the Near East perhaps by the third millennium BC and then
westwards into Anatolia (Homer [Iliad 24.2781 claimed that
the Mysians raised asses) and then into Greece and through
the Balkans or westwards along the coast to Sicily and southern
Italy. As for their introduction into territories proximate to
the proto-Slavs, they began to appear on the sites of Greek
colonies along the Black Sea coast where their bones may
number in the thousands. It should also be noted that we
have evidence from the first century AD that the Romans
crossbred male onagers with mares and jennies. How much
earlier such hybridization was attempted is unknown but it
holds out a remote possibility for a somewhat greater antiquity
for an animal resembling the mule.
See also Horse; Wagon. ID.Q.A., J.RM.l
Further Readings
Clutton-Brock, J. (1987) A Natural History of Domesticated
Mammals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Mason, I. L. (1984) Evolution of Domesticated Animals. London
and New York, Longman.
Zeuner, E E. (1963) A History of Domesticated Animals. London,
Hutchinson.
ASSEMBLY
?*hiJ}~goro/eh a - ‘in-gathering’, [cf. IEW 382-383 ( *ger-)\
Wat 19 ( *ager-)\ Buck 11.85]. Grk dyopd ‘assembly’, OInd
agaram ‘house’. The comparison, although sometimes cited,
is dubious on both phonological and semantic grounds. The
Greek form is a deverbative from dyeipco ‘gather together’
and even if one posits *hagoreh a - as the underlying form of
the Greek noun this would not yield the Old Indie word but
rather an OInd *igara-. Thus, if the two words are to be
phonologically connected, a prepositional prefix, i.e., *hip-,
is more likely. Also to be considered here is OInd agaram
‘house’ which would have to be a neo-vjddhied derivative. It
is quite possible that the Old Indie words may be related to
OInd nagaram ‘town’ and hence be derived from Dravidian.
At best a very questionable late regional isogloss built on the
root *(h a )ger- ‘gather’.
The Greek dyopd named the place where people assembled
to hear their chiefs meet in council and administer justice.
The dyopd was a consecrated open space. In earlier times, it
was enclosed by large stones sunk into the earth. Subsequently,
the area was adorned with trees, especially plane trees
( Platanus ). In later times, it was built as a square open court
surrounded by colonnades. In Athens the term was confined
to the assemblies of the phyloi and demes. In Crete, on the
other hand, the term dyopd continued to be applied to popular
assemblies. The dyopd was thus at the center of political,
religious, social and commercial life. With regards to the latter,
the dyopd functioned as the market place and was therefore
supervised by a magistrate dyopavopoq having the same tasks
as the Roman aediles. The dyopGvopoi were chosen by lot
each year. Their task was to supervise retail trade, test weights
and measures, monitor the quality of food and settle disputes
among buyers and sellers.
See also Social Organization . [ A . D . V. 1
ATTAIN
*hieneF- ‘attain’. [IEW 316-318 ( *enek-)\ Wat 44
(*nek~), Buck 10.61; BK208 (*mtj[ h ]-/*neg[ h ]-), 407 (*hin-
akpj-^hen-akfr]-)}. Olr ro-icc (< *h\enk-) ‘reaches’, Weis
dianc ‘run away’, Lat nancio ‘attain’, ON na ‘approach’, OE
geneah ‘is adequate’, OHG ginah ‘is adequate’, Goth ganah
‘suffices’, Lith nesu ‘carry’, Latv nesu ‘carry’, OCS nesp ‘carry’,
Grk iveyKeiv ‘to carry’, Arm hasanem ‘arrive’, Av ^ snaoiti ~ -
nasaiti ‘gains’, OInd asnoti ~ nasati ‘gains’, TochA ents- ‘take,
grasp, seize’, TochB eiik- ‘take, grasp, seize’. Practically
universal in IE; clearly it is to be reconstructed for PIE. After
the loss of laryngeals in the various IE stocks, this word could
be phonologically confused with the word for ‘bestow’ ( *hz /
3enk-). The phonological confusion would have been abetted
by the well known interchange of verbs for giving and taking
in IE.
*tem- ‘reach, attain’ (pres. *t6meti) Grk (Homeric) repei
‘arrives, reaches’ (reduplicated aorist rerpeiv), TochAB tam-
‘be born’, TochA emol ‘birth’, TochB camel ‘birth’, atamo
‘unfruitful ground’. The geographical distribution of the
reflexes of this word would seem to guarantee at least late
PIE status. PIE *tem- ‘arrive’ would be the telic counterpart
of atelic *g w em- ‘come’. The latter of course has become the
term for ‘be born’ in Baltic (cf. Lith gemu ‘am born’).
See a Iso Accomplish . [ D . Q . A . J
ATTEMPT
*dhers- ‘venture, be bold, undertake, set about’. [IEW 2 59
( *dhers-)\ Wat 14 ( *dhers-)\ . Goth ga-dars ‘dare’, Lith drpsu
‘dare’, Grk (Lesbian) Gepooq ‘courage’, OInd dhysnoti ‘is bold,
dares’, TochA tsrasi ‘strong’, TochB tsiraune ‘strength’. Possibly
related is Lat in-festus ‘hostile’, mani-festus ‘palpable’. The
distribution makes it likely that the form can be reconstructed
to PIE.
— 35
ATTEMPT
*per- ‘trial, attempt’. [/EW818 ( *per-)\ Wat 50 (*per-);
Buck 9.99; BK 41 (*p[ h ]ar-/*p[ h ]dr-)\. Lat experior ‘test,
attempt’, periculum ‘trial; risk’, Grk nelpa ‘trial, attempt’, Arm
p‘orj ‘test, proof’. Lat experior seems to be denominal. Goth
kirim ‘fault’ may belong here but is probably better associated
with the root *per- ‘pass beyond’ as is ON far ‘danger’. It is
possible that this entire cognate set should be associated with
*per- ‘pass beyond’. Olr aire ‘watch over’, although sometimes
cited here, is probably not related.
See also Accomplish; Set in Motion. [M.N.]
AUGER
*tirhitrom ‘auger’. [IEW1071 ( *ter - ~ *tero-)\ cf. Wat 70
(*ter-); G1 612 (*t h er-)]. Olr tarathar ‘auger’, Weis taradr
‘auger’, Lat terebra ‘auger’, Grk reperpov ‘borer, gimlet’. From
*terhi~ ‘pierce’. Though nouns of instrument in *-trom are a
very productive category in late IE, it is quite possible that
this particular derivative with this meaning was already
present in (late) PIE.
The auger is primarily an instrument for boring through
wood as is seen in its various contexts, e.g., the first syllable
of the Old Irish form, i.e., tar-, was ingeniously explained by
medieval Irish etymologists as from daur ( DIL dair ) ‘wood’
while the word occurs in the Odyssey (5.245) where
Odysseus, after having planed down timbers, employs an
auger to bore them so that dowels may be inserted to hold
them together to form a raft. Hence, while the underlying
meaning might also accommodate the meaning of ‘awl’, the
general context here appears to suggest a woodworker’s tool.
An obvious technological context for the use of a borer in PIE
would be in the drilling of mortises for fastening with tenons
the blocks of timber that would have formed the segments of
a disc wheel or other parts of a wheeled vehicle (bronze awls
or augurs have been found associated with wagon burials in
the steppe region of the fourth-third millennia BC). Drills
were also employed in prehistory for the perforation of shells
or small stones for beads and, on a larger scale, to drive a
shaft through a stone ax, mace or hammer. In drilling through
stone the drill would be assisted by sand as an abrasive to
bore through the stone. Although all the words found in the
historically attested IE stocks indicate a metal tool, a stone
borer or some other form of organic borer, e.g., bone tube,
would have been employed both during and long before any
period one might wish to assign to PIE “unity”.
See also Awl; Nave; Pierce; Tool; Wagon; Wheel.
[D.Q.A., J.P.M.]
AUNT
*meh a truh a - ‘mother’s sister’. [IEW 701 ( *matruuia)\ cf.
Wat 39 ( *mater-)\ Buck 2.52], OE modrige (< *meh a truion )
‘mother’s sister’, Fris modire ‘mother’s sister’, Grk prfTpvia
‘stepmother’, Arm mawru ‘stepmother, mother-in-law’. The
underlying formal equations for Germanic, Greek and Armen-
ian are so good that they render independent development
unlikely, at least for some of the reflexes of the western and
central part of the IE world. Robert Beekes has suggested that
*meh a truh a - is a feminine derived from *meh a trous which
gives Grk pr\Tp(oq ‘mother’s brother, any relation on the
mother’s side’. The antiquity of the word for ‘mothers sister’
would then presuppose the greater antiquity of the word for
‘mother’s brother’ even though this word is attested solely in
Greek.
Wordick attempted to add further forms to the set derived
from *meh a ter-: OWels (pi.) modreped ‘mother’s sisters’, Weis
modryb ‘aunt, uncle’s wife, married woman’, OCom modereb
‘mother’s sister’, Lat matercula ‘little mother’, OInd matfka
‘mother; nurse; grandmother’ to reconstruct ‘mother’s sister’
as *meh a tfk w eh a , but his evidence is insufficient. While OWels
modrep and OCom modereb ‘mother’s sister’ may reflect such
a proto-form, Lat matercula , meaning ‘little mother’, neither
matches the semantics nor the phonology, being a diminutive
(in which the c is a dissimilation of original *t before */,
originally *meh a ter-tleh a ). His attempt to set these alongside
the German cognates (e.g., OE modrige ‘mother’s sister,
cousin’) also fails as the g is a palatal glide reflecting Proto-
Gmc *modunan- (shown, for example, in variants in which
the semivowel is spelt ig ; also seen in the Frisian cognate
modire). Nor can Olnd matpka ‘mother; nurse; grandmother’
be certainly placed here as it probably employs the common
Indie suffix *-ka < PIE *-keh a - t unrelated to the *-k w eh a -
that appears in British Celtic. Lat matertera ‘maternal aunt’
and Panjabi mater ‘mother-in-law’ reflect another common
suffix *meh a t(e)r-tereh a -. All of these other forms are probably
independent innovations as also are Grk 6e(<3 (a late word
attested only from the first century AD onwards) and TrjOiq,
which refer to both patrilateral and matrilateral aunts, and
are based on common child-language forms, e.g., NE daddy.
In addition to the derived form above, the maternal aunt
may have been called by the same term as ‘mother’. This at
least would be the expected term in four of the six kinship
systems that one might possibly ascribe to PIE, i.e., Hawaiian,
Iroquois, Crow and Omaha. Further evidence comes from a
variety of sources. Latin kinship terminology provides for
brother’s near relative or german ( fratres germani)\ a similar
distinction is observed in the Irish use of derb ‘true’, e.g,
derbrathair ‘brother (by blood)’, and the Old Persian
designation of a brother german as hamapitar- ‘of the same
father’, hamatar- ‘of the same mother’. The inference is that
‘brother’ and ‘sister’ referred to more than the siblings german
because the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ were extended to
people beyond the biological parents, namely their siblings.
To this might be added the fact that a variety of terms were
independently created to express the concept ‘mother’s sister’.
It is difficult if not impossible to reconstruct a PIE word
for ‘father’s sister’. A special term might be predicted if the
kinship system were Sudanese, Iroquois, Crow or Omaha
(Eskimo would have generalized a word for ‘aunt’ while
Hawaiian would have employed the same word as ‘mother’).
But other possibilities existed since sub-types of the Omaha
system (II and IV), which reveal skewed generations, label
— 36 —
AX
the paternal aunt ‘sister’, i.e., *suesor. There may be some
evidence for this in an Irish source where Olr siur ‘sister’
seems to be equated with ‘woman’s father’s sister’. But many
other terms are derived from the word for father by various
devices. Grk /rcrrptSand Av tuirya ‘father’s sister’ are simple,
productive jo-derivatives for words for ‘uncle’. OE fad-u , -e
and Fris fethe ‘father’s sister’ may be related to the root for
‘father’, but that is itself uncertain; OHG basa ‘father’s sister’
cannot be so related. Grk x pOig ‘father’s sister, mother’s sister’,
QeiG ‘aunt’ and xpOri ‘grandmother’ are Greek innovations
based on a child-word stem also seen in NE daddy and OCS
d£d? ‘grandfather’ while Lat amita ‘father’s sister, paternal aunt’
is similarly formed; the rare Late Lat ava ‘grandmother’ is
from avus ‘grandfather’; Lith ava ‘wife of mother’s brother’
was created from *avas ‘mother’s brother’; OCS stryja ‘father’s
sister’ is a feminization of stryjl ‘father’s brother, uncle’. There
is no certain evidence then for a word for ‘father’s sister’
although it might be said that none of the stocks reveal a
pattern that might be described as either Eskimo or Hawaiian
in structure.
See also Kinship; Uncle. [M.E.H.l
Further Reading
Huld, M. E. (1981) Cu Chulainn and his IE kin. Zeitschrift fur
celtische Philologie 38, 238-241.
AUROCHS see COW
AUTUMN see SEASONS
AWAKE
*higer- ‘awake’. [IEW 390 ( *ger-)\ Buck 4.63]. Alb ngre
‘awake, raise up, lift’, Grk (perf.) e-yprj-yopa ‘was awake’, Av
(perf.) Jagara ‘was awake’, Olnd jagarti ‘is awake, awakes’.
Perhaps also Lat expergo ‘1 awaken’, ON kerskr ‘fresh, lively’,
MHG karsch ‘fresh, awake, lively’. This root shows some
diversity in formations within particular stocks (a possibly
laryngeal-less origin for the Latin form) but its distribution is
broad enough to point to a likely PIE root.
See also Dream; Sleep. Q.C.S.]
AWAY
*hytu ‘away (from)’. [IEW 72-73 (*au-); Wat 4 (*au-)].
Olr 6 ‘from’, OWels o ‘from’, Lat au-ferd ‘carry away’, OPrus
au- ‘away’, Lith au- ‘away’, Latv au- ‘away’, OCS u- ‘away’, Hit
awan ‘away’, u- ‘hither’, Av ava ‘down, off, Olnd ava ‘from’.
Cf. Alb hyj (< *h 4 U-nie/o~) ‘enter’. Old in IE.
*h a et ‘away, beyond’. [IEW10-1 1 ( *ati~) 1 . Olr aith - ‘back,
out of’, Lat at ‘but’, Goth ap-pan ‘however’, Lith ato- ‘back,
away’, OCS otu ‘from, again’, ot- ‘away, out’, Grk drdp
‘however’, Olnd atas ‘from there’, TochA atas ‘away’, TochB
ate ‘away’. Old in IE.
*di ‘away (from)’. [IEW 181-183 {*de-)\ Wat (*de); GI
367]. Olr di ~ de ‘of, from’, OWels di ‘from’, Lat de ‘away’. A
far western innovation in form and meaning from *de/do
‘toward’.
See also Adpreps, To. [D.Q.A.]
AWL
*hx 6 leh a - ‘awl’. [IEW 310 ( "c/a), Gl 817], ON air awl,
OE eal ~ del ‘awl’ (> NE awl), OHG alasna ~ alansa ~ alunsa
‘awl’, Khot aiysna- (< *alazna-) ‘awl’, Olnd ara ‘awl’. A Goth
*alisna- is reasonably certain on the basis of the (borrowed)
Spanish alesna and French alene ‘awl’. Cf. OHG ala ‘awl’ (<
*hieleh a -). The evidence is very good that we have here a
word of PIE antiquity. The word was borrowed into Finno-
Ugric, e.g., Finnish ora ‘sharp metal object, drill’, Veps ora
‘drill’.
The awl, a pointed tool which is employed to pierce a small
hole in leather or wood, is ubiquitous across Eurasia from
the Palaeolithic onwards. Originally, awls were fashioned from
bone but they were manufactured from copper already during
the Neolithic and are among the earliest and most widely-
attested metal tools known in Eurasia.
See also Augur; Pierce; Tool. [D.Q.A., J.RM.[
AWN see EAR (OF GRAIN)
AX
*h 4 edhis ( *h 4 odh 6 s or *hjodh 6 s ? ) ax, adze'. [Gl 620
{*a/od h es-~ *a/odhH-es-)\ Puhvel 1:227-228], OE adesa ~
adese ‘adze’ (> NE adze), Elit ates - ~ atessa- ‘adze, ax, hatchet’.
Though found in only two stocks, and within Germanic, only
in English, there is nothing in the geographical distribution
of this word that suggests a “cultural borrowing” anywhere
along the line. Therefore, it is very likely that we have a
common inheritance of a PIE word for ‘ax, adze’.
*pelelcus ‘ax’ . [GI 620 ( *p il elek ll u-) t 771 ; Buck 9.25[. Myc
pe-re-ke-we ‘ax’, Grk ttc/Uwlx; ‘ ax’ , Oss faeraet ‘ax’ (from some
Iranian source > TochA porat ‘ax’, TochB peret ‘ax’), Olnd
parasu- ‘ax’. The word is clearly old in Greek where it occurs
both in the Linear B tablets and in Homer (in its base form
and in a number of derivatives), the later context revealing
that it meant both a tool and a battle-ax. The Old Indie word
also reveals itself as a tool, eg., where it is employed to fashion
wooden containers for Soma ( RV 10, 53, 9) while in other
contexts {Jaiminiya-Brahmana 2.232) it refers to a battle-ax.
PIE *pelekus is usually taken as a loanword into the various
IE groups where it is found and because of the palatalization
in Old Indie, is presumed to be an old loan (before the
satamization of the Indo-lranian stock), i.e., before c 2000
BC. It is commonly derived from a Semitic fonn but here
there is considerable debate over the underlying meaning of
Semitic *plq which is taken to mean ‘split apart; ax’ by Gl
but ‘to stick, kill’ by Igor Diakonov. Gl hence compare the IE
form with Akkadian pilakku which they translate as ‘ax’ while
Diakonov argues that the word means ‘spindle; stiletto'. Gl
derive ‘spindle’ from a homophonous root (but cf. OHG dehsa
‘ax, hatchet’, MHG dehse ‘spindle’) and agree with Diakonov
that it may derive from Sumerian balag ‘spindle’. It is perhaps,
therefore, a late ‘wander- word’ of the southeast of the IE world,
Semitic and Sumerian.
?*teEso/eh a - ~ *teEsleh a - l ax, adze’. [IEW 1058-1059
— 37 —
AX
Ax a. Flint ax; b. Polished stone ax (Linear Ware culture);
c. Neolithic hafted stone ax from Switzerland; d. Stone “battle-
ax” from the TRB culture, Denmark; e. Early Bronze Age
flanged ax; f. Later Bronze Age socketed ax; g. Early Bronze
Age shaft-hole ax from Hungary.
( *tekp-la-)\ cf. Wat 69 ( *teks-)\ Gl 6 1 1 ( *t h ek h s-)\ Buck 6.33;
BK 91 ( *t[ h ]ak[ h ]-/*t[ h ]dkl h [)} . From *tekseh a -: OHG dehsa
‘ax, hatchet’, MHG dehse ‘spindle’, Av tasa- ‘ax’; from
*teksleh a -\ OIr tal (< *tdkslo-) ‘ax’, ON pexla ‘adze’, OHG
dehsala ‘adze, hatchet’, RusCS tesla ‘ax’; cf. similar derivatives:
Lat tela (< *teks-leh a -) ‘cloth’, Rus res ‘sawn planks’, Czech
fes ‘timber’, Grk T£%vri (< *teks-neh a -) ‘handicraft, art’. From
*teKs- ‘fabricate’, thus originally ‘fabricator’ or ‘tool for
fabricating’. It is possible that these words all reflect
independent creations, but it seems likely that they reflect at
least late PIE creations.
?*haeg w isi(e)h a - ‘ax’. [IEW 9 ( *ag g (e)si ~ *aksi)\ Wat 1
( *agwesi)\ Buck 9.25; BK 401 ( *Tiak'-/*hak ’-)] . Lat ascia ‘adze
of carpenters and masons’, ON ox ~ ax ‘ax’, OE sex ~ aesc ~
aeces ‘ax’ (> NE ax), OHG ahhus ~ acchus ‘ax’, Goth aqizi ‘ax’
(Germanic from Proto-Gmc *akwizjd ~ *akusjd), Myc a-qi-
ja ‘ax’, Grk d^tvri ‘ax’. If the apparent Proto-Gmc *akusjd is
from *akwusjo with *-u- in the middle syllable rather than
inherited *-i- (compare Goth jukuzi ‘yoke’ with OE geoc
‘yoke’, presupposing *jukizi ) and thus secondary within
Germanic, then *akwizjd is directly relatable to Myc a-qi-ja
and reflects a PIE *h a eg w isi(e)h a - or *h a egijisi(e)h a -.
Alphabetic Grk a^tvr] and Lat ascia reflect *h a eg^ w) si(e)h a -.
The two putative PIE forms are similar but not the same. The
difference between the two stages of Greek is striking. It seems
likely that the history of this word is confused at some point.
?*sekQr- ‘ax’. [IEW 895-896 (*sekura-)\ GI 621, 771
( *sek h ur-)\ Buck 9.25] . Lat securis ‘ax’, OCS sekyra ‘ax’. From
*sek- ‘cut’. Other formations from the same verbal root include
Lat secula ‘sickle’, OE sigde (< *sekiteh a -) ‘scythe’ (> NE
scythe ), sagu (< *sokeh a -) ‘saw’ (> NE saw). The apparent
(almost) agreement of Latin and Old Church Slavonic has
been taken as evidence of a common inheritance or of
interdialect borrowing. Gl find a possible Semitic origin for
this word, e.g., Akkadian sukurru ‘ax’ which they suggest
may ultimately be a loan from Sumerian. Diakonov regards
the loan hypothesis as unconvincing as the Akkadian word
actually means ‘javelin’. That the word is built on a widespread
and convincing PIE verbal root militates against Gl’s attempt
to derive this word from Semitic or some other southwest
Asian language.
The distinction between the ax and the adze is that the
former has a symmetrical blade which is mounted parallel
with its handle while the adze has an asymmetrical edge which
is mounted at right angles to its handle. The ax then is
employed for a cutting motion while the adze is used for a
planing motion, e.g., the rough shaping of wood.
In terms of antiquity, the ax is one of the oldest forms of
stone tools employed by the human species where it was
initially held in the hand and used for smashing bones and
tearing up carcasses and then, subsequently, hafted in a
wooden handle and employed for cutting wood.
During the Neolithic period the axes of Eurasia might be
made of flint (chipped stone tools) or from some other type
of stone where the surface might be ground and polished
— 38 —
(polished stone tools); in some regions such as Scandinavia,
flint axes may also have been polished. Axes were generally
simple flat axes but in a number of later Neolithic cultures
(e.g.. Copper Age cultures of the east Balkans, the TRB culture
of northern and central Europe) and still more recent cultures
(e.g., the Corded Ware culture), the axes were often perforated
for hafting. These are often termed “battle-axes” and when
found in graves such as those of the Corded Ware culture (in
parts of northern Europe known as the “Battle-ax culture”),
they are clearly a male-associated tool or weapon. While they
may have served as weapons, they were also employed as
tools; conversely, there is dramatic evidence from the Linear
Ware culture of the earlier Neolithic that simple unperforated
stone axes were used for smashing in the head of one’s enemy.
It might be observed that despite generations of references to
the earliest Indo-Europeans as “battle-ax- wielding warriors”,
there is no word which clearly reconstructs the meaning ‘battle
ax’ from the cognate sets listed above. From the Neolithic
period also come both copper flat axes and perforated axes,
especially in southeastern Europe. The period of the earliest
texts revealing terms for axes is the Bronze Age by which
time axes were manufactured from bronze, an alloy of copper
and tin, which yielded a very much stronger implement than
the earlier copper.
See also Craftsman; Make; Stone, Thunder-god; Tool.
[D.Q.A., J.PM.J
Further Readings
Diakonov, I. (1985) On the original home of the speakers of Indo-
European. JIES 13, 92-174.
Rau, W (1973) Metalle und Metallgerate im vedischen Indien. Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, 1973, 8.
AXLE
*haeks- ‘axle’. [IEW 6 (*ages- ~ *aks)\ Wat 1 (*aks-)\ GI
625 ( *Haks-)\ Buck 4.30], Lat axis ‘axle, axis’, OE eax ‘axle,
axis’, OHG ahsa ‘axle, axis’, OPrus assis ‘axle, axis’, Lith asis
‘axle, axis’, OCS osl ‘axle, axis’, Myc a-ko-so-ne ‘axle’, Grk
axle, axis’, Av asayJ (dual) ‘shoulders’, Olnd ak$a- ‘axle,
axis’. Derivatives in *-l- which mean ‘axle’ are Weis echeTaxle’,
ON qxuII ‘axle’ (by borrowing > NE axle). Other derivatives
in *-7-, particularly *h a eksleh a ~, mean ‘shoulder(-joint)’,
presumably the older meaning of this whole family and which
is preserved in the underived *h a eks- only in Avestan (for
‘axle’ and 4 shoulder[-joint]’; one should compare the relation-
ship of ‘nave’ and ‘navel’); cf. also OIr ais ‘back’. Though
patently a metaphorical extension of ‘shoulder(-joint)’, the
meaning ‘axle’ was well-established by late PIE times. Some
have suggested the reverse with the word derived ultimately
from *h a eg- ‘drive’ by way of nominalization to an s- stem
*hages- > *h a Ks- and thus variously explained with reference
to the rotating movement of the axis or its wheels.
The axles on the earliest wheeled vehicles in western
— 39 —
AXLE
Axle b. Disc wheel with fixed-axle from Denmark; c.
Disc wheel with rotating-axle from Switzerland.
Eurasia were of two types. In Mesopotamia, the Pontic-
Caspian steppe, and northwest Europe, vehicles rode on a
fixed axle, i.e. , the axle was mounted directly onto the base
of the wagon on which the wheels, with a round axle-hole,
rotated. In Switzerland and southwest Germany, however, the
axle-hole was rectangular and both wheels and' axle rotated
together. The presence of this principle in the Mediterranean
and Atlantic Europe at a later date has suggested that this
second region was once much broader. Alexander Hausler
has argued that the different construction principles suggest
multiple places of origin for the wagon while others have
argued that the differences hardly warrant such a conclusion
and prefer to see the wagon as having been invented in one
place and diffused elsewhere. That wheeled vehicles might
be independently invented is indicated by the presence of
wheeled toys in Mesoamerica before any contact with
Europeans; however, the emergence of wheeled vehicles,
whatever their axle-construction, is very much a phenomenon
of the fourth and third millennium BC in Eurasia.
The most abundant evidence for early wheeled vehicles
derives from the steppe region north of the Caucasus where
several hundred have been found in burials dating from the
fourth through the third millennium BC. Here the axles were
generally narrow with a gauge, the distance between the
wheels, of about 1.0 to 1.10 m. All evidence for the earliest
wagons indicate the use of the fixed axle and there is no
indication of the pivoted front axle, the type of axle that
permits one to reduce more effectively the turning circle, until
the first millennium BC.
See also Novotitorovka Culture; Shoulder; Wagon;
Wheel; Yamna Culture [D.Q.A. J.RM.J
Further Readings
Hausler, A. (1994) Archaologische Zeugnisse fur Pferd und Wagen
in Ost- und Mitteleuropa, in Die Indogermanen und das Pferd ,
eds. B. Hansel and S. Zimmer, Budapest, Archaeolingua, 217-
257.
Pigg°tt, S. (1983) The Earliest Wheeled Transport. London and New
York, Thames and Hudson.
40
BAALBERGE GROUP
This variant of the TRB culture, dated to c 3800-3500 BC,
is essentially known from its mortuary practice.
Approximately two hundred Baalberge graves are found
distributed from central Germany to Bohemia. The graves
were set in barrows which may include up to ten burials and
the primary burial might be placed in a stone cist and
accompanied by ceramics not only of TRB derivation but also
exhibiting influences of the more easterly Baden and
Bodrogkersztur cultures. These barrows were re-used in subse-
quent periods (by the Waltemienburg/Bernburg, Globular
Ampora, Corded Ware and Unetice cultures) and provide
relative chronologies for a variety of the cultures of this region.
The importance of the Baalberge group in discussions of
the IE problem concerns its “eastern” affiliations since some
have argued that it was the product of steppe pastoralists,
presumably early Indo-Europeans, migrating into central
Europe. Such an argument derives from the observation that
both the Baalberge and the steppe tribes of the “Kurgan
tradition” raised barrows over their dead and they buried the
deceased in the flexed position on their right side (alleged by
some to indicate male social dominance). The association of
the Baalberge group with the steppe pastoralists of the Kurgan
tradition is, however, unsupported by both the evidence of
physical anthropology which markedly distinguishes the two
populations and by the fact that there are no intrusive steppe
barrows within nearly five hundred kilometers of the Baalberge
group. It is also argued that the precise burial posture of the
dead, with the hands held before the face in the “eating
position” is not matched by steppe burials nor do they exhibit In addition to its origins, the fate of the Baalberge group is
the intensive use of ocher in the grave also seen in steppe also seen as relevant to IE expansions since some regard it to
burials. Hence, a local origin within the early TRB culture is be ancestral to the Corded Ware horizon that spanned
northern and central Europe and has been widely acknow-
— 41
BAALBERGE GROUP
ledged as Indo-European. Again the reasons for such asso-
ciation tend to emphasize the parallel use of the tumulus over
burials known in both cultures.
See also Corded Ware Culture; Indo-European Homeland;
TRB Culture. [J.P.M.]
Further Reading
Lichardus, J. (1976) Rossen-Gatersleben-Baalberge. Bonn, Habelt.
BABBLE
?*baba- ‘babble’. [JEW 91 ( *baba-)\ Wat 4 (*baba-)]. Lat
babit ‘bears himself proudly, prances’, babiger 1 foolish, simple’,
NE baby, babble , MHG babe ~ bobe ‘elder, mother’, OPrus
bebint ‘mock’, Lith boba ‘old woman’, Latv bibinat ‘babble’,
OCS baba ‘old woman’, SC brbljati ‘stammer’, Alb bebe
‘newborn child’, Grk fiafidC,® ‘babble’, OInd bababa-karoti
‘crackle of a fire’. Widespread but clearly an onomatopoeic
formation; these words are unlikely to represent anything
certain that could be reconstructed for PIE antiquity.
?*lal- ‘babble’. [IEW 650 ( *lal(l)a-)]. Lat lallo ‘sing during
sleep’, NHG lallen ‘stammer, babble, speak indistinctly’, Lith
laluoti ‘stammer’, Rus lal ‘babbler’, Grk XaXoq ‘babbling;
loquacious’, XaXeco ‘talk, chat, prattle’, Hit lala- ‘tongue’, OInd
lalalla ‘indistinct or lisping utterance’. Surely onomatopoeic
in origin. It is possible that the original onomatopoeia dates
back to PIE times.
See also Stammer. ID.Q.A.]
BACK 1
*kuh x los back' |7£W951 (.*(s)kQ-lo-)]. OIr corback’,
Wels cil ‘back’, Lat cuius ‘rear-end’, OInd kula- ‘slope, back;
rear of army’ (for the semantics compare NHG riicken ‘back’
and the cognate NE ridge). From *keuh }C ‘be bent’ (cf. *keuhx-
‘hernia’). Related is NPers kun ‘backside, buttocks, anus’, kuna
‘buttocks (of horse or man)’. This Persian data suggest perhaps
the existence of a PIE I/n heteroclite. Grk (Hesychius) Kvooq
‘anus’ also belongs here (outside of Hesychius this word
appears in compounds, always with reference to pederasty;
Hesychius also gives ‘vulva’ as a meaning of Kvuoq but that
probably reflects a misunderstanding of one or more of his
sources), though the source of the -s- is obscure. At least late
PIE.
See also Body; Buttocks. [D.Q.A.]
BACK 2
*h^po ‘back, behind’ (temporal ‘afterward’). \IEW 53
( *apo-)\ Wat 3 (*apo); BK 435 (*ap[ h ]-/* 9 p[ h ]-)]. Lat ab
‘from’, ON a/‘ from’, OE ref- ‘from’, OHG aba ‘from’, Goth af
‘from, since’, Alb prape{< *per-h 4 apo-) ‘back’, Grk cbroTrom’,
ay/ ‘backwards, back again’, Hit appa ‘behind’, Av apa ‘away
from’, OInd apa ‘away, forth’, apatyam ‘offspring’. Old in IE.
A shortened form *(h 4 )po is seen in Lat po-situs ‘situated’,
OPrus pa- (a verbal prefix), Lith pa- (a verbal prefix), OCS
pa- (a verbal prefix), perhaps Alb pa ‘without’, Av pa-zdayeiti
‘frightens away’. Cf. Alb hap (< *h 4 ep-e/o -) ‘open’.
*h 4 ep- 6 r- ‘back, behind’ (temporal ‘afterward’). [IEW 53
( *ap-ero-)\ BK 435 i*ap[ h J-/* 9 p[ h ]-)]. ON afar- ‘very’, OE
eafora ‘descendant’, OHG avar ‘again, a second time’, Goth
afar ‘after’, afara ‘descendant’, Lycian epre/i- ‘rear-, later’, Av
apara- ‘behind, following, other’, OInd apara- ‘later’. A
widespread derivative of the previous entry. Cf. Lat aperio
‘open’ and, reflecting ^h^ep-ter, NE after.
*pos ‘immediately adjacent; behind, following’. [7EW841
( *pos); Wat 3 ( *apo -)]. Lat posterns ‘behind’, Lith pas ‘at,
with’, pastaras ‘last, furthest behind’, OCS po ‘after’, pozdu
‘late’, pozde ‘behind, after’, perhaps Alb pa ‘without’, Grk
(dial.) /rex; ‘near, by’. Originally, possibly a genitive of *hjep-
‘near, on’ and/or ^h^ep- ‘back, behind’.
— 42 —
BADEN CULTURE
*posti ‘after’. [IEW 841 ( *pos-ti)\ Wat 3 (*apo~) ]. Lat
post(e) ‘after’, postumus ‘after death’, Arm ast ‘after’, TochB
pest ~ past (particle indicating completion), postam (< *posti-
nu ) ‘after’. A derivative of *pos.
*po-sk w o- behind’. [JEW 841 (*pos-ko-)}. Lith paskui
‘behind; after that, later on’, Alb pas ‘after’, Av paskat ~ pasca
‘behind’, Olnd pascat ~ pasca ‘behind, westerly’ (because the
west is to one’s back when one is oriented toward the rising
sun). An eastern compound of *po ‘behind’ + *sek w - ‘follow’.
See also Adpreps; Direction. [D.Q.A.]
BAD
*h a eghlos unpleasant’. {JEW 8 ( *agh-(lo~) ); Buck 16.72;
BK 302 {*hagy ~/*hagy -)] . Mir alad ‘wound’, MWels aeleu
‘painful’ (< Celt *agl~), OE egle ‘disagreeable, loathsome’, Goth
agls ‘injurious’, Av ayo ‘bad’, Olnd agha- ‘bad’. Given that the
Old Indie form in -1- ( aghala - ‘terrible’) may be a late
development, this may reflect parallel formations in Indie and
the northwest from *h a egh- ‘unpleasant, disagreeable’.
*dus- ‘bad’ (as prefix). [IEW227 (*dus-)\ Wat 15 ( *dus-)\
GI 683 ( *t’us-)\ Buck 16.72, see also 16.19; BK 154 (T^aw-
/*f^9W-)]. OIr do- ~ du- ‘bad, mis-’, Weis dy- ‘bad’ (attested
in only a few words), perhaps Lat dif- ‘un-’, ON tor- ‘un-’, OE
tor- ‘un-’, OHG zur- ‘un-’, Goth tuz- ‘un-’, OCS duzdi ‘rain’
(< *dus-dyus ‘bad sky’), Rus dozdi ‘rain’, Grk 8vo- ‘bad, mis-’.
Arm t- (or perhaps from *de- or *dis-) ‘un-’, Av dus- ‘bad,
mis-’, Olnd dus- ‘bad, mis-’. This form is solidly reconstructed
to PIE in light of being a highly productive prefix (along with
its counterpart *h\su- ‘good’) across a broad range of dialects.
*ghalh x ros ev il, unpleasant, unhealthy’. [JEW 411). OIr
galar ‘sickness, distress’, Hit kallar ‘something evil or un-
pleasant’, kallara- ‘evil, unpleasant, unfavorable, unhealthy’.
Attested only in Celtic and Anatolian but the geographical
distribution of those attestations almost guarantees its PIE
status. Related are ON galli ‘fault, flaw’, OE gealla ‘galled place
on the skin’, MLG galle ‘wounded place on the skin’ (Gmc <
*ghal-n-on). The Celtic and Anatolian form on the one hand
and the Germanic on the other suggest a PIE *ghalhx-r/n-.
Morphologically distinct but also related are Lith za/a ‘damage,
loss; injury, harm, wrong’, Ukr zolok ‘painful place of a
wound’, Rus nazola ‘suffering, distress’ (Balto-Slavic < *galhxO/
eh a -).
*h2/3Uop- ‘treat badly’ (pres. *h 2 / 3 Udpei ). (cf. IEW 1 107
{*upo-)\ Wat 76 ( *wep-)\ Buck 16.721. OIr fel ‘bad’, OE yfel
‘bad, evil’ (> NE evil), OHG ubil ‘bad, evil’, Goth ubils ‘bad,
evil’ (Celt and Gmc < *h 2 / 3 upelos) , Hit huwappi ~ huwapzi
‘ill-treats, harrows, harasses, disfigures, despoils’, huwappa-
‘evil, ill, bad’. Attested only on the western and southern
margins of the IE world, this word is a strong candidate for
PIE status. The alternative etymology whereby the Celtic and
Germanic words are derivatives of *hiupo- ‘up from under’
( *h 4 upelos would then be originally ‘extreme, excessive’) is
not nearly as likely.
*leud- ‘act hypocritically, badly’. [IEW 684 ( *leud -); cf.
Wat 37 {*leud-)\ Buck 12.56). ON Ijotr ‘ugly, bad’, OE lot
‘deception’, Goth liuta ‘hypocrisy, treachery’, OPrus laustinti
‘humble, abase’, Lith Hutu ‘be sad’, OCS ludu ‘foolish’. Weis
lludded ‘exhaustion, fatigue, tiredness’ may belong here
although the meaning deviates somewhat. Other Germanic
forms such as OHG luz(z)il ‘small’, Goth leitils ‘little’, etc.
have also been placed here but seem to lack certain
connection. The distribution suggests a northwestern term.
See also Pain. [J.C.S., D.Q.A.}
Further Readings
Costa, G. (1990) I composti indoeuropei con *dus- e *su-. Pisa,
Giardini.
Zimmer, S. (1995) Indogermanisch *hisu- and *dus- in Kymnschen.
Zeitschrift fiir celtische Sprachforschung 47, 176-200.
BADEN CULTURE
The Baden culture is a large late Copper Age or early Bronze
Age culture of east-central Europe centered on the Carpathian
basin and extending northwards into Poland and south into
Croatia and Bosnia. The culture dates to c 3600-2800 BC
and it is a major component of a series of cultures extending
across the Balkans (e.g., Cemavoda I, Ezero) into northwest
Anatolia (Troy) that has sometimes been designated the
“Balkan-Danubian complex” although some archaeologists
would reject such a concept. These cultures do share broadly
similar ceramic inventories and in the central and eastern
Balkans they follow either the collapse of the long-term
Neolithic tell settlements or occupy the tells themselves but
after a cultural break.
The Baden culture is known from at least a thousand sites
that vary in size and location. Northern settlements tend to
be larger and more stable while those in Bosnia and Croatia
often give the appearance of small camp sites. Fortified
settlements are also known, particularly where Baden
bordered on a different culture. One of the most famous of
the defensive sites is the hill-top settlement of Vucedol in
Croatia where two houses were surrounded by a wooden
palisade and, where exposed, a ditch. The presence here of
an apsidal house, i.e., a house where one end terminates in a
rounded or apse-like construction, has also been regarded as
an important ethnic marker as similar houses appear in
western Anatolia and Greece where they have been used to
trace the movements of IE-speaking populations (but apsidal
houses are found so widely in Europe since the Neolithic
that any simple correlation between house form and IE
language is dubious at best). The economy was mixed;
agriculture is well attested including the raising of wheat,
barley, millet, oats, pulses and the gathering of wild fruits
and nuts. Livestock included cattle, pig, and especially sheep/
goat which appears to have increased in importance and has
been attributed to the introduction of new stocks from the
east. The Baden culture also exhibits some of the earliest
evidence for wheeled vehicles in central Europe as two clay
cart models/drinking vessels were discovered at cemeteries
at Budakalasz and Szigetszentmarton, both near Budapest.
43
BADEN CULTURE
Baden a. Distribution of the Baden culture
The ceramics include a variety of presumably ritual vessels,
including large anthropomorphic “urns” as well as many
varieties of handled drinking cups which have been associated
with new fashions presumably involving the consumption of
some alcoholic beverage. Burial was by both inhumation and
cremation, the former predominating. Where the settlements
are largest, the cemeteries tend to be smaller while areas in
the south such as Hungary have boasted larger cemeteries
such as Budakalasz with about three hundred burials. One
grave yielded two oxen which have been interpreted as
evidence for paired draft.
The Baden culture is frequently discussed in association
with the spread of Indo-Europeans because it possesses a
number of cultural traits that have been regarded as diagnostic
markers of IE society: the (occasional) use of small fortified
settlements, houses with apsidal ends (suggesting a pastoral
ancestry), wheeled vehicles, clay vessels suggesting both
drinking sets and containers whose use has been associated
with the consumption of dairy products or alcoholic
beverages, sexual dimorphism in burial rite with males
interred on their right sides and females on their left, and
cult vessels displaying solar symbols. Within the Kurgan
model of IE origins, the Baden culture is seen to serve as a
vehicle for its expansion and consolidation in the central
Balkans while those supporting a central European homeland
seek the genetic roots of the Baden culture in the earlier TRB
Baden b. Vucedol settlement (Baden period); c. Baden single-
handled cup; d. Baden dish; e. Anthropomorphic figures
f. Bronze dagger.
and Linear Ware cultures. The bearers of the Baden culture
have been variously identified with speakers of languages
ancestral to the Celtic, Italic, Illyrian and Venetic languages.
See also Cernavoda Culture; Co^ofeni Culture;
Ezero Culture; Kurgan Tradition; Troy. [J PM.]
Further Reading
Sochacki, Z. (1980) Some remarks on the social structure and
economic system of the Baden culture. JIES 8, 93-105.
* ptpnw tut ->*m*n*
BALD
BADGER
*meli- 'badger (Meles meles)’ . [Blazek 15-17]. Lat meles
‘badger, marten’, Slov (dialectal) male (< Proto-Slavic
*melici-) ‘badger’. Though only weakly attested in Slavic, this
apparent Latin-Slavic isogloss suggests that this may have been
at least a dialectal word for ‘badger’ (or some other mustelid)
in late PIE. The badger was widely hunted in antiquity and
its natural distribution extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific,
including all those regions that have been suggested as IE
homelands. Given the size of the badger (averaging about ten
kilograms in weight) and its distinctive markings, it is nearly
impossible to imagine that the PIE speech community did
not have a word (or words) for this animal.
See also Mammals; Marten; Weasel. [D.Q.A., J.RM.]
Further Reading
BellquistJ. B. (1993) ‘Badger’ in Indo-European. JIBS 21, 331-346.
BAG
*bhdlghis ‘(skin) bag; bolster (made from stuffed animal
skin)’. \1EW 125-126 ( *bhelgh-)\ Wat 7 ( *bhelgh-)\ BK 10
( *bul-/*bol-)]. Olr bolg' sack’, Weis bol ‘stomach’, Gaul bulga
‘leather sack’, ON belgr ‘flayed animal skin, bag; belly’, OE
bel(i)g ‘bag’ (> NE belly), OHG balg ‘skin’, Goth balgs ‘bag
made of skin’, OPrus po-balso ‘bolster’, balsinis ‘pillow’, Latv
pabalsts ‘pillow’, Slov blazina ‘feather-bed’, SC blazina ‘pillow,
bolster’, Av barazis ‘bolster, cushion’, Shughni vtfj (< Proto-
Iranian *bfzl-) ‘pillow’, OInd upa-barhanl ‘cover, bolster’ and
perhaps barhls- ‘(sacrificial) straw, bed of grass’. Distribution
assures PIE status. From *bhelgh- ‘swell’.
??*kijelh x k- ‘bolster, ball?’ [IEW 630 ( *kuehk-)\ . Lat culcita
‘cushion’, OInd kurca - ‘bundle’. Neither the semantic
connection nor the phonological (Lat *qualcita would be the
expected form) is compelling.
See also Basket. [D.Q.A.]
BALD
*klh x vos ‘bald’. [1EW 554 (*k e huo-)\ Buck 4.93], Lat
calvus ‘bald’, Av kaurva- ‘bald’, OInd ati-kurva - ‘bald’. Cf. the
next word.
*gol(hx)yos ‘bare, bald’. [IEW 349 ( *galuo-s )\ Wat 18
( *gal- ); Buck 4.93; BK 310 (*k^aP'-)]. OE calu ‘bald, bare,
callow’ (> NE callow), OHG kalo ‘bald’, OCS golu ‘naked’,
Rus golyj ‘bare’. Cf. the Balto-Slavic words for ‘head’
(* g(h)olh x u-eh a - ‘bald-pate’): Lith galva, Latv galva, OCS
glava , Rus golova. Probably here also belongs Arm glux (<
*gholh x u-ko- or *gh x dlu-ko-I) ‘head’. It seems best to start
from an earlier PIE *kolu- ~ ‘bald’. In a central area of
the IE world the initial consonant was voiced (and further
aspirated?), perhaps the result of its expressive meaning.
*ne/og w nds ‘bare, naked’. [7£W 769 (*no^-)\ Wat 45
( *nog w -)\ Gl 144 ( *nogf 1 ° -); Buck 4.99], ON nakinn (rebuilt
on the analogy of a participle from *nakri) ‘naked’, Grk yojivoq
(< *gomno- < *nog w nd~) ‘naked’, Hit nekumant- (<
*nekunant-) ‘naked’, Ay mayna- ‘naked’, OInd nagna- ‘naked’.
With somewhat different formations we have: Olr nocht
‘naked’, Lat nudus(< *nog w edho-) ‘naked’, OE nacod ‘naked,
bare’ (> NE naked), OHG nachot' naked’, Lith nuogas ‘naked’,
OCS nagti ‘naked’, OInd naga- ‘elephant’ (< *‘hairless one’).
The underlying word is well-attested throughout the IE world
and obviously old. Perhaps because of its expressive meaning
it was subject to a good deal of morphological and occasionally
phonological reshaping.
*bhosds ‘bare, naked’. [IEW 163 ( *bhoso-s)\ Wat 9
( *bhoso-). Buck 4.99]. ON berr ‘naked’, OE baer 1 bare, naked*
(> NE bare)\ OHG bar' naked’, Lith basas ‘barefoot’, Latv bass
‘barefoot’, OCS bosu ‘barefoot’. Arm bok (< *bhos-ko-7)
‘barefoot’. Probably restricted to certain central dialects in PIE.
The sense of ‘without. hair’ and ‘without clothing’ seem to
have been close in PIE. *ne/og w nos apparently could have
meant either ‘naked’ or ‘without body-hair’. Lack of body-
hair was a pre-eminent mark of immaturity. A similar
association is to be seen with OE calu > NE callow. Conversely
the presence of body hair was an important sign of adulthood.
The concept of the naked warrior is found in the evidence
of IE tradition: according to Diodorus Siculus an elite among
(Continental) Celtic warriors went into battle naked, yvpvog
( Bibl . 5.28); this seems to be an expression of an assumed
animal character and force, and the same warriors styled their
hair so that it resembled a horse’s mane. St. Gildas commented
on the “shameless” fighters among the Scots and Piets ( De
excidio Britanniae, cap. 1), and the image of the champion
fighting naked “before the host” is also suggested in the Welsh
sources, specifically in the three champions, “diademed” or
“gorgeted” men featured in the Welsh Triads ( Trioedd Ynys
Prydein T. 21, p. 37).
Baldness, or a lack of head-hair, carries some ambiguous
charges: as a sign of approaching old age it seems to show
that male virility (held in, or symbolized in the hair) was
retreating. Early balding might especially be regarded as a
kind of personal affliction: an Irish source cites “baldness,
weakness, early grayness” as kinds of supernatural
punishment ( Metrical Dinshenchas 3.1-25) and attempts to
reverse or “cure” baldness were well known. Curatives for
baldness using vegetable substances may have been conscious
of the hair:grass homology, but animal substances, such as
fats, were used as well: animals, in this way of thinking, do
not grow bald.
To show the mixing of images Olr mael provides the
ordinary meaning ‘bald’ but can also mean ‘shorn’ or ‘crop-
haired’, and so mael can indicate servile status or mark the
pre-adolescent male (the gilla) or be used of a shorn or
tonsored druid, a high-status figure of the First Function.
The great Finn mac Cumaill spent some time in his youth as
Demne Mael, Bald Demne, but Finn had some druidic, as
well as superlative Second Function, warriorly skills. His
“bald” state also shows a case of a price being paid for a
particular skill or talent gained. The Greeks of Homer’s epic
invention have their semi-comic target in Thersltes ( Iliad
11.21 2ff .) , who also combines a low-class appearance (as he
45 —
BALD
r \JLATVIAN
fcuroniarTV^
ISemigalliarr —
J Selonian
LITHUANIAN
^ Yotvingian
Baltic I Distribution of the Baltic languages.
makes a contrast with the ‘thin growth’ of his misshapen head
to the abundant hair of the Achaian warrior-lords) but
Thersltes too has his concealed connection to the satirist (in
the Old Irish context) and others who have certain powers
related in all likelihood to the Trickster figure, but not
completely detached from magical (and First Function)
potencies.
See also Hair; Trickster. [D.Q.A., D.A.M.]
Further Readings
Bonfante, G. (1981) La parole nudo e la nudita sacrale fra gl’ indo-
europei. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 66, 89-94.
Thieme, P (1963). Jungfraugatte. KZ 78, 161-248.
BALTIC LANGUAGES
The Baltic branch of Indo-European is itself divided into
two sub-branches: West Baltic whose only attested language
is the extinct Old Prussian, and East Baltic attested in
Lithuanian and Latvian (the latter also known as Lettish).
Though first attested only in the early fifteenth century in the
form of the earliest Old Prussian text, Baltic as a whole, and
Lithuanian in particular, is a remarkably conservative branch
of Indo-European and so plays a greater role in the
reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European than the lateness of
its attestation might suggest.
Old Prussian is the name conventionally given to speakers
of a West Baltic language spoken in the former East Prussia.
They are first mentioned in history, under the name of Aistians
(and thus at least possibly confused with the non- Indo-
European Estonians) by Tacitus in the first century AD. By
the ninth century Prussian, or some similar name, had become
the usual designation for this ethnic group. The Yotvingians
(or Jatvingians) to the east of historic East Prussia are presumed
to have spoken a closely related language but there are no
certain records of it. Prussia was conquered by the Teutonic
knights in the thirteenth century and christianized. At the
time of the Reformation the then Grand Commander of the
order accepted the teachings of Martin Luther and secularized
the order, making it into the Duchy of Prussia. Most of the
rather meager linguistic remains of the Old Prussian language
reflect the activities of German-speaking Lutheran pastors who
translated religious literature in Old Prussian. Thus none of
— 46 —
BALTIC LANGUAGES
Proto-Indo-European and Baltic Phonological Correspondences
PIE
Lithuanian
PIE
Lithuanian
*p
>
P
*potis ‘master’
pats ‘self’
*b
>
b
*dubus ‘deep’
dubus ‘deep’
*bh
>
b
*bhreh a ter ‘brother’
OPrus brote ‘brother’
*t
>
t
*tuh x ‘thou’
til ‘thou’
*d
>
d
*deiuos ‘god’
dievas ‘god’
*dh
>
d
*dhuh 2 mos ‘smoke’
dumai ‘smoke’
*k
>
s
*Erptom ‘hundred’
Simtas ‘hundred’
*g
>
z
*gpneh a - ‘know’
zinoti ‘to know’
*gfi
>
z
*gheimeh a - ‘winter’
ziema ‘winter’
*k
>
k
*kor- ‘war’
karas ‘war’
*g
>
g
*h a eug- ‘grow, increase’
augu ‘grow’
*gh
>
g
*h 3 mighleh a - ‘mist’
migla ‘fog, mist’
*k w
>
k
^ds 1 who’
kas ‘who, what’
*g w
>
g
*g v ou- ‘cow’
Latv giiovs ‘cow’
*g w h
>
g
*g"hormos ‘heat’
OPrus gorme ‘heat’
*s
>
s
*h a eus- ‘ear’
ausis ‘ear’
*i
>
j
*iuh x s- ‘broth’
jQse ‘fish-soup’
*y
>
V
*y lk w os ‘wolf’
vilkas ‘wolf’
*m
>
m
*meh a ter ‘mother’
mote ‘mother’
*n
>
n
*h x nas- ‘nose’
nosis ‘nose’
•1
>
1
*loksis ‘salmon (trout)’
lasis ‘salmon’
*r
>
r
*h 1 rudh- ‘red’
riidas ‘red(brown)’
*rp
>
im
*Kijit6m ‘hundred’
simtas ‘hundred’
>
in
*g w h$- ‘strike’
ginti ‘to chase’
*1
>
il
*y / k w os ‘wolf’
vilkas ‘wolf’
*r
>
ir
*mf- ‘die’
mifti ‘to die’
*1
>
i
*lik w - ‘remain’
likti ‘to remain’
*1
>
y
*g w ih 3 uds ‘living’
gyvas ‘living’
*e
>
e
*midhu ‘honey’
mediis ‘honey’
*e
>
e
*sehi- ‘sow’
sen ‘to sow’
*a
>
a
*h a 6ks- ‘axle’
asis ‘axle’
*a
>
0
*m£h a ter ‘mother’
mdte ‘mother’
*0
>
a
*l6ksis ‘salmon (trout)’
l^sis ‘salmon’
*6
>
uo
*doh 3 . ‘give’
dtioti ‘to give’
*u
>
u
*Kunds ‘dog’s’
suns ‘dog’s’
*u
>
u
*bhuh x - ‘be’
buti ‘to be’
*hi
>
0
*hiesti ‘is’
est'i ‘is/are’
*h 2
>
0
*h 2 erh 3 - ‘plow’
arti ‘to plow’
*h 3
>
0
*h 3 ok w ‘eye’
akis ‘eye, round hole’
*h 4
>
0
*h 4 orghis ‘testicle’
arzilas ‘stallion’
the few documents written in Old Prussian are written by a
native speaker and, indeed, there is no assurance that the
writers’ command of Old Prussian was altogether fluent. Still
there is enough data to make it clear that Old Prussian does
differ in certain significant ways from Lithuanian and Latvian,
e.g., OPrus dadan ‘milk’ but Lith pienas, OPrus agio ‘rain’
but Lith lietus or OPrus camstian ‘sheep’ but Lith avis. By the
eighteenth century speakers of Old Prussian were linguistically
assimilated to German or Lithuanian.
East Baltic is represented by Lithuanian and Latvian. Other
East Baltic groups are recorded in early historical times, e.g.,
Selonian, Semigallian, Curonian, but all have been linguistic-
ally assimilated to Latvian and/or Lithuanian (if, indeed, they
were very different from Lithuanian or Latvian to begin with).
Latvian at least has also assimilated speakers of Livonian, a
variety of Baltic Finnish similar to Estonian, and some of the
development Latvian has undergone has been attributed by
some to substrate influence of Livonian. As is the case with
Old Prussian, the oldest literature in both East Baltic languages
consists of religious translations. Lithuanian is attested from
— 47 —
BALTIC LANGUAGES
Baltic II Baltic origins. Shaded area (1) indicates distribution of Baltic river names. Area indicated by broken line (2) indicates generalized
distribution of the Corded Ware culture which many argue would have been the ancestor of the Germanic and Slavic stocks as well as Baltic.
the beginning of the sixteenth century and Latvian from the
last quarter of the same century.
In phonology Baltic shows clear connections with other
IE groups both to the east and west, but particularly with
Slavic. Both Baltic and Slavic are satam languages (along with
Indo-Iranian and Armenian) which means that PIE *k and
*k w appear as Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic *k and PIE *k
appears as *§ (in all Baltic and Slavic languages except
Lithuanian *S subsequently becomes s). However, both
groups, but particularly Baltic, show exceptions (e.g., Lith
pikus ‘cattle’, OPrus pecku ‘cattle’ from PIE *peku ) which
suggest that Baltic and Slavic were on the periphery of that
part of Proto-Indo-European that underwent satamization.
Both Baltic and Slavic also show the effects of the ruki - rule
whereby a PIE *-s- is retracted to *-<>- after *r, *u, *k, or *i,
an unexpected phonological development that is shared
otherwise only with lndo-Iranian. With Slavic and Germanic
Baltic shares dative and instrumental case endings in *-m-,
rather than in *-bh- as in all other IE languages that retain
these cases, e.g., Goth wulfam, Lith vilkams, OCS vQlkomQ
but Olnd vfkebhyah ‘to the wolves’).
East Baltic is generally a very conservative branch of Indo-
European and Lithuanian in particular preserves an “archaic”
aspect otherwise found in IE languages at least a couple of
millennia older. Particularly the declension of the nouns and
adjectives, with seven cases, singular and plural (and at least
in dialects the dual as well) persists as a remarkably faithful
witness to the situation in Proto-Indo-European. Only Old
Indie attests a system that is less changed from what is usually
reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. With regard to the
verbal system Lithuanian, and all of Baltic, has been much
more innovative. The PIE present tense is well-preserved and
the future reflects a PIE desiderative formation (i.e., ‘want
to’) revalued as a simple future. Both the PIE aorist and
imperfect have contributed to the simple past tense. But most
of the PIE aorist and imperfect formations have disappeared,
along with the entire perfect and middle. Very characteristic
of Baltic is the fact that the original third person singular does
I
i
— 48 —
BALTIC LANGUAGES
duty for the dual and plural as well, thus esti, the descendant
of PIE *hiesti ‘is’ is used for all numbers.
The relationship with Slavic is particularly close. There
are numerous Balto-Slavic lexical innovations, e.g., Lith ranka
‘hand’, OCS rp/ca ‘hand’, and a number of common
innovations in phonology, e.g., in the systems of intonations
inherited from Proto-Indo-European, and morphology, e.g.,
the creation of a distinction between definite and indefinite
adjectives. The development of the latter distinction is
particularly interesting from the point of view of comparing
it with the same development in neighboring IE stocks. In
Baltic and Slavic the definite adjectives result from the fusion
of the basic adjective with a following demonstrative pronoun,
*ios (a form which in other IE languages functions exclusively
as a relative pronoun), e.g., ‘which. (is) X’ (Lith basasis ‘(the)
barefooted’, OCS bosuji ‘(the) barefooted’ < *bhosos 10 s).
While the ancestral syntactic unit is shared by Baltic and Slavic,
the process by which the old demonstrative pronoun became
a morphological suffix occurred independently in both
groups, witnessed by the fact that word-final *-s had already
been lost in Slavic when the morphologization occurred. A
similar definite adjective is seen in Albanian, though there
the old demonstrative (or relative?) pronoun precedes the
adjective and is still a separate word (e.g., i ri ‘(the) young’).
In neighboring Germanic a distinction between definite and
indefinite adjectives was built by using purely morphological
material, each adjective comes in two shapes, “regular” and
in the form of an n-stem derivative. The latter is the definite
one of the pair. (A similar distinction may once have existed
in Tocharian.) We see a regional development of explicit
definiteness within late Proto-Indo-European, but only Baltic
and Slavic show identical manifestations of that definiteness.
Baltic Origins
The origin of the Balts has often been regarded as diagnostic
for locating the earliest Indo-Europeans. The conservatism
of Baltic, in particular Lithuanian, has been explained by some
as due to the fact that of all the IE stocks, the Balts have
moved least from their homeland and, consequently, mixed
least with foreign substrates who would have stimulated
language change. On such reasoning one popular theory of
IE origins of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century
set the homeland of all Indo-Europeans in the Baltic region.
Although textual evidence for the Balts is extremely late,
the evidence of river names provides us with a considerably
greater antiquity in mapping out the distribution of the early
Balts. It indicates that they once occupied a territoiy many
times the size that of the historically attested lands (excepting
the creation of an enormous Lithuanian empire during the
Middle Ages that embraced much of European Russia and
employed Belorussian as a chancery language). Baltic river
names are found from west of the Vistula and east at least as
far as Moscow and almost as far south as Kiev on the Dnieper.
The contraction of their territory owes much to the rapid
expansion of the Slavs from the south and east from the fifth
century AD onwards and the later conquest of Baltic lands by
the German Knights of the Teutonic Order coming from the
west. The evidence of Ptolemy in the second century AD of
names (Soudinoi and Galindai) clearly ancestral to those of
the later Prussian tribes makes it likely that Balts have occupied
at least their western territory since the beginning of the
Christian era. To locate the Balts any earlier on the basis of
written sources requires some guesswork. For example, in
the fifth century BC Elerodotus records the existence of the
Neuroi who occupied snake-infested lands north of what may
be the Pripet marshes and these Neuroi have been identified
by some as Balts; the Lithuanians, for example, were known
for the cult of the green snake (but the geographical position
of the Neurol is controversial and others would argue that
they might more easily be assigned to the early Slavs). At this
time the Pripet region was occupied by the Milograd culture
and one can then argue a long sense of cultural continuity in
the Baltic region back at least to the earliest appearance of the
Corded Ware horizon in the late fourth and early third
millennia BC. This is the earliest culture that occupies the
entire Baltic region, here in the guise of the local variant known
as the Haffkustenkultur, whose general cultural inventory is
at least potentially Indo-European, e.g., it was in possession
of wheeled vehicles, domestic horse.
Any attempt to trace the IE ancestors of the Balts to a still
earlier period runs into serious problems. The Neolithic
(fourth millennium BC) TRB culture of the north European
plain may also accord with many of the expectations derived
from the reconstructed cultural lexicon of the IE languages,
but its distribution only extended to east Prussia and cannot
be seen to underlie the distribution of the East Balts. Rather,
there appears to have been a slow acculturation of local hunter-
gatherer populations who slowly incorporated agriculture and
stockbreeding into their economy from their TRB and later
Globular Amphora neighbors. The archaeological result of
this process is the middle Neolithic Narva culture which
appears to have persisted into the Bronze Age in some areas.
There is considerable disparity between west and east
Lithuania with respect to the reliance on domestic animals
throughout both the middle (Narva) and late Neolithic
(Corded Ware) and it was only about 2000 BC that
stockbreeding begins to become important in the east. The
spread of the Corded Ware horizon in the Baltic region is not
particularly impressive in quantity, e.g., Latvia boasts no more
than about forty known Corded Ware burials. Baltic also
contributes to a set of cognates for fortified settlement (Lith
pills ‘fort’, castle’, Latv pils ‘fort, castle’ < *pelhx~) and it is
only in the early Bronze Age (c 2000-1 100 BC) that Baltic
hillfort settlements begin to appear. Irrespective of where one
wishes to locate the IE homeland, it is unlikely that we can
speak of the full Indo- Europeanization of the Baltic region
until 2000 BC although lE-speakers may well have begun to
enter the east Baltic a millennium earlier. The geo-
chronological position of Baltic also illustrates why the concept
of assigning the IE homeland to the Baltic region is rather
— 49 —
BALTIC LANGUAGES
implausible, i.e., it requires IE expansions from an area that
itself could only have become IE-speaking when we already
begin to find differentiated IE stocks such as Anatolian or
can confidently presume their existence such as Indo- Iranian.
As the distribution of the Corded Ware horizon covers the
entire north European plain and beyond, it is unlikely that it
describes the specific distribution of the earliest Balts but
rather their more distant linguistic ancestors who would also
evolve into their Germanic and Slavic (and possibly other)
neighbors. The emergence of a distinctly Baltic language stock
depends largely on what date one assigns to such a
phenomenon and other than confining the Proto-Balts to the
last two millennia BC, nothing else certain can be established.
For those who believe that archaeological phenomena can
reflect linguistic developments, it has been argued by Lothar
Kilian that the first major cultural differences in the Baltic
territory emerge only about 1000 BC when the West Baltic
area engages in cremation burial while the East Baltic region
continues the inhumation mode of burial. Since the West
Baltic territory subsequently appears to divide into three
regional units corresponding with the historically attested
Prussian tribes, this may suggest some correlation between
the archaeological and the linguistic data. Certainly the
emergence of Proto-Balts in the period between 2000 and
1000 BC is unlikely to meet with many objections.
See also Corded Ware Culture; Indo-European Languages;
Time-Depth; TRB Culture. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
Further Readings
Language
Fraenkel, E. (1950) Die baltischen Sprachen. Heidelberg, Carl
Winter.
Stang, C. S. (1970) Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen
Sprachen. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget.
Etymological Dictionaries
Fraenkel, E. (1962-1965) Litauisches etymologisches Worterbuch.
Heidelberg, C. Winter.
Origins and Culture
Gimbutas, M. (1963) The Balts. London, Thames and Hudson.
Jones-Bley, K. and M. E. Huld (1996) The Indo-Europeanization of
Northern Europe. Washington, D.C., Institute for the Study of
Man.
Kazakevicius, V and R. Sidrys (1995) Archaeologia Baltica. Vilnius,
Alma Littera.
Kilian, L. (1980) Zu Herkunft und Sprache der Prussen. Bonn,
Habelt.
BARE see BALD
BARK 1
*l6ubho/eh a - ‘bast, bark’. [/EW690; cf. Wat 37 (*leup-)\.
Lith luobas ‘rind, bark’, Latv luobs ‘shell, rind’, Rus lub ‘bast,
bark’, Alb labe ‘rind, bark, crust’. As such it is a word of the
center of the IE world but other derivatives also occur: Mir
luchtar ‘boat made from bark’, Lat liber (< *lubhros) ‘bast;
book’ (since bast, especially beech bast, provided an early
writing medium), OHG louft ‘bark, bast’. Also probably
belonging here are the Baltic words for ‘board’: OPrus lubbo
‘board’, Lith luba ‘board’, (pi.) lubos ‘ceiling’. Although
sometimes set here but probably not related are: OIr luib
‘herb’, OWels luird ‘garden’, and the Germanic words for ‘leaf’:
OE leaf'le af’ (> NE leaf), OHG loub ‘leaf’, Goth laufs ‘leaf’.
Words for ‘bark’, specifically inner bark, are sometimes
the same as or the source for the words for ‘book’ because
inner bark or bast (the soft elastic, sap-conducting layer) was
used by many peoples, including at least some of the early
Indo-Europeans, for writing. Thus, Lat liber' bark, bast’, which
was used for writing before the advent of papyrus, eventually
yielded the meaning ‘book, letter’ (cf. the etymologically
unconnected Grk pvphoq ~ fiifiXog which earlier meant the
inner bark of the papyrus, hence the paper, used for writing).
NE book ultimately comes from ‘beech’ (OE hoc) since in the
Germanic area beechwood was used for writing. In the Slavic
area, Old Russian lubU , for example, denoted both ‘bast’ and
‘material for writing’. Given these almost ubiquitous connec-
tions, one can posit a more specific, late IE meaning of ‘bast’
and a culturally critical meaning of ‘material for writing on’.
The many Slavic cognates such as SC lubura and Rus lubok
often denote boxes made of bast, specifically elm and linden
bast, an essential ingredient of the peasant home into modem
times. Possible metaphorical extensions of this were words
for skull and forehead (Rus lob ‘forehead’). Slavic and Baltic
reflexes of *leubh- often denote ‘board, shingle’ and the like
whereas Germanic reflexes, if they belong here, tend to denote
‘leaf, foliage’ and in Celtic we have Mir luchtar ‘boat made of
bark’. In sum, a large set of central dialectal cognates point to
either an original generic meaning of the exterior of a tree:
‘leaf, inner bark’, etc., or, which is perhaps more likely, ‘bark’
or ‘wood’, and, eventually, the diverse objects made of such
materials. A tantalizing hypothesis would derive the word
for ‘bark’ from a verbal root ‘peel, strip’, e.g., Slavic lupiti
‘strip’ as a source for lub ‘bast’; however, the reconstructed
verb ends in a non-aspirated p and hence cannot, by the
conventional rules, be a source of *leubh-. On universal
semantic grounds also it is relatively unlikely that an item as
basic in the lexicon as ‘bark’ would be derived from a rather
specialized verb.
See also Plants; Trees. [P.F.]
BARK 2
*leh a - ‘bark’ (pres. *lih a -ie/o - •). [IEW 650 ( *la- ~ *le-)\
Buck 18.14] . Lat latrd{ a denominative based on an unattested
*la-tro- ‘barking’) ‘bark (at); rant, roar’, Lith loju ‘bark’, Latv
laju ‘bark’, OCS lajp ‘bark’, Alb leh (< *loh a -ske -) ‘bark’, Oss
raejun ‘bark’, OInd rdyati ‘barks’. Widespread and old in IE;
not obviously onomatopoeic but rather inherited by regular
phonological processes from the parent language. Cf. possibly
Grk i)Xd(o ‘bark’ though this word cannot be a phonetically
50 —
BARLEY
regular reflex and fits better with *ul~. Compare also *leh a -
‘cry out, complain’ which may be related.
*bhels- ‘yelp, howl’. [IEW 123 ( *bhel -)]. ON belja ‘roar,
howl’, OE bellan ‘roar, howl’, OHG bellan ‘bark’, Olnd bhasa-
‘barking, yelping’, bhasati ‘barks, yelps’. Not obviously
onomatopoeic and if the Germanic and Old Indie words
belong together, we have good evidence for a PIE word.
?*baub- ‘bark, low’. [ IEW 95 ( *bau )]. Lat baubor ‘bark’,
Lith baubti ‘low of cows’, Grk /taufo) ‘bark’. An onomatopoeic,
formation, quite possibly independent in each of the three
stocks, based on the sound of a dog barking (Grk (3av fiav)
or cows lowing.
?*bhereg- ‘± bark, growl’. \IEW 138 ( *bhereg-); Wat 8
( *bherg-)\ Buck 18.14; BK 33 ( * bar-/* bar-)} . ON berkja ‘bark’,
OE beorcan ‘bark’ (> NE bark), Lith burgeti ‘spurt, splash,
splutter, growl’. The difference in meaning between Baltic and
Germanic strongly suggests that we have independent
onomatopoeic formations in the two stocks. At best we have
a late IE dialectalism reflected here.
The fact that the first two verb roots, neither of them
obviously onomatopoeic, can be reconstructed for the barking
of dogs may suggest the long-standing association of dogs
and people, an association long antedating the PIE period,
and the relative importance that association had for PIE society.
It might be noted that barking is an acquired trait, bred into
dogs through domestication, and it is not one of the behavioral
patterns of the wolf from which the dog was first domesticated.
It might be argued then that the first term, *leh a -, is
“semantically” in full accord with both the noise made by a
domesticated dog and also an expression of some of the
primary reasons for its domestication, to serve as a watch
dog and assist in the hunt. The second term, *bhels may
lack the informational content of the first.
See also Animal Cry; Bird Cry; Dog; Howl; Moan.
[D.Q.A.]
BARLEY
*ghr£sdh(i) (gen. *ghfsdh 6 s) ‘barley ( Hordeum vulgare
and/or H. distichum)'. [IEW 446 ( *gherzd(h))\ Wat 22
( *ghfzd-)\ G1 565 (*^ 1 (e)rd h -)\ Buck 8.44], Lat hordeum (<
*gh[sdheiom) ‘barley’, OHG gersta (< *ghersdheh a - with new
full-grade) ‘barley’, Alb drithe (< *ghfsdhi ) ‘cereal grain’, Grk
(Homeric sg.) Kpi~ KpiOr\(< pre-Grk *ghrisdh with *-e-> -
i- as in iKKoq ‘horse’) ‘barley’. Cf. the derivative OCS grosdQ
(< *ghrosdho- ) ‘grapes’ (< ‘fruit’ < ‘kernel’). Another possible
cognate is Hit karas (=/kras/, /kars/7) a kind of wheat. If the
Hittite word is accepted it may represent either *ghersdh or
*ghorsdh. Widespread and with no certain root connections
(though it has often been connected to *ghers- ‘stiffen, bristle’
as the ‘awned’ grain or the like), this is clearly the oldest IE
word that specifically refers to ‘barley’.
*h 26 lbhit barley’ . [IEW 29 ( *albhi-)\ cf. Wat 2 ( *albho-)\
G1 565; BK 457 ( *hal-/*hal-)} . Alb elb ‘barley’, Grk dXipi (pi.
aXipira) ‘barleymeal’. A somewhat different formation is seen
in Khot rrusa- ‘barley’, Pashto orbase (pi.) ‘barley’, Wakhi
arbasi ‘barley’ (< Proto-Iranian *arbusa-). Probably a derivative
of a word for ‘white’. Cf. Homeric Kpl Xevkov or aXipna
Xevkoc and the set of designations in Germanic for ‘wheat’
(e.g., ON hveiti, OE hwxte(> NE wheat), OHG weizzi, Goth
fvaiteis) that all derive from the word for ‘white’. The same
suffix occurs in Hit seppit ‘wheat’. However, the word for
‘white’ would appear to be *h^elbhos with a different
laryngeal. A word of the center and east.
*bhars (gen. *bhar£s(o)s r ) ‘barley’. [IEW 1 1 1 ( *hhares-)\
Wat 5-6 ( *bhares-)\ GI 770 (*t^ar(s)-)\ Buck 8.44; BK 24
( *bar-/*bar-)\ . Lat far (gen. farris) ‘grain; coarse meal; (coarse)
bread’, farina ‘flour, meal’, Umb far Hour, meal’, ON barr
‘grain, barley’, OE bere ‘barley’ (underlies OE haer-lic > NE
barley), Goth barizeins ‘barley-’, OCS braslno ‘nourishment’,
Rus borosno ‘ryemeal’, SC br'asno ‘meal, flour’. Just possibly
to be added here are Grk (Hesychius) (prjpov an ancient plant
deity, or Tfepoecpovr}, if from *Phersephone and if originally
*‘± grain-slayer’. Variants without *-$- , i.e., OIr bairgen ‘bread,
loaf’, Weis bara ‘bread’ (Celtic < *barageno/a-), Rus bor ‘millet’
are also known. They may or may not belong here. This word
is found in the west and center of the IE world and is often
taken to be a borrowing. Two candidates have presented
themselves. GI compare the word with Proto-Semitic *burr-
!*barr- ‘grain, threshed grain’ (cf. Hebrew bar ‘threshed grain’)
but the distribution of cognates within IE does not support
direct connections with the Near East. Alternatively, others
have derived the word from some substratum language of
central or western Europe. It may be, but, if so, it is a very old
borrowing, taken across at a time when the various IE dialects
were not very much differentiated. Arguing against the
borrowing hypothesis is the morphological shape that this
word apparently had in late IE, a morphological type that
must have been very recessive. That it should have attracted
a borrowed word seems unlikely.
*meig(h)~ ‘barley’ (‘grain’?). [Bailey 332-333). OIr miach
‘measure (of grain), bushel’, OPrus moasis ~ mayse ‘barley’,
Lith (pi.) mieziai ‘barley’, Latv (pi.) miezi ‘barley’, maize
‘bread’, Khot massa- (< *mig-so~) field’, if all these words
belong together, we have evidence for another widespread
and presumably old word, perhaps meaning ‘barley’, perhaps
something more general such as ‘grain’.
There are a variety of terms for barley that show a number
of overlaps among the IE stocks. The reasons for this may
have been motivated by any number of factors. For example,
the specific uses of the cereal (whether consumed by people
or animals), its movement from one social class to another or
its role in poetic diction. One of the more obvious factors
may have been the different types of barley being exploited.
The two main types of barley were Hordeum distichum (two-
rowed barley) and Hordeum hexastichum (six-rowed barley)
whose physical difference would have been obvious to a
prehistoric farmer. In addition, barley may be hulled, i.e., of
a type where the pales adhere to the gram after threshing
which would render the cereal more suitable for animal than
human consumption. Alternatively, barley may have been
— 51 —
BARLEY
naked, i.e. , the hulls would have fallen away at threshing,
thus providing a cereal more easily processed and consumed
by humans. All of these types of barley are so widely dispersed
over Eurasia that they would all have been known to
prehistoric groups of IE-speakers. What is perhaps most
striking is that the varieties of wheats are even still greater yet
we lack a similar large set of ‘wheat’ terms.
Because of a lack of gluten, a porous loaf cannot be made
from barley; however, a flatbread may. Barley is also consumed
in the form of porridge or, when malted, in the form of beer.
Although the range of wild barley probably extended into
the southeast Balkans, it is unlikely to have extended much
beyond those territories immediately adjacent to Turkey and
its area of domestication is generally sought in southwest Asia
where the earliest domestic barley is set to c 9000 BC. From
there it was presumably carried along with a variety of wheats
into Europe by the earliest farmers in the seventh millennium
BC (unless domesticated locally in adjacent areas of the
Balkans) where it eventually reached northwest Europe by c
4000 BC. It also appears in the region northwest of the Black
Sea, in the Bug-Dniester culture and in the Linear Ware and
Tripolye cultures from the sixth millennium BC onwards. Here
also a route from Turkey through the Balkans and then
eastwards is commonly sought although it may also have
penetrated north of the Black Sea by way of the Caucasus
where it appears by the sixth/fifth millennia BC. It is also
known in the Sredny Stog culture of the Dnieper region and
perhaps in southern Siberia by the fourth/third millennia BC.
Barley is hardier than wheat and it eventually supplanted
the latter in a variety of regions where resistance to climatic
extremes favored the former, especially in northern Europe,
where barley gradually replaced wheat in some regions as
early as the later Neolithic or later during the climatic
deterioration of the later Bronze Age. Certainly the relatively
large number of IE words designating ‘barley’ and the fact
that a word meaning ‘grain’ can also be used more specifically
for ‘barley’ strongly suggests that barley was an important
grain of early IE speakers although no cognate terms are
known in the easternmost stocks. Indie and Tocharian. It
should be noted that barley was hardly unknown in either
Iran or India. It appears in Iran by 7000 BC and by c 6000
BC domestic barley is known from Mehrgarh in Baluchistan
and later in the Harappan culture.
Where barley and wheat co-existed, and that includes the
IE world, wheat was considered the nobler of the two grains
and preferred for human consumption, e.g., in the classical
world where wheaten bread was the typical fare of the upper
classes and barley bread that of the lower classes (soldiers,
serfs and slaves). In several IE traditions we find the names of
wheat and barley brought together as a designation for all
grains. Thus we have Grk nvpoi xai KpiOfi ‘wheat and barley’
and likewise Hit seppit euwann-a ‘wheat and barley’. In these
combinations and in the placement of their constituents we
have a small echo of the PIE poetic verbal tradition and an
insight into how PIE speakers viewed one of their most
important food sources.
See also Agriculture; Grain; Stand; Wheat. [D.Q.A., J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Markey, T. L. (1989) The spread of agriculture in western Europe:
Indo-European and (non-) pre-Indo-European linguistic
evidence, in Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant
Exploitation , eds. D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman, London, Unwin
Hyman, 585-606.
Watkins, C. (1977) Let us now praise famous grains, in Indo-
European Studies III , ed. C. Watkins, Cambridge, Mass., 468-
498.
BARREN
*ster- ‘barren, infertile’. [JEW 1031 (*sfer-); Wat 66
( *sfer-); GI 101 ] . Lat sterilis ‘barren’, Nice stirtla ‘barren cow’,
OHG stero ‘ram’, Goth stafro ‘barren’, Bulg sterica ‘barren
cow’, Grk oxelpa ‘barren cow’, ozepupoq ‘infertile’, Arm stetj
(< *steno- ) ‘barren’, OInd start- ‘barren cow’. Widespread
and old in IE.
See also Castrate. [D.Q.A.]
BASIN
?*louh3trom ~ *louh3dhrom (wash-)basin’. [JEW 692
( *lou9-tro-)\ Wat 37 ( *leu(d)-)\ BK 581 ( *law-ah-/*hw -
ah-)]. OIr loathar(D!L lothar) ‘trough, vat, tub, basin; boat’,
MBret louazr ‘basin’, Gaul lautro ‘bath’, Lat po-lubrum ‘wash-
basin’, Grk XoExpov ‘bath’. From *leuh 3 - ‘wash’ with the
instrumental suffix *-trom. Similar in construction, but
different in meaning is ON laudr 1 soap’, OE leador ‘soap, soda’
(> NE lather)\ both a wash-basin and soap are (different)
‘instruments of bathing’. Given the divergence in formation
( *-trom vs. *-dhrom ) and meaning, the likelihood that we
have independent formations here rather than inheritance is
high.
See also Clean; Pot. [D.Q.A.]
BASKET
*k w as- ‘(wicker-) basket’. [1EW635 (*k u as-io-)]. Lat qualus
~ qualum ‘wicker-basket’, quasillus ~ quasillum ‘small basket;
basket for wool’ (< *k w as-slo- and *k w as-slo-lo- respectively),
OCS kosf( *k w as-io~) ‘basket’, Rus kos ‘basket, hurdle’. A word
of the northwest of the IE world.
*kreb- ‘basket’, [cf. JEW948-949 (*(s)kerb(h)-)]. ON hrip
‘packbasket’, ME rip ‘fishbasket’ (perhaps < Old Norse), OHG
ref 1 frame for carrying something on one’s back’, Lith krepsas
‘large satchel, backpack’. Surely related are the o-grade Mir
corb ‘wagon (-seat)’, Lat corbis ‘basket’ (whence by borrowing
is OHG korb ‘basket’), Lith karbas ‘basket’, Latv kdrba ‘bag
made from alder- orbirchbark’, Rus korob ‘basket’. The Baltic
and Slavic words are often, but not always, taken as
borrowings from OHG korb (itself certainly a borrowing from
Latin). The meaning of the Latv Mrba argues against borrow-
ing. The alder- or birchbark container is obviously a native
craft, owing nothing to Germanic or Latin models. Indeed,
52
BEAKER CULTURE
its technological ancestors, bark containers presumably for
coals, were found as part of the possessions of Otzi, the
“Iceman of Tyrol”, who was recently dated to c 3300 BC. In
view of the meaning of the Germanic reflexes of our putative
*kreb~, it is possibly significant that the Iceman carried many
of his possessions in a simple rucksack supported by a u-
shaped frame. In any case, it would appear that we have here
at least a word for ‘basket’ or the like, confined to the
northwestern part of the IE world, though as an item of trade
the word was subject to borrowing or at least renewal from
one IE group to another. Related perhaps to *(s)kerbh- ‘turn’
and, if so, more particularly to Grk Kapqyoq ‘dry stalk, straw’,
a raw material for basketry.
See also Bag. [D.Q. A.]
BATHE see CLEAN
BE
*h ies- ‘be’ (pres. *hi6smi l am\ *hi6sti is\ *hjsinti ‘ [they 1
are’). [IEW 340-341 (*es-); Wat 17 (*es-); GI 256, 264
(*es-); Buck 9.91], OIr am/is/it ‘am/is/are’, OWels hint ‘are’,
Lat sum/est/sunV am/is/are’, ON em/es/ero ‘am/is/are’, OE eom/
is/sind‘ am/is/are’ (> NE am/is), OHG ist ‘is’, Goth im/ist/sijun
‘am/is/are’, OPrus asmai/est ‘am/is’, Lith esmi/esti ‘am/is’, Latv
esmu/est ‘am/is’, OCS jesmi/jestu/sptu ‘am/is/are’, Alb jam /
jene ‘am/are’, Grk eipi/ecni/evzi ‘am/is/are’, Arm em/e ‘am /
is’, Hit esmi/eszi/asanzi ‘am/is/are’, Av ahmi/asti/hanti ‘am/is/
are’, Olnd asmi/asti/santi ‘am/is/are’, asat- (< *n-hjs-nt-) ‘non-
being’. Nearly universal in IE. Possibly originally ‘sit’. Already
in late PIE it was common in some parts of the IE world to
use a locative particle, *h\e/on , either with or without ‘be’ in
the third person. Thus beside eazi in Greek we also have
ev-i ‘(there) is’ (whence NGrk eivai ‘is’), Alb eshte (< *hjen-
sti ) ‘is’, TochA nas (< *hi(e)no-ti ) ‘is’, TochB nesam (<
*hi(e)no-s -) ‘is’.
*bheu(hx)- ‘come into being, be; grow’. [IEW 146-150
( *bheu-)\ Wat 8 ( *bheua-)\ GI 256 Buck 9.91; BK
8 (*buw-/*bow-)] . A pres. *bhuiie/o- is seen in the west of
the IE world: Olr -biu ‘become’, Weis byddaf' be’, Lat fid
‘become’, OE beo ‘am’ (> NE be); other formations are seen
in: OHG buan ‘live’, OPrus bei ‘was’, Lith butt ‘be’, OCS byti
‘be’, Alb buj ‘lodge, stay’, Grk (pvopai ‘grow, become’, q>vco
‘beget’, Arm busanim ‘sprout up’, Av bavaiti ‘becomes’, Olnd
bhavati ‘is’ (and bhti- ‘earth, world’). An old aorist
*(hie)bhuh x t ‘was’ is fairly widespread: Grk e'(pvv ‘would be’,
Olnd abhut ‘was’, and perhaps Lat fuV was, have been’, OCS
by ‘was’. Cf. the widespread nominal derivatives (1)
*bhuto-\ OIr both {DIE buith ) ‘hut’, Weis bod ‘dwelling’,
OPrus buttan ‘house’, Lith biitas ‘house’, and, independently,
Grk (pvzov ‘plant’; *bhuh x ti -: Lith btiti ‘to be’, OCS byti ‘be’,
Rus byti ‘to be’, Grk (pvoiq ‘nature’, Av buti- ‘name of a demon’,
Olnd bhnti- ‘being’; (3) *bhuh x sidnt- ‘(what) will be’: Lith
btisiant- ‘future’, OCS byspst- ‘about to be, future’, Av busyant-
‘what will be’. Widespread and old in IE. In the meaning ‘be’,
it appears to have supplied the aorist beside the present
*hies-. Its own present formations would appear to be late
and only dialectally present in late PIE.
See also Sit. [D.Q.A.J
BEAKER CULTURE
The Beaker “culture”, dating to c 2600-1900 BC, is a late
Neolithic or early Bronze Age cultural phenomenon that is
found intermittently across Europe from Ireland east to
Hungary and from Denmark south to Sicily. A distinctive
drinking vessel, the beaker, often with an S-shaped profile
and decorated in bands, is the defining characteristic of the*
Beaker horizon. Other frequent but not invariable associations
are made with archery equipment (barbed-and-tanged
arrowheads, wrist bracers, small bow-shaped pendants), v-
perforated buttons, copper daggers, and copper, gold and
silver ornaments.
At least four social mechanisms have been employed to
explain the wide-spread distribution of the beakers and, in
general, undermine their designation as a specific
archaeological “culture”. Their small cemeteries, the
Conservatism of ceramic forms over a broad area and their
association with early metallurgy has fostered the suggestion
that the “Beakers” were the first European “gypsies” or
“tinkers”, and hence explains their cultural integrity over a
large area of Europe. The presence of finely made beakers in
graves accompanied by local domestic wares has also
suggested that these were the product of craft specialists and
their largely maritime or riverine distribution has been
explained as the result of west European exchange systems
rather than evidence of any specific ethno-linguistic group.
The combination of the beaker with the archery equipment
and certain other non-subsistence goods has also been
explained as a “cult package”, adopted by diverse peoples
across Europe, and participated in by the higher status
members of society. In this way, the appearance of beakers,
the analysis of which suggests their use in the consumption
of mead, would perhaps mirror the much later (Iron Age)
spread of Mediterranean wine-serving sets that were found
in the graves of the Celtic aristocracies of western Europe.
Finally, in some regions such as the Netherlands and France,
northwest Iberia, parts of Britain and Ireland, beakers are also
found in considerable numbers on settlement sites and may
suggest population movements (or merely the degeneration
of the original social prestige of the vessels to household
wares). In general, there is probably no single explanation
for the occurrence of beakers in every region of its distribution
and there were probably several vectors (population
movement, exchange, etc.) that account for their spread.
The Beaker “culture” has often been associated with the
Indo-Europeans since there are good reasons to derive it from
the area of the earlier Corded Ware culture (the Netherlands/
Rhineland region is probably the most widely accepted),
which is frequently regarded as early Indo-European.
Alternatively, Marija Gimbutas derived the Beakers from east
central European cultures that witnessed the early impact of
— 53 —
BEAKER CULTURE
BEAR
immigrating steppe tribes. The fact that the evidence for
domestic architecture has been extremely meager and is
generally confined to flimsy structures has suggested to some
that the Beaker culture was highly mobile (presuming it
represents an ethnic group). Beakers are also sometimes linked
with the spread of the domestic horse (in Ireland and parts of
Iberia, for example), solar symbolism, weaponry, and the
introduction of early metallurgy — all seen as Indo-European
traits. Some physical anthropologists have also argued that
the Beaker population may represent an intrusive physical
type in some of its areas of expansion. For those who argue
for movement of people, the Beaker culture represents the
earliest evidence for Indo-Europeans (or more specifically
Celts) in the British Isles.
See also Corded Ware Culture. Q.PM.l
Further Readings
Gimbutas, M. (1991) The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco,
Harper.
Harrison, R. J. (1980) The Beaker Folk. New York and London,
Thames and Hudson.
BEAM see PLANK
BEAN
*bhabheh a - ‘bean ( Vicia faba)'. [ 1 EW 106 {*bhabha)\ Wat
5 (*bha-bha-)\ Buck 5.66]. Lat faba ‘bean’, ON baun ‘bean’,
OE bean ‘bean’ (> NE bean), OHG bona ‘bean’ (Gmc <
*bhabhneh a -), OPrus babo ‘bean’, Rus bob ‘bean’. Cf. Grk
tpccKog ‘bean’ and Alb bathe ‘bean’ (< *bhako/eh a -). At least a
word of the west and center of the IE world.
The wild ancestor of the broad bean ( Vicia faba) remains
unknown and is perhaps extinct. The earliest certain
archaeological evidence derives from the Near East, e.g. , Israel,
c 6500-6000 BC, and some remains are cited from early
Neolithic Italy and the later Neolithic in Greece and Iberia
while other forms of vetch are occasionally known from
southern European Neolithic sites. Generally, the domesticated
bean appears to have spread across the Mediterranean only
about the third millennium BC and then northwards as the
plant thrives in both warm southern regions and the more
temperate climate of northern Europe. As it is found in central
and northern Europe earliest in Bronze Age contexts (as is
also the case in the Caucasus), its dissemination among the
ancestors of the Germanic, Baltic and Slavic stocks probably
dates to c 2000 BC or later. Varieties of Vicia also appear in
India by the Bronze Age.
The common bean ( Vicia faba) has been the subject of a
short and inconsequential discussion of the IE homeland. Both
the ancient Greeks, or at least the Pythagoreans, as well as
Roman priests shared prohibitions against the consumption
of the bean, which was seen as the repository of the souls of
the dead. This religious justification was seen as supplement-
ary to physical reasons for avoidance as consumption of the
bean by some Mediterranean populations, particularly in
south Italy, induced favism, a severe allergic reaction resulting
in anemia, fever and other unpleasant effects. This favism in
turn was seen to be a result of a particular gene deficiency
(glucose-6-phosophate dehydrogenase) which, however, like
the sickle-cell gene, provided additional resistance against
malaria. On the basis of this, it was suggested that IE (actually
Mediterranean) attitudes to the bean might then be sought in
a homeland which fit the distribution of the mosquito and
malaria, i.e., northwest of the Black Sea, the Balkans and
central Europe. The concatenation of arguments bears little
credibility since it confuses specifically Mediterranean beliefs
and behavior with Proto-Indo-European and seeks an origin
for the malaria-gene deficiency complex outside of the region
where we actually find it in the Mediterranean.
See also Agriculture; Plants. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
Further Readings
Andrews, A. C. (1949) The bean and Indo-European totemism.
American Anthropologist 51, 274-292.
Boyd, W C. (1949). Note on Andrews ‘Bean and Indo-European
totemism’. American Anthropologist 5 1 , 679.
Giles, E. (1962) Favism, sex-linkage and the Indo-European kinship
system. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 18, 286-290.
BEAR 1
*h 2 ftRos ‘bear ( Ursus arctos)' . [IEW 875 (*fkpo-s)\ Wat
55 (*flko-)\ G1 417 ( *Hft h k h -)\ Buck 3.73], OIr art ‘bear’,
Weis arth bear’, Lat ursus ‘bear’. Alb ari ‘bear’, Grk apicroq
‘bear’, Arm a/J ‘bear’, Hit hart(ag)ga- (= lhartka- 1 ) ‘a kind of
priest or cultic official, bear-man’, Av ansa- ‘bear’, NPers xirs
‘bear’, Olnd fksa- ‘bear’. Note that Lat ursa , Grk dptcrog, Olnd
fksa- all designate the ‘Big Dipper’ or ‘Plow’ ( Ursa Major)
constellation as well. Cf. also Lith irstva ‘bear’s den’, (dial.)
sirtva ~ sirta ~ sirtas ‘den, lair’ (if < *h2ftko/eh a ). Perhaps
originally a nominalized adjective, *h2ftkos ‘destroying’
(nominalized by a shift of stress), itself from *h2retkes seen
in Av rasah- ‘destruction’, Olnd raksas- ‘destruction’. Wide-
spread and old in IE. It may be significant that in the northern
tier of IE languages (Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and [partly]
Celtic) this inherited word for ‘bear’, originally itself surely a
descriptive substitute for a term now completely vanished,
was replaced by newer words, all apparently “taboo”
substitutes. Thus in Germanic the bear is ‘the brown’ one (cf.
ON bjpm , OE bera [> NE bear], OHG bero), in Baltic ‘the
ice-fisher’ (cf. Lith lokys ‘bear’ and ludkyti ‘break the ice in
order to fish’), in Slavic (and Old Indie) the ‘honey-eater’ (thus
OCS medvedrbeaf , Olnd madhv-ad- ‘honey-eater’). It has
also been suggested that under the same taboo pressure, some
Uralic tribes adopted the Indo-Iranian word for ‘bear’ which
emerges in Finnish as karhu (< Indo-Iranian *hfksas).
The brown bear ( Ursus arctos), the only likely referent of
*h2ftKos, was ubiquitous across Eurasia in almost all terri-
tories in which IE languages are spoken (as far south as Iran
where it has been recovered from prehistoric sites, Kashmir
— 55 —
BEAR
and the Punjab) although its present distribution has seen its
virtual disappearance in western Europe. The bear has some-
times been regarded as diagnostic in excluding the steppe
lands north of the Black Sea as a potential homeland area;
however, remains of bears have been recovered from Tripolye,
Sredny Stog, Yamna and Catacomb sites, clearly indicating
their presence in this region. As this territory also includes
the use of bear teeth in pendants or burial with bear claws, in
both the steppe region and in the Fatyanovo culture in the
forest zone, it is clear that bears may have also exercised some
ritual-symbolic function in prehistoric society. How this role
may have applied to specifically PIE society is difficult to
determine as the bear is widely embued with certain cultic
significance in many cultures, cf. Greek Artemis whose name
is derived from that of the ‘bear’ and served as “Mistress of
Animals” and the hunt. Bear-skin dress can be observed in a
Hittite ritual where one of the dancers, the LU hartagga -,
member of the ‘bear people’, is apparently dressed in a bear
skin while the term in Old Norse for a warrior, operating out
of control in battle-frenzy, is berserkr(> NE berserk), which
many take to be literally ‘bear-shirted’, indicating one either
dressed in the manner of a bear or having taken on the
characteristics of a bear. The bear, in particular the she -bear,
is a widespread symbol of fertility and child-bearing.
One historical curiosity is some nineteenth-century
attempts to relate the word for bear, *h2ftkos with that for
‘white, *h2fg- (only possible with some non-discriminatory
nineteenth-century reconstructions) and postulate an original
PIE *‘white (bear)’. This was one of a number of extraordinary
arguments for the theory of a polar origin for the Indo-
Europeans which here required the reconstruction of * ‘polar
bear ( Thalarctos maritimus)' .
See also Mammals. [D.Q.A., J.PM ]
Further Readings
Delamarre, X. (1992) Finnois karhu , aryen *hyksas, indo-europeen
*h 2 ftkos 'ours’. KZ105, 151-154.
Karaliunas, S. (1993) ‘Reflexes of IE *h 2 ftko- “bear” in Baltic’. JIES
21, 367-372.
BEAR 2
*bh6re/o- ‘bear (a child)’. [ IEW 128-132 ( *bher-)\ Wat 7
( *bher-)\ GI 32, 193 ( *b h er-)\ Buck 4.72; BK 6 (*bar-/
*bar-)\. OIr beirid ‘bears, carries’, Lat few ‘bear, carry’, ON
bera ‘bear, carry’, OE beran ‘bear, carry’ (> NE bear), OHG
(gi)beran ‘bear, carry’, Goth bairan ‘bear, carry’, OCS berq
‘gather’, ORus beru ‘gather’, Alb bie (< *bherid) ‘bring, take’,
Grk (pepca ‘bear, carry’, Arm berem ‘bear, carry’, Av baraiti
‘bears, carries’, OInd bharati ‘bears, carries’, TochAB par- ‘bear,
carry’. A widespread but banal use of the ordinary, virtually
pan-IE, word for ‘bear, carry’. More probative are various
derivatives: ON bam ‘child’, OE beam ‘child’ (> NE bairn [in
Scotland]), Alb barre ‘burden, fetus’ (all < *bhomo-). Alb bir
(< *bherds) ‘son’, Lith bemas ‘child’, Latv barns' child’, TochB
prentsa ‘pregnant (of a woman); potent (of a man)’.
*seu(hx)- ‘bear a child’. [IEW 913-914 ( *seu-)\ Wat 58
(*seu 9 -): Gl 511 ( *seu -); Buck 2.41, 4.71; BK 169 ( *s>’aw-/
Vdw-)]. OIr suth (< *su-tu-) ‘birth, fruit’, Av hu- ‘bear a
child’, Olnd sQte ‘bears/begets a child’. More common are
the derivatives *suh x nus and *suh x ius ‘son’: ON sunr, OE
sunu (> NE son), OHG sunu, Lith sunus, OCS synu , Av hunu-
(of evil beings), OInd sunu-, and Grk vivg, TochA se, TochB
soy. Cf. also Weis hogen ‘girl’ and Arm ustr L son’ (rebuilt after
dustr ‘daughter’). Outside of Anatolian this seems to be the
original verb for ‘bear a child’.
*genhi- ‘beget a child; be born’: [IEW 373 ( *gen-)\ Wat
19 ( *gend-)\ Gl 652 ( */c’en-(f /3 »; BK 275 ( *k'an-/*k'dn-)\ .
OLat gend ‘beget’, gigno ‘produce’, OE cennan (< *gonh jeie/
o-) ‘beget’, Grk yevvdco ‘beget’, OInd janati ‘begets’. These
are all secondary, transitive, formations built in the individual
stocks. The underlying intransitive and undoubtedly older
formation ‘be born’ is to be seen in OIr rogenar
(< *ro-gegn-) ‘am born’, OLat gnascor" am born’ (Lat nascor),
Grk yiyvopai ‘am bom’, yeyova ‘am born’, OInd jajana ‘am
born’. The various present forms are post-PlE developments.
Cf. too the plentiful derivatives such as Lat natio ‘nation’,
Grk yeveoig ‘birth, origins’, OInd jati- ‘birth, family’, etc.
*tek- ‘bear or beget a child’. [IEW 1057 ( *tek-)\ Wat 69
( *tek-)\ GI 131 ( *t h ek h ~) ; Buck 4.71, 4.72], Grk tbccopai (<
*ti-tk-omai) ‘bear, beget’. Cf. *tekmen- and *tek(m)n-(o)-:
ON pegn ‘man, free servant’, OE pegn ‘freeman, master, noble,
free servant’ (> NE thane), OHG degan ‘nobleman, hero; child,
servant’, OInd takman- ‘child, offspring’. Though less well
attested, there is still good evidence for assuming PIE status
for this root and its derivatives.
*pelhx- ‘bear young (of animal)’ (particularly ‘to foal’?).
[IEW 7 99 ( *pel-)\ Wat 47 ( *pau-)} . MWels ebawl (< *h } ekuo-
polh x o-) ‘foal’, ON foli (< *p\h x on-) ‘foal, colt’, fyl
(< *p\h x io-) ‘foal, colt’, fylja ‘filly’ (borrowed > NE filly), OE
fola ‘foal, colt’ (> NE foal), OHG folo ‘foal, colt', fulihha ‘filly’,
Goth fula ‘foal’, Alb pjell ‘give birth to, produce’, pele (<
*pdlh x n(i)eh a - [a lengthened grade derivative of the n-stem
seen in the Germanic words for ‘foal’]) ‘mare’, Myc po-ro ‘foal’,
Grk ncoXog ‘foal’, Arm ul (< *pdlh x os) ‘kid, young of deer or
gazelle’, amul(< *Q-pdlhxOS-) unfruitful, barren’, yh (< *i- +
*polh x niieh a -) ‘pregnant’. At least a word of the west and
center of the IE world.
See also Child; Son. [D.Q.A.]
BEAUTIFUL
*kal- ‘beautiful’. [/EW524 (*kaI-)\ Wat 26 (*ka/-); Buck
16.81]. Grk tcccXog ‘beautiful’, raATiW'more beautiful’, OInd
kalya- ‘healthy, prepared for, clever’, kalyana- ‘beautiful,
agreeable, excellent, good, salutary’. Although cited in some
handbooks, the Germanic forms ON hair ‘man’, OE haele
‘man’, OHG helid ‘man, warrior’ (< Gmc *kali- ‘man’) are
semantically insecure, while TochA kalwalte beautiful’ is more
likely < *keu-. The heart of the etymology is the Greek- Indie
correspondence, which is less than completely tight
— 56
BEE
semantically but fairly probable; otherwise, the evidence in
every other stock is weak.
U-C.S.]
BEAVER
*bh€bhrus ‘beaver ( Castor fiber)'. [ IEW 136-137 ( *bhe-
bhru-s)\ Wat 7 ( *bhibhru- ~ *bhebhru-)\ G1 448 ( *b b ib h er~
*b h eb b er)\ BK 29 ( *burL-/*borT-)] . OBret beuer ‘beaver’ (if
not loanword), Gaul bebru- ‘beaver’, Lat fiber ‘beaver’, ON
bjorr ‘beaver’, OE beofor ‘beaver’ (> NE beaver), OHG bibar
‘beaver’, OPrus bebrus ‘beaver’, Lith bebras ~ bebriis ‘beaver’,
Rus bobr ‘beaver’, Av bawra- ~ bawri- ‘beaver’. Cf. the
underlying adjective in Olnd babhru- ‘red-brown’. PIE
*bhebhrus ‘beaver’ shows regular retraction of stress in the
originally derived noun. A secondary nominalization of Olnd
babhru-, with no change of stress, yields Olnd babhru-
‘mongoose’. There is a widespread PIE derivative *bhebhnnos
‘pertaining to (a) beaver/beavers’ in Gaul bebrinus ‘[river] of
the beavers’, Lat fibrinus ‘of the beavers’, OHG bibarin ‘of the
beavers’, Lith bebrinis ‘of the beavers’, Av bawraini- ‘of the
beavers’. The ‘beaver’ also appears to underlie a series of tribal
names, e.g., Mir Bibraige, OBrit Bibroci, and in Bythinia the
tribal name Bebrukes has been interpreted as “Thracian”.
The utility of beaver skins has insured that its presence is
often attested on archaeological sites of the Neolithic period
in those regions in which it was present. For example, at the
site of Dereivka, proposed by supporters of the “Kurgan
theory” as one of the typical early Indo-European settlements,
the remains of fifteen beavers were recovered that suggests
deliberate hunting rather than chance encounters. It has also
been recovered from Poland during the Neolithic in
considerable numbers. The general range of the beaver in the
Neolithic period extended from Britain (but not Ireland
despite the evidence for ‘beaver’ in a tribal name) on the west
across Siberia; however, the southern limits are generally set
north of the Mediterranean (although the beaver has been
claimed for Iberia), Anatolia and the area north of the Caspian
and Aral seas. Its lexical retention in Iranian is not unexpected
since the territory of some of the eastern dialects could still
include the beaver. In the Avesta the beaver is associated with
the goddess Anahita. Its absence from the Indian subcontinent
explains not only the loss of PIE bhebhru- ‘beaver’ but also
the morphological gap which permitted the creation of
babhru- ‘mongoose’.
See also Mammals. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
Further Reading
Hamp, E. P (1972) On Indo-European names in e-reduplication. IF
77, 159-170.
BED
*l£ghes-~ *ldghos ‘place for lying, bed, couch’. [/EW658-
659 ( *legh-)\ cf. Wat 35 ( *legh-)\ GI 29 ( *leG b -)\ Buck 7.42;
BK 587 ( *lag-/*bg-)[. From *leghes-\ MBret lech (< *legh-s-
o-) ‘place’, Grk A^og'bed, bier’; from *loghos: ON lag ‘layer.
place’, Rus log ‘ravine’, SC log ‘lair, den; riverbed’. Alb lagje
‘city precinct, neighborhood’ {-je is a secondary suffix), Grk
Xoxoq (< *logh-o-) ‘place for lying, ambush’, TochA lak
‘riverbed’, lake ‘bed, resting place’, TochB leke ~ leki ‘bed,
resting place’. Other formations are seen in Olr lige (<
*leghiom) ‘act of lying down; bed, couch, grave’, Weis lie (<
*legho-) ‘place’, Lat lectus (< *legh-to-) ‘bed, funeral couch’,
OE leger ‘lying, illness; couch, bed; grave’ (> NE lair), OHG
legar ‘couch, grave’, Goth ligrs ‘bed, couch’ (< *legh-ro-), OHG
lehtar ‘womb; placenta’, Grk XeKTpov{< *leghtrom) ‘couch,
bed; marriage bed’. Cf. Grk aXo%oq ‘partner of one’s bed,
wife’, SerbCS su-logu ‘wife’ (both < *sqi-logho- ‘lying
together’). From *legh- ‘lie down’.
?*sterh3mQ (gen. *stjh3mnds or *stjh3m6ns) ‘strewn place,
?bed\ [IEW 1029-1030 ( *stf-men-)\ Wat 66 ( *sfer-); Buck
7.42; BK 113 ( *t[ b ]ar-/*t[ b ]ar -)]. Lat stramen ‘straw’, Grk
GTpcofia ‘straw, bed’, Olnd stariman- ‘act of spreading-out,
bed, couch’. From *ster(hj)- ‘strew’.
Although the two terms derive from PIE roots, both, but
particularly the second, may be banal constructions, built on
the concepts of ‘lying down’ or ‘strewing’, which may have
developed independently in various stocks. Although clay
models of chairs and tables from Neolithic (c 6000-4000 BC)
south-east Europe suggest skills of carpentry technology that
might have produced a timber-framed bed, there is no
evidence for a reconstructible word for a bed as furniture and
what little archaeological evidence does exists suggests, in
general, only a place where organic material may have served
as a soft foundation for sleeping. The underlying form in the
Germanic languages (ON bedr, OE bedd [> NE bed], OHG
betti, Goth badi), *badja- ‘bed’ is also to be found as a Finnish
loanword, patja ‘cushion’, and is presumed to derive from
*bhedh- ‘bend, press’, with reference to some organic material
on which one might lie. The extension of meaning from ‘lying
down’ or ‘bed’ to ‘grave’ or ‘bier’ is found in Celtic, Italic (where
Latin lectus > Olr lecht ‘grave’) and Germanic. Greek and
Roman sources reveal that the dead were placed on a bed
before being carried to either a place of burning or burial.
See also Lie 1 ; Litter. [A.D.V.]
BEE
*bhi-k w 6- 1 bee, stinging insect’. [IEW 1 16 ( *bhei-)\ GI 516
(*b b oi-k b -)-, Buck 3.82; BK 27 bay-/* boy-)]. Olr bech ‘bee’
(also ‘wasp’ in compounds), Weis begegyr ‘drone’ (< Proto-
Celtic *bikio-), ON by ‘bee , OE beo ‘bee’ (> NE bee), OHG
bia ‘bee’ (< Proto-Gmc *bigwa-), OCS blcela (< Proto-Slavic
*bike-la) ‘bee’. With a different, probably o-grade is Lat fucus
‘drone’. With a different suffix are the Baltic cognates: OPrus
bitte ‘bee’, Lith bite ‘bee’, Latv bite ‘bee’ (< *bhih x -tih a -).
Distribution indicates that this word was confined to the
northwest part of the early IE world. The word appears to be
formed from *bhei(h x )- ‘strike, attack’.
*mehtih a -‘ honey-bee’. [IEW 723-724 ( *melit -); Wat 41
( *melit-)\ GI 516; Buck 3.82; BK 535 ( *mal-/*m9l -)J. Alb
blete (< *melitih a ) ‘honey-bee’, Grk peXiaaa (< *melltih a )
BEE
‘honey-bee’. A late term shared by two contiguous stocks of
the center of the IE world and based on the word for ‘honey’.
*dhren- ‘drone’ (< ‘buzz’). [IEW 255 (*dher-)]. OE dran
‘drone’ (> NE drone), OHG treno ‘drone’, Grk dponvcd; ‘drone’
(cf. also xevQpr\vr\ ‘hornet’, avQpr\vr\ ‘wood-bee’, Opfjvog
‘lament for the dead, keening’). The presence of a specialized
term for a male bee, albeit limited to the west and center of
the IE world, may be due to the observation that in summer
some bees gather at the entrance of the hive to fan the honey
and that in the autumn dead male bees are at the entrance of
the hive whence they have been expelled to reduce the
population in the winter.
*krphxp-h a - ‘drone’. [IEW 6341 . OHG humbal ‘drone’, Grk
icr](priv ‘drone’. At best a possible late IE isogloss.
The geographically confined terms for the ‘bee’ suggests
that we are not in a position to reconstruct a term for honey-
bee, Apis mellifer, to PIE itself. Nevertheless, the existence of
reconstructed terms for ‘honey’ and ‘wax’ clearly indicates
that the early IE-speakers were familiar with that insect and
her works.
Races of Apis nielli fera are widely disseminated through
Europe and the forested areas of western Asia as well as
southwest Asia, Iran and India. They are, however, absent
from the desert areas east of the Caspian which was a likely
staging area for the migration of Indo-lranian tribes
southwards. Consequently, the absence of cognate terms for
‘bee’ and ‘honey’ and the shifts in meaning from ‘mead’ that
are found in most of the Indo-lranian languages is not entirely
unexpected.
The exploitation of bees by human communities probably
goes back to the earliest forms of hominids as primates today,
as well as many other animals, have been gathering honey for
millions of years. The earliest representational art of honey
gathering occurs at about 7000 BC in Spanish rock art and
hives are depicted in Egyptian art from the middle of the
third millennium BC.
The question of “domestication” is moot, for bees were
not domesticated like other animals, even when kept for their
honey but merely lured into thatched skeps, artificial dwelling
places known to Hesiod (Theogony 593-599), until enough
honey was produced to make the destruction of the skep
profitable. Destruction of the habitation site, however,
frequently caused the bees to relocate, and one spell ( Anglo-
Saxon Poetic Records 6.125) records the magical attempts to
avert their relocation at an inconvenient distance. Pliny’s
Natural History records the complementary folk custom of
attracting wild bees with dead carcasses.
See also Honey; Hum; Insects; Wax. [M.E.H.]
Further Readings
Crane, E. (1983) The Archaeology of Beekeeping. London,
Duckworth.
Hamp, E. P. (1971) The ‘bee’ in Irish, Indo-European, and Uralic.
Eriu 22, 185-187.
BEECH
*bhehagds ‘beech ( Fagus silvatica , F. orientahs)'. [IEW
107-108 ( *bhago-s ); Wat 5 ( *bhago-)\ GI 533-535
^tfiaHk’o-)-, Buck 8.62; Fried 106-115]. Gaul bagos ‘beech’,
Lat fagus ‘beech’, ON bok ‘beech’, OE boc ‘beech; written
document, book’ (> NE book), bece (< Proto-Gmc *bokjo-)
‘beech’ (> NE beech), OHG buoh ‘written document, book’,
buohha ~ buocha ‘beech’, Rus buz ‘elder’. Alb bung (<
*bhehagnos) ‘oak’, Grk (ppyog ‘oak’. A word of the west and
center of the IE world.
The term for ‘beech’ is at once a basic and accepted
component of the early IE vocabulary, and the subject of much
controversy as to its actual form. Critical reflexes (with typical
divergent vocalisms) include Grk (Attic) (ppyog ‘oak’, ON bok
‘beech’, and no less than eleven Slavic forms such as SC has/
basa, all of which mean ‘elder’. Many of the Italic, Germanic
and Greek forms argue for (long or short) a. Almost all forms
indicate an initial *bh-\ the Slavic, a palatal *g, and the Greek,
Germanic and italic, a feminine o-stem, thus *bheh a gos.
The semantic vicissitudes of these arboreal words include
the metonymic shift to a) ‘hot lye or buck’ (MHG buchen ~
biuchen), reflecting one use, and b) ‘bookstall’ or ‘letter’ (OHG
buohstap), and even ‘book’ (from OE 6oc‘book’). The smooth
gray bark seems to have been used for writing, especially in
religious contexts, e.g., the beech was sacred in the groves of
the Alban Hills dedicated to Dodona. Metaphorical shifts
include the following: a) three varieties of elder in the Slavic
area on the basis, presumably, of the bark, the bright green
oblong leaves, edible fruit, and the overall shape (a missing
link of sorts provided by the borrowed Baltic terms which
denote either ‘beech’ or ‘alder’); b) ‘oak’ in Greek and Albanian
on the basis of such similarities as the edible nuts and, possibly,
a religious taboo placed on the ‘oak’ term so that the ‘beech’
word “filled the gap”. Despite the peregrinations of meaning
and the variations of form, especially the vowel, the
distribution of stocks exhibiting cognates for this word could
suggest that IE *bheh a gos referred to the common beech
(Fagus silvatica Linnaeus).
The beech has been long regarded as a critical marker of
the location of the IE homeland. The argument, simply stated,
observed that whereas a term for ‘beech’ could be
reconstructed to the PIE vocabulary, the historical distribution
of the beech was limited to the territory west of a line from
Kaliningrad (Konigsberg) on the Baltic Sea to Odessa on the
Black Sea. This distribution might then be employed to
demonstrate that the IE homeland must also lie to the west of
this line (generally, it was argued, in northern Europe) and
that a homeland north of the Black or Caspian seas must be
excluded. The argument rests on three assumptions — that
*bhehagos actually meant ‘beech’ rather than any of its other
semantic reflexes, e.g., ‘oak’, ‘elder’; that *bheh a gds could be
attributed to PIE antiquity rather than a later dialectal status;
and that the assumed distribution of the beech in prehistory
was correct.
The first assumption, that *bheh a gos actually indicated
— 58 —
Beech Distribution of the beech. Dark shaded area represents distribution of the beech ( Fagus silvatica ) c 4000-3000 BC; the lighter shaded
area reflects expansion of the beech by the Iron Age whose eastern border marks the famous “beech line”. The shaded and dotted area
represents the distribution of Fagus orientalis and, in the Crimea, Fagus taurica.
the ‘beech’ rather than either a different tree or a taxonomically
broader class of trees that may have involved a number of
species has been challenged. As both the Alb bung and the
Grk (priyog both refer to the ‘oak’ while the beech is quite
common in the regions of both these stocks (it is the second
commonest tree in Albania), the motivation for a semantic
shift from ‘beech’ to ‘(chestnut) oak’ is by no means clear. As
for the second assumption, the distribution of cognates for
*bhehagos are limited to languages of the west and center of
the IE world and there are no grounds for asserting greater
antiquity. Attempts to adduce potential Iranian cognates such
as Kurdish bQz ‘elm’ to this series have been universally
rejected.
The third assumption concerns the prehistoric distribution
of the beech. There are two main species of Fagus in areas
relevant to the earlier distribution of the Indo-Europeans, the
most widespread is Fagus silvatica the ‘common beech’ which
today may be found across much of Europe, being absent as
a native plant only in northern Scandinavia, much of the
British Isles, and the southern Mediterranean (southern Iberia,
southern Italy, southern Greece). The more restricted Fagus
orientalis is native to Greece and the Balkans and can also be
found over northern Anatolia and the Caucasus. In addition
to its palynologically attested distribution the beech is well-
known from archaeological contexts where it was employed
for the production of implements, e.g., oars, handles, shuttles.
The nuts of the beech were also a nutritious source of edible
oil and mast for pigs since the Neolithic period onwards.
The spread of the beech after the end of the last Ice Age
can be traced across Europe where the initial finds are confined
to southern and central Europe. By c 6000 BC the beech was
largely confined to northern Greece, the Balkans and the
Alpine region with expansions westward into northern Italy
and towards south and central France. By c4000 BC the beech
may be found as far north as southern Germany and Romania.
By 3000 BC, the beech would have penetrated further north
into southern Poland and by 2000 BC the beech would have
reached the Baltic Sea and northern France. Despite many
claims to the contrary, this temporally dynamic spread of the
beech offers little comfort to any putative solution to the IE
homeland problem. In the area of Asia where we believe the
beech was quite native, i.e., Anatolia to northern Iran, it is
linguistically unattested. Its heartland in Europe was largely
confined to Greece and the Balkans, the very territories that
provide the meaning ‘oak’ rather than ‘beech’. In those regions
where IE stocks do attest the meaning ‘beech’, the tree itself
seldom appears earlier than the Bronze Age, i.e., clearly after
the period of PIE disintegration/IE expansions. Its sensational
spread north and westwards from its original core area during
the Bronze Age (c 2500-1000 BC) may correspond roughly
— 59 —
BEECH
to the expansion of some IE peoples into western Europe as
the vast primeval forests of beech and oak had been established
in Gaul and Germania but the concatenation of assumptions
required to press the “beech line” into an argument concerning
the earlier location of the Indo-Europeans would appear to
be exceedingly dubious.
See also Trees. [P.E, J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Krogmann, W (1955, 1957) Das Buchenargument. KZ 72, 1-29;
73, 1-25.
Lane, G. S. (1967) The beech argument: a re-evaluation of the
linguistic evidence. KZ81, 197-212.
Thieme, R (1964) The comparative method for reconstruction in
linguistics, in Language in Culture and Society, ed. Dell Hymes,
New York, Harper and Row, 584-598.
BEER
*h#lut- ‘beer’. [ZEW33-34 ( *aZu-); Wat 2 ( *alu-)\ GI 838] .
ON pi ‘beer’, OE ealu (gen. ealop ) ‘beer’ (> NE ale), OPrus
alu ‘mead’, Lith alias ‘beer’, Latv alus ‘beer’, OCS olu ‘beer’,
olovina ‘dregs of beer’, Rus ol ‘beer, any alcoholic beverage
except wine’ (both Baltic and Slavic words have at times been
taken as borrowings from Germanic but there is no particular
reason to do so), Oss aeluton ‘beer’. As a word for ‘beer’, it is
confined to the northwest of the IE world with an outlier in
eastern Iranian. At least late IE in. date.
There are two proposals for connections outside this area.
One would see *h a elut- as the ‘bitter drink’ and related to Lat
alumen ‘alum’, and Grk aXvSoipoq ‘pungent, bitter’. The
second proposal is that this word is the same as Runic alu, a
magical term of some sort, and ultimately related to Latv aluot
‘be distraught’, Grk dXvco ‘be beside oneself’, and Hit
alwanzahh- ‘bewitch, hex’ (based on an unattested *alwanza-
‘affected by sorcery’ < *h 4 elunso- < *h 4 elusno~). The notion
would be, then, that beer induced a “high” wherein the drinker
was infused with a sort of magical power.
The origin of beer is difficult to date although on theoretical
grounds alone it has been thought to date from the origins of
agriculture and the earliest domestication of barley by the
ninth millennium BC, i.e., an inevitable (and fortuitous)
discovery. On the other hand, the earliest reputed evidence
for beer derives from the site of Godin Tepe in western Iran
where a jug, dated to c 3500-3 100 BC, was claimed to contain
the residue of beer and a vat recovered from the Early Dynastic
(c 3500-3400 BC) site at Hierakonpolis in Egypt yielded
evidence of beer residue (wheat, barley, dates, grape pips and
signs of fermentation). Other evidence are the pictorial
representations of brewing vats in Predynastic Egypt and
straws for straining and drinking beer that are known from
Mesopotamia c 3200 BC.
Generally, evidence for the existence of beer in Europe
consists of either sprouted grain, usually but not invariably
barley, or the presence of aromatic plants employed to flavor
beer. In Europe the former is not commonly known before
the first century BC (and may be due merely to storage in
damp conditions) while the latter, generally in the form of
sweet gale/bog myrtle ( Myrica gale) or hops ( Humulus
lapulus), is not found until the early Middle Ages. This “hard”
archaeological evidence tends to be much later than is
suggested by linguistic evidence or the presence of vessels
believed to have been employed in the consumption of
alcoholic beverages which begin to appear in Europe c 3500-
3000 BC although they are perhaps more likely to have been
associated with the drinking of mead rather than beer. It is
clear that beer was consumed by various populations during
the Iron Age, e.g., Xenophon records it in Anatolia while
Dionysius of Halicarnassus ( Roman Antiquities 13 .10) claims
that the Gauls drank a ‘foul-smelling liquor made from barley
rotted in water’. As beer does not appear to have been
commonly consumed in either the Aegean or Italy in classical
times, the absence of cognate terms in Greek and Latin
occasions little surprise.
See also Dregs; Ferment; Honey; Juice; Sacred Drink; Wine.
[D.Q.A.J.PM.]
Further Readings
Polome, E. (1954) Notes sur le vocabulaire religieux du germanique.
1. Runique alu. La Nouvelle Clio 5:40-55.
Polome, E. (1996) Beer, runes and magic. JIES 24, 99-105.
Sherratt, A. (1987) Cups that cheered, in Bell Beakers of the Western
Mediterranean, ed. W Waldren, R. Kennard, Oxford, BAR
International Ser, 81-106.
BEETLE see INSECTS
BEFORE
*h 2 enti ‘in front’. [JEW 48-49 ( *anti ); Wat 3 ( *ant -); GI
136 ( *H 2 ant h -); BK 414 (*harj-t[ h ]-/*hdij-tl h l-)}. Lat ante ‘in
front of,’ Lith ant ‘on, upon; at’, Grk dtvri ‘instead of, for’,
dvra ‘face to face’, Arm and ‘for’, Hit hand ‘facing, frontally;
opposite, against’, hanza ‘in front’, handa ‘(to the) fore’, OInd
anti ‘opposite’. These are all frozen case forms of a noun which
survives in Lith antis ‘breast(s)’, Hit hant- ‘forehead, front’,
TochB ante ‘brow’. Cf. also Lat antiae ‘forelock’ and Grk dtvziog
‘opposite’. Old in IE.
*pfh a 6hi ‘in front of; before (of time)’. [7EW813 ( *pf-)\
Wat 49 ( *ppa-)\ BK 40 (*p[ ll ]a-/*p[ h ]9-)\. OE fore ‘in front
of, before’ (> NE fore), OHG fora ‘in front of’, Goth faura ‘in
front of’, Grk itapd ‘by, near, alongside of, beyond’, Arm ar
‘near, at’, Av para ‘before’, OInd pura ‘formerly, before’. Old
in IE. From *per ‘through’ (‘through’ and therefore ‘beyond,
out front of’).
*pfha& ‘in front of; before (of time)’ . [ IEW 8 1 1-8 1 2 ( *prai) ;
Wat 49 ( *pp-i-)] . OIr anair ‘from the east’ (the east is in front
of anyone who orients him/herself towards the rising sun as
appears to have been the common PIE custom), Gaul are-
‘before, by, east’, Lat prae ‘before’, OPrus prei ‘to’, Lith prie
‘by, at, near; to; in the time of’, Grk napa t ‘before’, OInd pare
— 60
BEND
‘thereupon’. From *per ‘through’ (‘through’ and therefore
‘beyond, out front of’). Old in IE.
*pro ‘forward, ahead, away’. [IEW 813-814 (*pro); Wat
49 (*pro)]. OIr ro- (verbal prefix), MWels ry (verbal prefix),
Lat pro ~ pro ‘before, in front of, for’, OHG fir- ‘before’, Goth
fra- ‘before’, OPrus pra ‘through’, Grk npo ‘in front of, in
defence of, forward; before (of time)’. Hit para ‘forward,
further’, Av fra ‘in front of’, Olnd pra- ‘before’. From *per
‘through’ (‘through’, therefore ‘ahead of’).
See also Adpreps; Behind; Direction; Face; Forehead.
[D.Q.A.]
BEGIN
*neik- ‘begin’. [7FW761 (*neik-)]. OPrus neikaUt ‘change’,
Lith uz-ninku ‘begin’, ap-ninku ‘assault’, OCS vuz-nlknpti
‘regain consciousness’, Grk veiicog ‘quarrel’, Hit nini(n)k- ‘start
up, mobilize’. Though only sparingly attested, the geograph-
ical distribution of that attestation guarantees PIE status.
See also Set in Motion. [D.Q.A.]
BEHIND
*ghd- ‘behind’. [7EW451-452 (*ghd-)\ Wat 23 (*gho-)].
Lith az(ii) ‘behind’, Latv az ‘behind’ (< Proto-Baltic *azo), Rus
za ‘by, to’, Arm z (preverb ‘with regard to’). At least a late IE
preposition and particle.
See also Adpreps ; Back 2 . [ A . D . V ]
BELCH
*hireug- ‘belch’. [7EW 871 ( *reu-b ~ *reu-g-)\ Wat 55
( *reug-)\ GI 430-43 1 ( *reuk’-)\ Buck 4.57] . Lat erugo ‘belch’,
OE rocettan ‘belch’, MHG ite-rucken ‘ruminate’, Lith riaugmi
~ rQgiu ‘belch’, Rus ryga tl ‘belch’, Grk epevyogcci - epvyydvo)
‘vomit’, Arm orcam (< *orucam ) ‘belch’, NPers (noun) a-roy
‘belch’. Widespread and old in IE. Probably unrelated to words
for ‘roar’.
See also Spew. [D.Q.A.]
BELIEF
*Rred-dhehi- ‘believe’ (< *‘place heart’). [7£W 580 ( *kred-
dhe)\ Wat 30 ( *kred-dhd-)\ GI 701 (*R h ret’-d b eH-)\ Buck
17:15]. OIr creitid ‘believes’, Lat credo ‘believe’. Hit k(a)ratan
dai- ‘place heart’, Av zrazda- ‘believing’, zrazdaiti- ‘belief’, Olnd
srad-dadhati ‘believes, has trust in’, srad-dM ‘faith’. Although
all the terms are generally regarded as cognate and indicative
of PIE status, there has been considerable debate over the
deeper etymology of the expression since it has long been
recognized that the ‘heart’ element of this reconstruction is
problematic. The Old Indie word for ‘heart’, for example, is
hfd- and the Avestan is zarad- and hence the first element of
the Old Indie compound, srad- cannot be easily derived from
the word for ‘heart’ (though Olnd *s- [and Av *s-] is what we
would expect the word ‘heart’ , to begin with on the basis of
other IE languages). Emile Benveniste argued that the first
element in the expression was *kred- ‘pledge, stake invested
with magic power’. Such a reconstruction is based on both
linguistic arguments and the use of the term in Old Indie. In
the ggveda ‘belief involved prayers to the gods in which the
human supplicant put taist in a deity, particularly lndra, in
the certainty that the trust would be remunerated. The context
of the supplications were generally those involving some trial,
e.g., trust in lndra who would fight the demon Vftra.
Moreover, Benveniste maintained that there were no other
parallels in the early IE languages for seeing the ‘heart’ as the
organ of belief or trust. However, there is no trace otherwise
of *kred- ‘pledge, stake invested with magic power’ and the
majority of linguists has continued to see *kred- as a form of
‘heart’ (which is fully supported by the expression in Hittite).
Even if Benveniste were right, we must assume the influence
of the form of the Avestan word ‘heart’ on the word for
‘believing’ since the latter would otherwise be *srazda-. It
may be worth noting that the descendant of the PIE word for
‘heart’ in Tocharian A means will’
*hxehx- ‘trust in, believe’. (Wat 45 (*o-); GI 706 (*Ho-)\.
Lat omen ‘sign, omen’ (< ‘declaration of truth’). Hit ha(i)-
‘believe, take as truth’ (the Hittite might either reflect an
athematic *hxeh x -ti or an iterative-intensive *h x oh x -eie/o-).
(One of the laryngeals must be if it is the second
laryngeal, then the first must be Perhaps also here are
OIr oeth ‘oath’, ON eidr ‘oath’, OE ap ‘oath’ (> NE oath),
OHG eid ‘oath’, Goth aips ‘oath’ if the Celtic and Germanic
reflect *hxeh x -i-to-. It has been suggested that the Celtic,
Germanic and Hittite words belong together from a PIE *h 2 ,ei-
but that forces one to leave aside the otherwise attractive Lat
omen. On the other hand, it has also been suggested that the
Celtic and Germanic words for ‘oath’ are derivatives of *h jei-
‘go’, i.e., one goes about a fire in swearing an oath; cf. the
formally identical Grk ohog ‘course, fate’.
*peri-steh 2 - ‘belief’. [Del 79], OIr ires(s) ‘belief’, Parthian
parast ‘ardor’. From *peri- ‘before’ + *steh2- ‘stand’ (i.e., ‘hold
oneself before’). Perhaps independent creations in the two
stocks.
See a Iso Heart. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
Further Reading
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, University of Miami, 138-144.
BELT see GIRD
BEND
*h 2 enk- ~ *h 2 eng- ‘bend an object so that it stays bent’.
[7EW45-46 ( *ank - ~ *ang-)\ GI 626 ( *Hank h -)\ Buck 9.14;
BK 395 (*han-/*hon-)]. With e-vocalism: OIr ecath ‘fishhook’,
Weis angad ‘grip’, ON angi ‘spine’, OHG ango ‘fishhook’, Lith
anka ‘loop’, Av aka- ‘hook’, Olnd ancali ‘bends’, atikas-
‘bending, curvature’, TochA ancal ‘bows’; wilh o-vocalism:
Lat uncus ‘bent’, OE anga ‘prickle’, OCS pkotl ‘hook’, Grk
oyicog ‘barb’, MPers ancitan bends’. Hit hinkzi ‘bows
(reverentially), curtsies’ presents difficulties since one would
expect *ha- as the outcome of *h2e-\ however, O. 1 .indeman
— 61 —
BEND
suggests that the form may have had an original diphthong
as is evident in the Old Hittite spelling ha-in-kan-ta. The broad
distribution of cognates makes the form securely
reconstructible to PIE.
*bhedh- ‘bend (ones body)’. [IEW 1 14 ( *bhedh-)\ G1 133
(*b h ed h -)]. ON bidja ‘ask, pray’, OE biddan ‘ask’ (> NE bid),
OHG bitten ‘ask, request’, Goth bidjan ‘ask, pray’, Lith badas
‘hunger’, Alb bind ‘convince’, OInd b&dhate ‘presses’, TochA
polo ‘honor’, TochB pauto ‘honor’. The correspondence
between OInd jnu-Mdh- ‘bending the knees’ and OE cneow-
gebed, OSax kneo-beda ‘prayer (with bended knee)’, strongly
suggests that the Germanic forms belong here. On the other
hand, it is also possible to derive the Germanic forms from
*g w edh- , seen also in OIr guidid ‘requests’, Lith gedauti
‘desires’, Grk ndOog ‘desire’. Even with the Germanic forms
excluded, the root is securely reconstructible to PIE.
*bheug- ‘bend (an object)’. [IEW 152-153 ( *bheug - ~
*bheugh-)\ Wat 8 ( *bheug-)\ Buck 9.14]. OIr boc ‘soft’ (<
* ‘pliable’), boingid ‘breaks’, OHG biogan ‘to bend’, Goth
biugan ‘break’, Latv bauga ‘hill’, OInd bhujati ‘bends, curves’.
It has been suggested that this root and *bheug- ‘flee’ (seen
in Lat fugid ‘flee’, Grk (pevyco ‘flee’) are ultimately from the
same root, but it is more likely that they are homophones.
The wide geographical spread insures PIE status.
*geu- ( *geh x u-l) ‘curve’. [IEW 393-398 (*geu-): Wat 2
( *geu-)\ BK 281 (*kaw-/*k’9w-)[. Highly productive root
which, with various exter\sions and suffixes, may underlie a
large number of nominal forms, several which relate to the
human body. It is impossible to say whether the notion of
‘curve’ is genuinely present in all the forms or even if they are
all certainly related to one another. These include *gudom
‘intestines’, *gu-ro-s ‘lock of hair’, *gut-f ‘throat, neck’ (Lat
guttur ‘throat’, Hit kuttar ‘neck’), *gu-r-no-s ‘back’ (Lith gumas
‘hip, haunch’, Arm kurn ‘back’), and other features such as
*gupeh a - ‘hole, chamber’ (ON kofi ‘small chamber’, OE cofa
‘small chamber, den’ [> NE cove ] ; *geu-lo-s ‘ball’ (Lat vola
‘hollow of hand’, Grk yvaXov ‘hollow’, Arm kalum ‘take’, OInd
gola- ‘ball, globe’). If the root *geh x u- ‘curve’ does indeed
underlie the nominal forms, then the large number of deri-
vatives and the geographical spread of the cognates suggests
that it must be of early date.
*kam-p- ‘bend (of terrain)’. [IEW 525 ( *kam-p-)\ Wat 26-
27 ( *kamp -)]. Lat campus ‘field’, Goth hamfs ‘maimed’, Lith
kampas ‘corner; region’, Latv kampis ‘tree scrub; pothook’,
Grk Kdpjfuo ‘bend’, KagTcrj ‘bend (in a river)’. The fact that
the Latin, Lithuanian and Greek nominal forms all refer to
landmarks or features of the terrain suggests that this shade
of meaning was also present in the proto-language.
*keu-k- ‘curve’. [/£W589 (*keu-k-); Wat 31 (*keu-)- BK
250 ( *k[ h ]aw-/*k[ h ]9w-)] ■ OIr cuar(< *kuk-ro -) ‘curved’, ON
/iar‘high’, OE heah ‘high’ (> NE high), OHG hoh ‘high’, Goth
hauhs ‘high’, OPrus cawx ‘devil’, Lith kaukas ‘boil; goblin,
gnome’, kaukaras ‘high ground, hill’, Latv kauks ‘hobgoblin’,
kukurs ‘hump; lump of earth’, OCS kukonosO ‘curve-nosed’,
OInd kucAti ‘contracts, bends, curves’, kuca- ‘female breast’,
TochA koc ‘high’, TochB kauc ‘high’. The Lith kaukaras ‘high
ground, hill’ provides an intermediate semantic step between
the original meaning ‘curve’ and the Germanic meaning ‘high’.
These forms, as well as those forms meaning ‘boil’, ‘hump’
and ‘breast’ (if OInd kuca- is indeed related) suggest that PIE
form referred to the curve of a protuberance or hill. The Baltic
forms meaning ‘demon, devil’ may reflect either an association
between hills and otherworldly creatures (cf. OIr sld ‘fairy
mound’, aes side ‘fairies’) or an association between physical
unattractiveness (‘boil’, ‘hump’) and evil character.
*kleng~ ‘bend, turn’. [IEW 603 ( *kleng - ~ *kIenk-)\ Wat
31 ( *kleng -)]. Lat clingo ‘gird’, OFrench (< Gmc) flenchir
‘turn aside, flinch’, ON hlekkr ‘ring, chain’, hlekkjasl ‘be
impeded’ (< ‘be fettered’?), Nice hlekkja ‘put in fetters’, OE
hlence ~ hlinc ‘link, chain of links, coat of mail (made of
links or rings)’ (> NE link), OHG (h)lanka ‘hip’, Lith klenkti
‘goes fast’, Latv klencet ‘limps’, OCS klpcp ‘kneel’, TochA klahk
‘mount, setting’, TochB klenke ‘mount, setting’, klank- ‘doubt’.
The semantic value of Latv klencet ‘limps’ is explicable if the
Old Norse form hlekkjast ‘be impeded’ expresses a notion of
fetters. Distribution suggests PIE status.
*k w elp- ‘arch’. [ IEW 630 (*k y e/p-); Wat 34 ( *kwelp-)\ .
ON hvelfa ‘to arch’, OE hwealf( noun) ‘vault’, behwielfan ‘arch
over’, MHG welben ‘to arch’, Grk KoXjtoq (noun) ‘fold, hollow’,
koXkoco ‘billow’. The distribution suggests a word of the west
and center of the IE world.
*leng - ‘bend’. [IEW 676 ( *Ieng-)\ . Lith linguoti ‘soar,
hover’, Latv liguot ‘swing, rock’, Slov lpgac ‘bend’, Alb lengor
‘flexible’, OInd rangati ‘moves here and there’, TochAB lank-
‘hang’ (< *‘dangle’). Distribution suggests PIE status.
*lenk- ‘bend; traverse, divide’. [IEW 676-677 ( *lenk-)\
Wat 36 ( *lenk -); Buck 9.14], ON lyng ‘heather’, lengja ‘an
oblong piece’, bak-lengja ‘dark stripe down the back of cattle’,
OE maest-lon ‘pulleys at top of mast’, sceaft-Id ‘strap attached
to shaft of a missile’, Lith lenkti ‘tilts, bends’, Latv liekt ‘bends,
curves’, OCS raz-lpciti 1 to separate, divide’, TochB lenke ‘valley,
cleft’. Distribution suggests PIE status.
*lerd- ~ *Iord- ‘± crooked’? [/EW679 (*lerd-)\ Wat 36
( *lerd-) ] . ?ScotsGaelic lorcach ‘lame’, OE be-lyrtan ‘to deceive,
cheat’, Grk Xopdog ‘stooped’, Arm lorc‘-k‘ ‘twisted bodies’.
The Armenian form is a hapax but seems to refer to physical
deformity of some sort. The underlying form is uncertain.
*leug- ‘bend; bend together, entwine’. [IEW 685-686
( *leug-)\ Wat 37 ( *leug-)\ Buck 9.14; BK 584 ( *Iaw-/*bw-)[ .
OIr fo-long- ‘sustains, supports’, Lat lucto ‘struggle, wrestle’,
ON lokkr‘[oc k (of hair)’, OE /occ ‘lock (of hair)’ (> NE lock),
OHG loch ‘lock (of a hair)’, Lith lugnas ‘flexible, pliable’, Grk
Xvyi^co ‘fold, bend’, Xvyog ‘ vitex agnus castus, a kind of willow
tree’. OE loc ‘lock of a door’ (> NE lock) (< ‘a bending together,
shutting’ and, possibly, the Lat lucto ‘wrestle’ (< ‘entwine limbs
in a struggle’) express the notion of ‘entwining’ while the Greek
reference to the ‘willow’, a pliant tree whose branches were
often twisted into containers, further supports this semantic
field; if this semantic shade was present in the proto-language,
then the meaning of the Old Irish form could be explained as
— 62
BETWEEN
well since things that are entwined support each other.
*nem- ‘bend’ (pres. *n^meti) [IEW 764 (*nem-)\ Buck
9. 14; BK 576 ( *r/im-/*n^em-)] . Weis nant ‘valley’, Gaul nanto
‘valley’ (Celtic < *nrpto- ‘that which is bent’), Av namaiti
‘bends’, OInd namati ‘bends, bows, submits oneself’, TochAB
nam- ‘bend’, TochB ram- ‘bend, deflect’ (with dissimilation
of the two nasals). Cf. also the derivative *nemes- ‘bowing’:
Av namah- ‘honoring’, namaxya- ‘render homage’, Olnd
namas- ‘bow, obeisance, referential salutation, adoration (by
gesture or word)’, namasyati ‘shows honor’. The same
phonological and morphological form is seen in Lat nemus
‘sacred grove’ and Grk v£ poq ‘sacred grove’, and in a different
morphological shape in OIr neimed ‘sanctuary’, Fris nimidas
‘sacred groves’, though whether these words belong here (as
* ‘where one honors the gods’) or not is unclear. Even without
the ‘sacred grove’ set, this word’s geographical distribution
(from Ireland to the eastern margins of the IE world) would
appear to guarantee PIE status.
*pd- ‘fold’. [/EW802-803 ( *pel-)\ Wat 48 ( *pel-)\ G1 6 1 1
(*p^e/-); Buck 9.15}. *-plo- : Olr dlabul ‘double’, Lat simplus
‘single’, duplus ‘double’, ON feE belly, stomach’ (< ‘fold’), Goth
tweifls ‘doubt’. Alb pale ‘fold’, Grk KenXoq ‘material, cloth
(worn by women and falling in folds)’, anXooq ‘single’,
SutXooq ‘double’; *pol-t-, *pl~t~. Olr ah ‘joint’, ON falda ‘to
cover one’s head’, einfaldr ‘simple’, OE fealdan ‘to fold’ (> NE
fold), anfeald' simple’, Goth falpan ‘to fold’, *ain-falps l simple’,
Olnd puta- (noun) ‘fold’. The use of ‘fold’ to express the idea
of multiplication, as seen in Lat simplus, duplus, etc., is quite
straightforward: folding something in half “doubles” it. The
distribution suggests PIE status.
*sye(n)g- ‘bend, swing’. [IEW 1047-1048 ( *sueng - ~
*suenk-)-, Wat 68 ( *sweng(w)-)} . Olr seng ‘thin’, ON svangr
‘slim, slender, thin’, OE swancor ‘slim, flexible’, swingan ‘whip,
strike, swing’, OHG swingan ‘swing’ (< Gmc *sweng-), Olnd
svajate ‘embraces, clasps’, perhaps TochB suk- ‘hand over to’,
TochB sukask- ‘dangle’ (i.e., ‘let swing’). It is not certain that
the Old Indie and Tocharian forms are cognate with the Irish
and Germanic forms; if they are not, then the root is almost
certainly a late, dialectal development in western Europe;
otherwise, if the Old Indie and Tocharian forms are part of
the cognate set, then there is a case for PIE status. The meaning
‘thin’ must have developed from the meaning ‘flexible’.
*veng- ‘bend; make a sudden veering motion’. [IEW 1 148-
1149 ( *ue-n-g-)\ Wat 76 ( *weng -)]. ON vakka ‘to stray,
wander about’, OE wincian ‘to blink’ (> NE wink), wancol
‘inconsistent’, OHG winchan ‘shake’, OPrus wlngiskan (acc.
sg.) ‘trick’, Lith vengti ‘try to avoid’, Alb vang ‘felloe (of a
wheel)’, Olnd vangati ‘limps’. The Old Indie form is
questionable since it is unattested in texts; otherwise, the
cognates are all found in western languages, suggesting the
possibility of a late dialectal development. The semantics of
the Germanic and Lithuanian forms suggest a motion which
is sudden and which veers from a linear path.
?*yeik- ‘bend a pliable object’. [IEW 1130 ( *ueik - ~
*ueig-)\ Wat 75 (*weik-)]. Lat vincio ‘bind, tie’, Lith vykis
‘tape-worm’, Latv vikt ‘bend, fold’, Grk eikco yield, give way’,
Olnd vlci- ‘deceit (?)’; *ueig -: ON vikja ‘bend, turn’, OE wice
‘wych elm’. The relationship between the Germanic forms
with final *-g- and the other forms with final *-k- is unclear.
Also, the meaning ‘of deceit’ (? < ‘bent’) for the Old Indie
form is not accepted by many.
??*sye(i)- bend’. [IEW 1041 (*sy<?(/>); Wat 68 (*swei-)].
Olr sel (noun) ‘turn’, Weis chwid (noun) ‘turn’, ON svada ‘to
slip’, OE swadian ‘swathe’ (> NE swathe ), MHG swade
‘swathe’, Grk oipoq ‘snub-nosed’. The semantic grounds for
associating these stocks is extremely implausible.
5ee also Circle; Crooked; Curve; Elm; Valley. [M.N.]
Further Reading
Niepokuj, M. (1994) Reconstructing semantics, or, a bad case of the
bends, in Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the
Berkely Linguistics Society, ed. C. Johnson et al. , Berkeley, 374-
386.
BERRY
*h a 6geh a - ± berry, fruit’, (cf. IEW 773 ( *og-)\ Wat 45
( *6g-)\ GI 558; Buck 5.76] . Lith uoga ‘berry’, Latv uoga ‘berry’,
OCS (j)agoda ‘fruit, berry’, Rus jagoda ‘berry’ (the Baltic and
Slavic forms show long vowels because of the regular
lengthening of any vowel in these stocks before a PIE voiced
stop), TochAB oko ‘fruit; result’. Probably also belonging here
are Nlr aime ‘sloe’, Weis eirin(en) ‘plum’ (both < *agrmpa-),
aeron (< *agron~) ‘fruits, berries’, Bret irin ‘sloe’, ON akam
‘fruit of wild trees’, OE aecem ‘nut, mast of trees’ (> NE acorn),
Goth akran ‘fruit, result’ (< Gmc *agron), NHG buch-eckem
(< *-agren-) ‘beechnut’. Finally, it may be that the underlying
verb survives in Arm acem (< *h a egie/o~) ‘grow’. All of these
words taken together is evidence for a pan-IE lexeme;
*h a ogeh a - by itself is central and eastern in its distribution.
*hx6iuo/eh a - ± berry, fruit’. [IEW 297 (*ei-); cf. Wat 45
( *og-)\ GI 541 ( *oi-wo-)\ Buck 5.76], Lat uva ‘(bunch of)
grapes, bunch of (other) fruit or flowers’, Grk oa
(< *hxoiueh a -) ‘service-tree (Sorbus domestica)’ , oov service-
berry’, Arm aygi (< *h x oiuiieh a -) ‘grapevine’. At least a word
of the west and center of the IE world. Perhaps from a *h jei-
‘± red’ (because of the red or purplish color of the berries
involved) and so ultimately related to *h ieiuos ‘yew’.
?*sr6h a gs (gen. *sfh a g6s) ‘± berry, fruit’. Lat fraga (pi.)
‘strawberries’, Grk pco^ (gen. pcoyoq) ~ pa£( gen. pCtyoq) from
an earlier paradigm pco £ (gen. payoq) ‘grape, berry’.
Geographically much more restricted than the previous words
but one that is archaic in shape. Possibly a late IE word.
See also Food; Mulberry; Plants,
Wine; Yew. [PF.,D.Q.A ]
BETWEEN
*hient6r ‘into, between’. | IEW 3 1 3 ( *enter), Wat 1 7 ( *en-
ter)\ BK 432 ( *in-/*en -)]. Olr eter ‘between, among’, OWels
ithr ‘between’, Lat inter ‘between’, OHG untar(i) ‘between’,
OCS ptn ‘inside’. Alb nder ‘between, among’, Av antara ‘within,
— 63 —
BETWEEN
between’, OInd antar ‘between’. From *hjen‘\ri.
See also Adpreps. [D.Q.A.]
BEYOND
*h a elnos ‘beyond, yonder’. [IEW 24-25 ( *aI-)\ Wat 2
( *al-)\ Buck 1 3. 13; BK 43 1 ( *ul-/*ol-) ] . OIr oil ‘ample (over)’,
OLat ollus ‘that one’, Lat uls ‘beyond’, ON allr ‘all’, OE eall
‘all’ (> NE all), OEIG all ‘all’, Goth alls ‘all’, OCS lani ‘in the
past year’; perhaps also Lith alia! ‘all’. This element also appears
in the names of Celtic matrons such as Ala-teivia, Ala-gabiae,
etc.
The root is especially concentrated in the Germanic
languages, though extended forms from PIE *h a elios ‘other’
are also found, e.g., OIr aile ‘other’, Lat alius ‘other’, Goth
aljis ‘other’, OE elles ‘in another manner’ (> NE else), Grk
dXXoq ‘other’, Arm ayl ‘other’, TochA ala-k ‘other’, TochB
alye-k ‘other’. The distribution supports PIE status.
See also Adpreps. [A.D.V]
BIND
*bhendh- ‘bind’. [IEW 127 ( *bhendh-)\ Wat 7
( *bhendh-)\ Buck 9.16; BK 26 ( *bin y -/*ben y -)\ . ON binda
‘to bind’, OHG bintan ‘to bind’, Goth bindan ‘to bind’, Lith
bendras ‘companion’, Grk Ksiapa ‘rope, cord’, nevOepoq
‘father-in-law’, Av bandayeiti ‘binds’, OInd badhnati (<
*bhpdh-) ‘binds’, bandhu - ‘kinsman; connection, kinship’.
This root is securely reconstructible to PIE. The nominal forms
in Lithuanian, Greek and Old Indie suggest that the Indo-
Europeans metaphorically conceived of familial and social
relationships as ‘binding’ people together.
*dehi- ‘bind’. [IEW 183 (*c/e-); Wat 10 (*de-)]. Alb duaj
(pi.) ‘sheaves’, Grk 5eo) ‘bind’, OInd dyad ‘binds’. Attested in
only a small number of languages that tend to show regular
isoglosses suggests that this may be a late IE dialectal form.
*h 2 ep- ‘fasten, join’, [cf. IEW 325 ( *epi-)\ Puhvel 3:114].
Lat *apere ‘attach’, aptus ‘fitted to; appropriate, fitting’, copula
(< *co-apula) ‘bond’, Hit happ- ‘join, attach’. Derivatives
include Hit happessar ‘limb’, hapittala- (< *h 2 p-e-tlo~)
‘member’, TochA apsa (pi.) ‘limbs’. Perhaps also belonging
here are Grk r\n loq ‘gentle, kind, soothing, friendly’, OInd
apt- ‘ally, friend, acquaintance’, apitvam ‘friendship,
confederation’, apyam ‘confederation, alliance, friendship’ if
from (late) *h 2 epis‘± confederate’.
*ghedh- ‘join, fit together’. [7EW423 ( *ghedh -); Wat 21
( *ghedh -); Gl 133 (*g h ed h -)\ BK 221 i*gad-/*gad-)\. Fns
gadra ‘unite’, OHG bigaton ‘come together’, OE togaedere
‘together’ (> NE together), Lith guddas ‘honor, respect’, OCS
godu ‘appointed time’, OInd gadhya- ‘what one readily holds
fast, what suits one’; *ghodh< ON godr" good’, OE god ‘good’
(> NE good), Goth gofts ‘good, kind, beautiful’. The root is
solidly reconstructible to PIE. Traces of the meaning ‘be
appropriate, be fitting’ may be found in the Slavic and Indie
forms and this metaphor must be the source of the meaning
‘good’ in Germanic.
*ieu- ‘bind, join together’. [IEW 508-509 ( *ieu-)\ Wat 79
( *yeug-)\ GI 625 (*ieu-k'-)\ Buck 12.22], Lith jautis'ox, steer’
(< ‘that which is yoked’), Latv jutis ‘fork in a road, separation’,
OInd yauti ‘binds, unites’; *ieu-g- ‘join together, yoke’: Lat
jungo ‘harness, yoke’, Lith jungti ‘yoke’, Grk f evyvvpi
‘harness, join together’, OInd yunakti ‘harnesses, yokes’. The
extended form *ieu-g- is more widely attested that the root
*zeu- but both are solidly reconstructible to PIE.
*h 2 emgh- ‘tie, constrain’. [IEW 42 ( *angh-)\ Wat 2
(*angh- ); GI 60; Buck 9.16; BK 379 ( *han-ag-/*han-ag-)\ .
Lat ango ‘tie up, draw close, press, squeeze; throttle’, OCS
pzp ‘constrain’, Grk ayxco ‘tie together’, Hit hammenk- (<
*h 2 rpnegh-) ‘tie; betroth’, Av ^z- ‘hem in’. Widespread and
old in IE.
*dhergh- ‘bind fast’. [IEW 254 ( *dhergh-)[. Lith dirzti ‘be
tough, hard’, dirza ‘belt, girdle’, Av darazayeiti ‘fetters, binds
fast’, OInd dfhyati ‘is strong, fast’. The Lithuanian nominal
form and the Indie form support reconstructing the meaning
‘bind fast’ for this cognate set.
*pehag-~ *peh a R- ‘fasten securely’. [7FW787-788 (*pak-
~ *P2g-)’> Wat 46 ( *pag - ~ *pak-)\ GI 123 ( *p h ak h - ~
*p Il ak , ~)]. Lat pango ‘drive in’, ON fa ‘capture’, OE fon
‘capture’, fegan (< *pakeie/o~) ‘join, bind, unite’, OHG fahan
‘capture’, Goth fahan ‘capture’, Grk Kpyvvpi ‘plant, make
solid’, OInd pasayati ‘binds’. Perhaps one might also add Lat
pax ‘peace’ (< *‘a binding together by treaty’), pacIscV agree’,
pagus ‘district, province; country (as opposed to the city)’ (<
* ‘boundary staked out on the ground’). The variation in the
voicing of the root-final consonant (*-g ~ *-K), which may
also be observed in other examples, e.g., *peig-~ *peik- ‘draw,
color’, may find its origin in the athematic paradigm such as
lstsg. *peh a gmi, 1st pi. *pfr a gmes, but 3rd sg. *peh a kti, and
3rd pi. *pfyagenti ~ *pfy a Renti. The Latin and Germanic forms
point to the presence of a nasal infix; the Greek forms show
the suffix -nu-. The Old Indie verb is a denominative based
on the noun pdsa- ‘following the track of blood’ (with span-
‘dog, bloodhound’).
*seg-‘ fasten’. [ IEW 887-888 (*seg-); Gl 134 (*sek’-)]. OIr
suainem ‘cord, lace’, Lith segti ‘fasten, buckle’, Latv segt ‘cover’,
OCS segnpti ‘take, grab’, Av vohuna-zga- ‘snare’, OPers fra-
haj - ‘hang up’, OInd sajati ‘attaches, fixes’. Distribution
suggests PIE status.
*mer- ‘braid, bind’. [IEW 733 (*mer-); Wat 42 (*mer-);
BK 531 ( *mur-/*mor -)]. ON merdr{ with dental extension)
‘fish basket’, MDutch marren ‘tie’, MLG moren ‘tie’ (borrowed
> NE moor), Grk peppig ‘thread, cord’; *mergh~, *mregh-,
*mrogh-\ OIr braga ‘prisoner’, Lith marska ‘linen, bedsheet’,
OCS mreza ‘net, running knot’, Grk fipoyog ‘lace, knot’. There
is some doubt whether the Greek form belongs here; it it
does not, then a late northwestern dialectal term.
*(h 2 )ver- ‘± attach’. [IEW 1150 ( *uer - ~ *suer-)\ Wat 76
( *wer-)] . Lith verti ‘thread (a needle)’, Latv vert ‘thread’, OCS
vuvreti ‘push in, drive in’, Rus veratl ‘prick’, Alb yyerr'hang
up’, Grk aeipG) ‘attach; lift up, suspend’. It is debatable
whether the Greek form belongs with this set; if not, then
there is no reason to reconstruct the initial laryngeal nor to
— 64 —
BIRCH
assume anything other than late dialectal status.
*kergh- ‘bind’. [VW 206]. Lith kergli ‘tie, bind’, TochAB
kark - ‘bind’. The Lithuanian form necessitates a PIE *kergh-
rather than *kerg- since the latter should have had Proto-
Baltic lengthening by Winter’s Law. The agreement of Baltic
and Tocharian at least suggests late PIE status for this word.
See also Valley; Yoke. [M.N., D.Q.A.]
BINDER-GOD
The concept of a binder-god was treated extensively by
Mircea Eliade, who devoted a whole section of his The Sacred
and the Profane to the topic. It originated in the notion that
the Vedic god Varuna puts trespassers in bonds, striking them
with dropsy Georges Dumezil devoted one of his early works
to the alleged correspondence between the Greek sky-god
Ovpavog ‘heaven, sky’ and the Olnd (Vedic) Varuna; both
names derived, according to him, from an IE root *uer- ‘bind’,
hence the underlying notion of both deities was the concept
of one who bound others (in their power). But this hypothesis
led into inextricable complications as regards the Greek term
which looks to be a phonological development of an earlier
*uorsano-. It has, therefore, been abandoned, and Varuna,
whose name is susceptible to many interpretations, is currently
linked with the root *uer - ‘speak’ (cf. Lat verbum ‘word’, NE
word) as the master of the sacred word or formula while Grk
Ovpavog belongs with Olnd varsa- ‘rain’, hence *uorsanos
‘rain-maker’. There are thus no linguistic grounds for attri-
buting a binder-god to PIE antiquity, at least on the basis of
comparative linguistics.
A genuine binder-god is the regnator omnium deus ,
mentioned by Tacitus ( Germania 39) as residing in the sacred
grove of the Semnones. He has been identified in turn with
Tyr, Odinn or a trinal, eponymic deity *Semno ; whoever he
may be, no one is supposed to penetrate into the sanctuary
unfettered ( nisi vinculo lignatus). It is therefore reminiscent
of the Eddie Fjoturlundr in the second lay of Helgi
Hundingsbana.
5ee also Priest, [E.C.R]
Further Readings
Dumezil, G. (1934) Ouranos-Varuna. Etudes de mythologie
comparee mdo-europeenne. Paris, A. Maisonneuve.
Eliade, M. (1961) The Sacred and the Profane. New York, Harpers.
BIRCH
*j bherhxgos ‘birch ( Betula pendula)'. [IEW 139-140
( *bherog-s ); Wat 7 ( *bherog~)\ GI 531-533 ( *b h erFll c’-); -Fried-
26-31; BK 16 {*bar-/*bor-)\- Lat famus/fraxinus ‘ash’, ON
bjprk ‘birch’, OE beorc ‘birch’ (> NE birch), OHG bir(i)hha
‘birch’, OPrus berse ‘birch’, Lith berzas ‘birch’, Latv bprzs
‘birch’, Rus bereza ‘birch’, Oss baerz ‘birch’, Olnd bhurja-
‘birch’. The Germanic, Baltic and Slavic words all derive from
*bherhxgos; however, the Latin form is a derived adjective
with zero-grade of the root, i.e. , *bhfhxg-s-i-no - and Old Indie
represents a *bhfhxgos. Ossetic is ambiguous as to the original
root-syllable vowel.
The name for the birch tree, a traditionally basic component
of the PIE vocabulary, is excellently attested in at least six
stocks from Europe to Asia. The Italic, here, Latin, reflex
fraxin us shifted to ‘ash’ (still our Linnaean term today). This
extreme shift, like the total loss of any reflex in Greek, was
possibly due to the relative scarcity of the birch in Mediter-
ranean climes, except in the highlands — but the ecological
argument fails for Celtic and Armenian since the tree in
question is present in Britain, Ireland and Armenia. In Celtic
the words for ‘birch’ (Olr beithe, Weis bedw(en), Bret
bezv(en)) are all derived from *g w etu ‘pitch’. Otherwise, the
correspondences are fairly regular in Germanic and Slavic
where all refer to the tree. Given the regular correspondence
for the initial bh -, the medial r, the final g and a full vowel in
the root (with Old Indie indicating a laryngeal), and four
stocks exhibiting a feminine gender, we can posit a feminine
o-stem as above. Apparently related forms in five stocks
strongly suggest an etymological or at least folk etymological
or associational relation to the idea of ‘bright, white, brilliant,
shine’ and the like. For example, in Iranian we have Oss baerz
‘birch’ but Av braz- ‘to shine’ or in Germanic there is ON
bjprk ‘birch’ and bjartr ‘bright’, OHG bir(i)hha ‘birch’ and
beraht ‘bright’. More compelling is the fact that the ‘birch’
term in Baltic, Slavic and Germanic is feminine, not only in
grammatical gender, but in lexical substitution (‘she’) and
cultural-mythological symbolism. The birch was a symbol
for the feminine and specifically for young, virginal femininity
in PIE times (as it still is today in all the northern stocks and
indeed Finno-Ugric and Palaeosiberian languages). Gam-
krelidze and Ivanov have suggested that the concept of ‘purity’
is so closely associated with the name of the ‘birch’ that Hit
parku- ‘ritually pure; innocent’ may be derived from the name
of the ‘birch’ and provides secondary testimony of the
existence of the arboreal term in Anatolian. Such a connection
is possible but by no means certain.
The archaeological contexts for the birch in Eurasia are
many and varied. Birch bark, of course, was widely employed
for the manufacture of containers and as insulation or flooring
material or outright construction of houses. Birch tar was also
the universal cement utilized in prehistoric times, e g., birch
gum was employed to fix flint arrowheads on their shafts or
axes in their sleeves which helps explain the presumed
replacement of the word for this tree in the Celtic languages
by a term meaning ‘pitch’. Finally, birch fungi was credited
with medicinal properties, and because of its hallucinogenic
effects, was used by Siberian shamans and perhaps by early
Indo-Europeans as well.
There are four main species of the birch in Europe which
range from Betula pendula which can stand up to 30 meters
high to Betula humilis, a lowland shrub found largely in
wetland environments. Tolerant of poor soils, the birch was
one of the first trees to spread over most of Europe where
subsequently it was replaced by later trees (oak, etc.).
Nevertheless, at c 6000 BC the birch could be found from
— 65 —
BIRCH
Ireland in the west across Eurasia. Areas where it is not found
would seem to have been limited to Italy south of the Alps
and southern Greece. In no subsequent period does birch
seriously penetrate Italy which supports the suggestion that
Lat fraxinus ‘ash’ is the result of a semantic shift by IE
populations who settled in a relatively birch-less Italy. Betula
has been recorded from lake sediments in southwest Anatolia,
across the European steppe and also in Kazakhstan where
there are also abundant archaeological contexts for birchwood
in the Andronovo culture which has long been regarded as
ancestral to at least some groups of Indo- Iranian languages.
Although PIE arboreal terminology is very poorly reflected in
Indo-Iranian, the terms for ‘birch’ are very well attested, e.g.,
Khot bramja- ‘birch’, Wakhi furz ‘birch’, Shughni baru] 1 birch’,
and the distribution of the birch extends at least into northwest
India. This wide distribution for the birch suggests that it
cannot be seriously employed in delimiting the homeland of
the IE language family.
See also Shine; Trees. [RE]
Further Readings
Wasson, R. G. (1968) Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality. New
York, Harcourt, Brace and World.
BIRD
*h a e\}ei- (nom. *h a 6uis, gen. *h a u£is) ‘bird’. [IEW 86
( *ayei-); Wat 4 ( *awi-)\ GI 454-455 ( *Hwei-)\ Buck 3.64].
Weis hwyad ‘duck’, Lat avis ‘bird’, Umb (acc.) avz/'bird’, Alb
vida ‘dove’, Grk aieroq ‘eagle’, Arm haw ‘bird, chicken’, Av
vis ‘bird’, OInd vf- ‘bird’. Despite the occasional semantic shifts
to a particular species, the widespread distribution and
similarity to *h a o(u)iom, the root indicating ‘egg’, suggests
that this is the probable general term for ‘bird’ in PIE.
*pipp- ‘young bird, nestling’. [IEW 830 ( *p!p(p)-)\ Wat
51 (*pipp-)]. Slov pipa ‘hen’, Alb bibe ‘young aquatic bird’,
Grk ninoq ‘young bird’, OInd plppaka ‘a type of bird’. To this
may be added Lat pipd ‘peep (of a nestling)’. The term is
surely onomatopoeic but it does provide a standard IE term.
See also Animals; Bird Cry; Birds; Egg. [J.A.C.G.]
Further Reading
Schindler, J. (1969) Die idg. Worter ‘Vogel’ und ‘Ei\ Die Sprache
15, 144-167.
BIRD CRY
*kla(n)g- ‘scream (of birds)’. [IEW 599-600 ( *kleg-)\ Wat
31 (*kleg-)]. Lat clango ‘cry (of birds)’, ON hlakka ‘cry of
eagle’, Lith klageti ‘cackle’, Latv kladzet ‘cackle’, Grk icXa^co
‘resound’, KXayytoSrig ‘shout, scream (of people and birds),
bark or bay (of dogs)’. At least a word of the west and center
of the IE world.
?*kau(k)~ ‘cry out; cry out as a bird’. [IEW 535-536
( *kau-)\ Wat 27 ( *kau -)]. From *kau-: Weis cuan ‘nightowl’,
Late Lat cavannus ‘nightowl’, OHG huwo ‘owl’, Rus kavatl
‘cough loudly’, Grk xplq (< *kawak- ) ‘± tern’, OInd kauti ‘cries
out’; from *kauk-: Lith kaukiii ‘howl’, kaukys ‘a bird whose
cry was said to foretell a good harvest of flax’, Latv kaukt
‘howl’, Grk kodkvcoE ry, lament’, Arm k‘uk‘ ‘sighing, groaning’,
OInd kokuyate ‘cries out’, koka- ‘a kind of goose’. Cf. ME
hulen ‘howl’ (> NE howl), OHG hiuwilon ‘shout with joy’.
Though it is not certain that all the words listed here are
related, the distribution may suggest PIE status for this word.
?*ker- ‘± caw’. [IEW 567 (*/cer-); Wat 29-30 (*ker-)\ Gl
457 (*k’er-)[. Lat corvus ‘raven’, Czech krakorati ‘cackle’, Grk
GKopcnd^co ‘dismiss contemptuously’, Kopcd; ‘raven’, OInd
karata- ‘crow’. An onomatopoeic formation, perhaps of PIE
age.
?*ul- ‘± howl, hoot’. [IEW 1 105 ( *ul-)\ Wat 72 ( *u/-)| . Lat
ululare ‘howl’, Lith ululoti ‘shout hello’, Grk vXao) ‘bark’,
OInd ululu- ‘ululating’. Cf. Late Lat uluccus ‘(screech) owl’,
OInd uluka- ‘owl’. Given the divergence of meaning, these
verbs probably represent independent onomatopoeic
formations. The agreement of Latin and Old Indie in the words
for ‘owl’, however, is striking.
See also Animal Cry; Crow; Noise; Owl. [D.Q.A.]
BIRDS
The IE people had a large number of bird names, about
forty of which have come down to us, surviving in the oldest
written dialects, such as Hittite, Old Indie and Greek, and in
the numerous other dialects that came later. In their pre-
Linnaean minds, these IE tribes grouped birds together in a
way which would puzzle us, for the combinations seem odd.
In early Indie culture, the swan and goose were seen as one
and the same, or at least variants of the same, and were called
by a single word hamsa-, no doubt linked together because
of the birds’ long necks and white bodies. Yet one was a
domesticated bird, the other less so. But there were probably
secondary terms to modify hamsa- that were added to the
root. Though we do not know what modifying term separated
the swm-hamsa- from the goos e-hamsa-, we do have a special
Indie hamsa- that, in the Ramayana, was called the kala-
hamsa-, literally the ‘speechless swan’, and this might be a
reference to our mute swan, though we can only guess. There
were other clusters of roots that would have us suspect that
Indie hamsa- was regarded as a heron as well. In other IE
languages we find that the eagle and the gull were related, as
elsewhere the loon and falcon. Though these perceptions seem
incongruous today, we would easily be able to understand
such ancient groupings as there are for PIE *ker -, which links
variously the crow, raven, grackle, jackdaw, blackbird and
even the starling, birds black in color. Or we would have a
group linked by the term ‘sparrow’ which would stand for
the small birds from chickadee to finch to warbler.
Not only is it apparent that the Indo-Europeans perceived
different groupings of birds under one name but the dialects
which inherited the IE proto-form would frequently see fit to
change the semantic value of the words. Thus, in some IE
dialects, an inherited term for ‘owl’ would yield a later
‘jackdaw’, the ‘eagle’ would become a ‘kite’, and the
— 66 —
BIRDS
‘woodpecker’ a ‘jay’. So pervasive was this switching of
designations that we have only four bird names from IE which
have survived with the same semantic value in five or more
IE stocks: PIE *ger- ‘crane’, *ghan-s ‘goose’, *h 3 er- ‘eagle’,
*h a enh a t- ‘duck’. Thus the reflexes of *ghan-s are seen in
Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Iranian and
Indie. The ‘duck’, under the root *hienh a ti , is preserved in
Italic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Greek and Indie. The ‘crane’,
surely a bird of commanding appearance, is known from the
root *ger- in Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Baltic, Greek, Armenian
and Iranian, and *hser- as ‘eagle’ in Celtic, Germanic, Baltic,
Slavic and Hittite.
There are considerably more IE bird names which have
been maintained with the same semantic load in two to four
stocks. These are the ‘blackbird’ (Celtic, Italic, Germanic),
‘capercaille’ (Germanic, Baltic, Greek), ‘coot’ (Italic, Germanic,
Greek), ‘falcon’ or ‘hawk’ (Italic, Germanic, Slavic), ‘jackdaw’
(Baltic, Slavic), ‘jay’ (Italic, Germanic, Greek), ‘kite’ (Greek,
Armenian), ‘magpie’ (Baltic, Slavic), ‘owl’ (Celtic, Germanic),
‘pheasant’ (Slavic, Iranian [perhaps a loan}), ‘quail’ (Greek,
Old Indie), ‘starling’ (Italic, Germanic), ‘stork’ (Germanic,
Armenian [perhaps a loanj, Hittite), and ‘thrush’ (Italic,
Germanic, Baltic, Slavic).
There is also a small body of IE birds which have no
ornithological cognate in another IE dialect. Rather, they were
individually derived from various IE roots, such as the root
meaning ‘to make a raucous sound’, or a color term ‘white’,
or the like. Into this category fall the ‘dove’, ‘pigeon’, ‘finch’,
‘sparrow’, ‘vulture’ and ‘gull’. A final category contains
onomatopoeic terms which are not inherited from PIE, since,
lacking pertinent sound shifts, they must be originally
onomatopoeic in the individual IE languages. Here we note
*k er-, *kor~, *kp -, etc., a proto-form for ‘crow’, which has
largely (though not completely) been renewed in each of the
IE dialects. The terms for the ‘cuckoo’ and ‘hoopoe’ have been
similarly unaffected by sound shifts and point to independent
onomatopoeic re-creation.
The continuation of bird names from PIE was in other
ways chaotic. There is no term for the ‘dove’ or ‘pigeon’ in
any two stocks that has the same phonetic origin, although
all the IE languages do indeed have words for those two
common birds. Albanian has vida but from the PIE root
*h a euei- ‘bird’ which produced both the generic term for ‘bird’
in Lat avis and ‘eagle’ in Grk aiexoq.
It is quite reasonable that the earliest Indo-Europeans
would retain a common word for ‘goose’ and ‘duck’, as both
were widely exploited in the wild state and were subsequently
domesticated; and surely the crane is a bird of strong
impression — its lofty size, its forlorn cry and great stilted legs
are the stuff of folklore that is continued in the literature of
the various IE dialects, even though some abandoned the
inherited *ger- and replaced it with a different term.
One might wish to compare the principal birds of the Indo-
Europeans with those of a living “pre -scientific” people. By
principal bird is meant a bird name that is not a compound
such as OInd kala-hamsa -, and by “pre-scientific”, one might
select someone such as the Tzeltal Indians from the central
highlands of the Mexican state of Chiapas. We know of no IE
attempt at taxonomy until we come to the efforts of Aristotle
who sought comparative features. This grouping by Aristotle
survived until the eighteenth century when Linnaeus began
a process of combinations that has survived till this day, though
with continual modifications. A comparison of the groups
implied by the Tzeltal’s naming processes with those groups
implied by the association of names in the IE stocks is,
instructive. In IE we find domesticated birds such as 1) the
goose; and 2) duck, itself further linked to wild ducks, grebes
and teals; 3) vultures of many kinds; 4) game birds such as
the quail and capercaille; 5) birds of prey such as the eagle,
hawk and falcon; 6) pigeons and doves; 7) corvoid birds,
black in color, such as the crow, raven, jackdaw, blackbird,
and starling; 8) owls; 9) the hen and cock; 10) the
passeriforms, which seem to include most any small birds,
e.g., sparrow; 11) the swan; 12) the stork; and 13) the
woodpeckers.
The IE series can be compared with the Tzeltal bird names
where the birds can be largely grouped on the basis of an
active noun root to which are added frequent modifiers. These
yield: 1) water birds, such as the duck, grebe and shorebirds;
2) vultures; 3) birds of prey — eagle, hawk, kestrel; 4) the
turkey, including the jay(!) and chicken; 5) the quail, including
the tinamou and road-runner; 6) the dove and pigeon; 7) the
owl; 8) nightjay; 9) the swift and swallow, 10) the parrot, 1 1)
the woodpecker; 12) the flycatcher; 13) the thrush, including
the bluebird; 14) warblers, including the siskin and vireos;
15) the sparrows, including the towhee, grosbeak, tanager;
and 16) the blackbirds, including the cowbird, raven, grackle,
but no true crow as they are not found in Chiapas.
There are in Tzeltal far more identified birds than these,
some with their own unique, uncompounded name, and
others with modifiers of an avian root: thus ‘white duck’, ‘large
duck’, and ‘feather bird’, ‘buttock bird’, ‘forest hawk’ and
‘streaked woodpecker’. Thus we can get a lot closer to an
inventory of the birds as understood by Tzeltal culture since
their language yet lives than we can recover an inventory of
the PIE birds where most of the compounds have been lost
and the terms have permutated in the literary dialects.
But we do notice a certain similarity in perception from
the basic grouping of bird constellations in IE with that of
the Tzeltal culture, and further note that in some areas it does
correspond to the Linnaean system. Similar results can be
found from such distant cultures as the Maori of New Zealand
and the Mohawk Indians of New York State.
In all, we have for the Indo-Europeans almost twenty
classes of birds (this number should not be considered firm
for there are many ways one can argue for groupings and
spectrum, but it should be roundly acceptable), and about
thirty-five to forty names that can be shown to designate IE
birds. Yet in most languages of western Europe, we now have
names for every bird that can be seen, and even names for
— 67 —
BIRDS
some that are extinct, and certainly, for any given area of the
early Indo-Europeans, there are far more terms than those
which existed during the Neolithic period. This later diversity
was arrived at in a straightforward way As the IE speakers
separated from their original source or each other, they
encountered non-IE cultures, and frequently adopted new
words from their neighbors and added them to their own
inventory. Correspondingly, they would either abandon the
inherited PIE word that had just been replaced by the
substratum term, or they would use that for another bird
they considered similar. Thus the preliterate Armenians
abandoned their inherited word for ‘goose’, *jan, and replaced
it with sag , taken from an unknown people living in western
Asia. The Greeks acquired KoXvpfdog ‘dove’ from a language
unknown. And the English, having dropped the IE term for
‘bird’, *h a egei -, in the Proto-Germanic period, then also
abandoned, during the Anglo-Saxon period, the Germanic
form fugal (which survives somewhat with restricted use as
‘fowl’), and replaced it with ‘bird’ in the ninth century from a
source unknown. In addition, though the IE dialects might
have a common word for ‘crow’, built on a root approximating
*kro- or *kor- y this word did not pass through any of the
particular sound shifts to produce NE crow. Rather, it
developed into OE hroc ‘rook’, and NE crow was re-invented
yet again through onomatopoeia in that language. Similarly,
the onomatopoeic term for ‘cuckoo’ and ‘hoopoe’ remained
impervious to sound shift, and passed through the dialects as
possibly did *bu- for ‘owl’.
The IE bird terminology thus shows us, under
reconstruction, nothing that significantly distinguishes its
prehistoric naming-culture from that of any other such people.
They knew what they had to know to communicate about
food, to communicate about what was ritualistically
important, to protect their flocks from avian predators, and
to mention what amazed and delighted them. The
reconstructed roster of IE bird names does not indicate any
specific location in Eurasia for their origin as the various
species that are strongly attested can be found over most of
Eurasia and certainly over the territories of any of the
competing solutions to the IE homeland problem. As far as
the purely lexical evidence is concerned, the Indo-Europeans
developed an ornithological taxonomy that was little different
from those of any other pre -scientific people.
See also Bird; Bird Cry; Blackbird; Cock; Coot; Crane;
Crow; Cuckoo; Dove; Duck: Eagle; Egg; Falcon; Finch;
Gamebird; Goose; Gull; Hen; Heron; Hoopoe; Jackdaw; Jay;
Kite; Magpie; Nest; Owl; Quail; Sparrow; Starling; Stork;
Swan; Thrush; Vulture; Wing; Woodpecker. [j.A.C.G.l
Further Readings
Andre, J. (1967). Les noms d’oiseaux en latin. Paris, Klincksieck.
Dave, K. N. (1985). Birds in Sanskrit Literature. Delhi, Motilal
-.Banarsidass.
Greppin, John A. C. (1978). Classical and Middle Armenian Bird
Names. Delmar, New York.
Hunn, E. S. (1977). Tzeltal Folk Zoology: The Classification of
Discontinuities in Nature. New York, Academic Press.
Mallory, J. P. (1991). Kurgan and Indo-European fauna 111: birds.
JIES 19, 223-234.
Thompson, D’Arcy W (1936). A Glossary of Greek Birds. Oxford,
Clarendon.
BISHKENT CULTURE
The Bishkent ( aka Beshkent) culture is a Late Bronze Age
culture (c 1700-1500 BC) situated in southern Tadzhikistan.
It is primarily known from its cemeteries which appear to
have been used by mobile pastoralists. Ceramics are generally
hand-made rather than wheel-made; the metal objects are
often of types to be found among the Andronovo culture of
eastern Kazakhstan, and some have regarded the Bishkent
culture as a local Andronovo variant. There is also some
evidence for contacts with the more settled BMAC of north
Bactria as some wheel-made pottery is also known. Material
from the cemetery at Tandriul, for example, is typical of the
BMAC (Sapalli culture). Prominent among the Bishkent sites
is the cemetery of Tulkhar, which yielded about eighty burials.
Although there were some cremation burials, most of the
evidence was comprised of inhumations. Sexual dimorphism
was observed with males placed on their right sides and
females on their left (similar practices are known from the
Corded Ware culture of central and eastern Europe and the
more proximate Tazabagyab and Vakhsh cultures of Central
Asia and the Swat culture of Pakistan). The males buried at
Tulkhar were accompanied by rectangular hearths reminiscent
of the rectangular fire-altar ( ahavaniya ) of the Indo-Aryan
priest while women were associated with round hearths, the
shape commonly ascribed to the garhapatya , the domestic
and hence female-associated hearths of the Indo-Aryan house.
The Bishkent culture has also been seen as a possible
contributor to the Swat culture which in turn is often asso-
ciated with early Indo-Aryan movements into northwest India.
See also Andronovo Culture; BMAC; Fire Cult;
Swat Culture; Vakhsh Culture. (J PM.)
Further Readings
Kohl, P. (1984) Central Asia: Palaeolithic Beginnings to the Iron Age.
Paris, Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Mandelstam, A. M. (1968) Pamyatniki Epokhi Bronzi v Yuzhnom
Tadzhikistane. Moscow, Nauka.
BITE
*denk- ‘bite’. [7EW201 {*denk-)\ Wat 11 {*denk-)\ Buck
4.58]. ON tpng ‘tongs, pincers’, OE tang(e) ‘tongs, pincers’
(> NE tong(s)), OHG zanga ‘tongs, pincers’, Alb (Gheg) dane
(Tosk dare) ‘tongs’, Grk Scckvcd ‘bite’, Av tizi-dpstra ‘having a
sharp bite’, tizi-dpsura ‘having a sharp bite’, OInd dasati ‘bites’,
probably TochB tsak - (pres, tsakna -) ‘bite (as of a snake)’.
The root vowel of the Tocharian form must be analogical in
some fashion but the meaning is certainly a good fit and the
— 68 —
BLACK
nasal present corresponds to that of Greek. PIE status assured.
See also Eat; Tooth. [M.N.}
BITTER
*h 2 em-ro-s bitter, sour’. [1EW 777-778 ( *om~), Wat 46
(*om-): GI 551 (*om-/*rp~): Buck 15.37; BK 385 ( *ham -/
*hdm-)]. Lat amarus ‘bitter’, ON apr ‘sharp, hard, cold’, OE
ampre ‘sorrel, dock’, OHG ampfaro ‘sorrel, dock’, Alb embel
‘sweet’, (Tosk) tembel ‘gall’, Arm amok ‘ ‘sweet’, OInd amla-
‘sour’. Possibly Lith amalas ‘mistletoe’, Latv amu(o)ls ‘wood-
sorrel, clover’. From *h 2 em- ‘raw, bitter’. Well attested with
considerable, though straightforward, semantic developments
across numerous dialects, in the northwest as a botanical term
• while semantic shifts to ‘sweet’ are found in Armenian and
both meanings are attested in Albanian.
*sQ-ros ( *suhx-ros ) sour, acid, especially of liquids or
cheese’ (< ‘raw, moist’). [IEW 1039 ( *suro - ~ *sou-ro-)\ Wat
67 (*sQro-); Buck 15.381. ON sQrr'sour’, OE sQr‘ sour’ (> NE
sour), OHG sQr ‘sour’, OPrus suris ‘cheese’, Lith sQras ‘salty’,
Latv suns ‘salty, bitter’, OCS syrd ‘wet’, Rus syrdj 'damp, moist,
raw’. A northwestemism, presumably in late IE.
See also Beer; Cold. [J.C.S.l
BLACK
*mel-n- ‘dull or brownish black’. [IEW 720-72 1 ( *mel- -
*meh-)\ Wat 40 (*me/-); Gl 685-686 ( *mel~), Buck 15.65;
BK 535 ( *mal-/*mdl-)\ . Weis melyn ‘yellow’, Lat mulleus (<
*mJn-ejos ) ‘reddish’, OE mzl ‘mark, sign; time’ (> NE meal
[< ‘set time’]), OHG ana-mall ‘spot’, Goth mela (< *mel~)
‘written mark’, OPrus melne ‘blue spot’, Lith mdas ‘dark-
blue’, mdynas ~ mulvas ‘blue’, Latv meins ‘black’, Grk piXag
‘black’, peXorivo) ‘blacken’, OInd malini- ‘dirty, black’. Cf.
Rus mallna ‘raspberry’. A term for ‘brownish black’, whose
distribution from Celtic to Indie confirms the root can be
reconstructed; the reference to brownish and eventually
‘yellow’ in Welsh indicates that a duller brownish black was
the referent. GI suggest that this word is related to *melit
‘honey’ (i.e., originally ‘honey-colored’) but the semantic
distance is very great.
*Keir- ‘dull or brownish black’. [IEW 582 ( *ke-ro-)\ Wat 28
(*kei-)\ BK 201 ( *d[ b ]ay-/*t}[ h ]9y-)] . OIr clar (< *keir-o-)
‘dark brown’, Norw harr ‘ashes’, OE bar ‘hoar, gray’ (> NE
hoar), OHG her ‘worthy, grand’ (< Proto-Gmc *xaira- ‘gray’ <
*koir-o- ), OCS siru (< *koir-o -■) ‘gray’. Alb thirr
(< *kir-no~) ‘soot’, Grk Kipatpog (< *kirp-bho-) ‘fox’, Kippog
(< *kimo~) ‘orangy’. The root *Keir-, a word of the west and
center of the IE world, seems to refer to much the same range
of color as *mel-n- and may be an innovative replacement in
that region. The IEW confuses this term with *ker- ‘bluish
gray’ but the i-diphthong serves to distinguish the root for
‘brownish black’.
*k w psnds ‘black’. [IEW 583 (*kers-)\ Wat 30 (*/cers-); Gl
365; Buck 15.65; BK 274 ( *k[ h ]ar-/*k Pjar-)]. OPrus kirsnan
‘black’, OCS crOnu ‘black’, Rus Cemyj ‘black’, OInd kp$na-
‘black’. Different formations are seen in Lith kersas ‘white and
69 —
BLACK
black, piebald’, Alb sorre (< *k w ersneh a -) ‘crow’. A third root
confined to the center and east of the IE world, suggesting a
later innovation, signifies a glossy black, as shown by the
references to ‘crows’.
See also Brown; Color; Dark. [M.E.H.]
BLACKBERRY see MULBERRY
BLACKBIRD
*h a emes-l- ‘blackbird’. [JEW 35-36 (*ames- ~ *omes-)\
Wat 2 ( *ames -); BK 462 (* ham-/* ham-)]. Weis mwyalch
‘blackbird’, Lat merula ‘blackbird’, OE osle ‘blackbird’, OHG
amusla ‘blackbird’. A western dialectal term.
*kopso- ‘blackbird’ . [ IEW 6 1 4-6 1 5 ( *kopso -)] . OCS kosu
‘blackbird’, Grk Koynxog ‘blackbird’, Koocrvyog ‘blackbird’.
Possibly a central dialectal term.
Blackbird is a term that applies specifically to a thrush-
like bird, the Turdus merula , which is entirely black in color
and smaller than the crow or raven. Although cognate sets
exist, they are clearly dialectal and provide no grounds for
positing a PIE word for this bird. From PIE *ker- ‘crow’ comes
the MArm sareak ‘blackbird’, with the diminutive suffix -ek.
In Old Indie the blackbird has many names, doubtlessly
implying that the bird had no standardly understood
terminology; most of the names are based on Olnd kal -,
probably meaning ‘melodious’ or ‘murmuring’, cf. Theocritus,
who regarded the blackbird as sacred because of its sweet
song. The blackbird is well distributed from Europe to Asia.
See also Birds. [J.A.C.G.]
Further Reading
Hamp, E. R (1982) Western Indo-European notes, 9. *meslH-
‘Amsel’. IF 87, 77-79.
BLADDER
*y#d s tfs ‘bladder’. \ IEW 1105 ( *udero -)]. Lat ves(s)Ica (<
*venslca ?) ‘bladder’, Olnd vastf- ‘bladder’. The apparent
phonological match of the Latin and Old Indie words and
the exact semantic match make this word a good candidate
for PIE status.
See also Anatomy; Entrails. [D.Q.A.]
BLAME
*hilengh- ‘blame, reproach’, [cf. IEW 676 {*lengh-)] . Grk
eXeyxoa ‘blame, reproach’, Hit li(n)k- ‘swear’, lingai- ‘oath’,
Luv likk- ‘swear’. The distribution, in Greek and Anatolian,
strongly suggests PIE status. The peculiar semantic
development seen in the Anatolian cognates is illuminated
by the phrasing of the “soldier’s oath” in Hittite. Swearing an
oath in Hittite, and presumably more widely in Anatolian,
consisted of a curse on oneself — to be fulfilled if the oath was
broken.
See also Oath; Pray. [D.Q.A.]
BLEAT
*bhlehi~ ‘bleat’ (pres. *bhlehije/o-). \IEW 154 ( *bhle-)\ .
Lat fled ‘weep, cry, lament; shed tears’, MHG blaejen ‘bleat’,
Latv bleju ‘bleat’, Rus bleju ‘bleat’. A word of the IE northwest.
?*blek- ‘± bleat’. [ IEW 102 {*ble-)[. ORus blekati ‘bleat’,
Rus blekotati ‘bleat’, Grk fiXrixdofrai ‘bleat’ (cf. Alb blegeras
‘bleat’ and MLG bleken ‘bleat’); as if from *bhled-. OE bltftan
‘bleat’ (> NE bleat), OHG blazan ‘bleat’. A widespread
onomatopoeic formation, probably independent in each of
the stocks where it occurs.
See also Animal Cry; Sheep. [D.Q.A.l
BUND
*h a endhds ‘blind’. [/EW41 ( *andho-)\ Wat 2 ( *andho-)\
Buck 4.97]. Gaul anda-bata ‘gladiator who fights in a helmet
without eye-openings’, Av anda- ‘blind’, Olnd andha- ‘blind’.
Though sparsely attested, its attestations come from opposite
sides of the IE world and suggest a respectable antiquity. As
the designation for an infirmity, the word was probably subject
to taboo or euphemistic replacement.
*kolnos ‘one-eyed’. [IEW 545 ( *kol-no-s)\ . Grk
(Hesychius) KeXXag ‘one-eyed’, Olnd kana- ‘one-eyed’.
Possibly Olr coll ‘having lost the right eye’ and/or Mir goll
‘blind of one eye, purblind’. If the Celtic be accepted,
distribution would confirm at least a late PIE date for this
word.
*k&ikos ‘one-eyed, cross-eyed’. [IEW 519-520 ( *kai-ko-)\
Wat 26 {*kaiko-)\ cf. G1 135] . Olr caech ‘one-eyed’, Mir leth-
chaech ‘cross-eyed’, Weis coeg ‘vacant’, coegddal ‘one-eyed’,
Lat caecus ‘blind’, Goth haihs ‘one-eyed’, perhaps Olnd
kekara- ‘cross-eyed’ (only attested very late). The -a- suggests
a popular word, a “competitor” perhaps of the previous word.
Certainly a westemism in IE. If the Old Indie word belongs
here, then we have evidence for a much wider distribution
originally.
In IE tradition, the received wisdom is that blindness comes
about as a payment for other singular personal gifts or talents:
the blindness of the poet Homer and the Theban seer Tlresias
are examples from Greek tradition while, on another level,
the blind Indie god Bhaga, who rules all destiny, has obtained
a power to make up for his lost sight. Sightlessness can also
be construed as a “wound” in the IE First Function, affecting
the head and a “sovereign” sense, located in the eyes.
A blind or single-eyed deity is a recurrent motif in the
mythologies of a number of IE peoples, particularly those of
western Europe, where it marks the Varunaic character in
contrast to a one-handed Mitraic figure. In Norse mythology,
Odinn sacrifices one of his eyes for a drink from Mlmir’s well
which provides him with the gift of wisdom while his Mitraic
counterpart, Tyr, must violate his own word given on trust in
order to bind the wolf Fenrir and in consequence suffer the
loss of his arm.
The Roman counterparts to the debilities of Odinn and
Tyr are to be found in early Roman history, or historicized
myth, where Horatius Codes, who is blind in one eye, is able
— 70
BLOW
to hold off the Etruscans with his one-eyed gaze while Mucius
Scaevola, a failed assassin of Lars Porsena, so impressed his
intended victim by holding his hand in a fire and swearing
an oath that many more assassins had also been dispatched
to kill the Etruscan king, that Porsena sues for peace. Another
possible instance of the one-eyed motif is to be found in Pliny’s
account of Regulus, a lawyer who would paint a large circle
around one of his eyes in order to cast a spell over those in
court.
Celtic examples of one-eyed figures who can “bind”
through the power of their gaze are well known, especially in
Irish mythology. In the cataclysmic second battle of Moytura,
Lug dances about the armies of the Formorians on one foot
and with one eye closed in order to insure victory while his
main opponent, Balor, is renowned for his single enormous
eye which would so fix his enemy that they would be
powerless to resist. Moreover, many druidic names contain
the element dall- ‘blind’ and its connection with prophetic
power is evident in such tales as the Tromdamh Guaire where
the blind druid Dalian Forgaill has his sight restored and
thereby loses his special ability.
Jaan Puhvel has noted how the eye as a source of power
finds a curious lexical association in both some IE and Semitic
languages where ‘eye’ and ‘well’ or ‘spring’ seem to be closely
related, e.g., Hit sakui- and Arm akn mean both ‘eye’ and
‘well-spring’ while Av casman- ‘eye’ yields both NPers casm
‘eye’ and casme ‘spring’ while Latv aka ‘well’ and Rus oko
‘eye’ are cognate. Wells or springs, e.g., the Well of Mlmir in
Norse mythology from which Odinn gains his prophetic
power, are well known in Germanic and Celtic mythology.
See also Defect. [D.Q.A., J.PM., D M.]
Further Reading
Puhvel, J. (1987) Comparative Mythology. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
University Press.
BLOOD
*hi£sh 2 f~ *hi 6 sh 2 dr (nom.), *hi e sh 2 nds (gen.) ‘(flowing)
blood’. [IEW 343 (*es-r(g^)\ GI 715 ( *esH[/n-(t h ))■ Buck
4.15]. OLat aser ~ assyr ‘blood’ (this is an archaic word handed
down in tradition whose exact shape had been forgotten),
Latv asins ‘blood’, Grk cap ‘blood’. Arm ariwn ‘blood’, Hit
eshar (gen. es(h)nas) ‘blood’, Olnd asfk (gen. asnas ) ‘blood’,
TochA ysar and TochB yasar (< *hiesh 2 dr) ‘blood’. Cf. the
derivative in Lat sanguen (< *hish 2 en-g w -en - ) ‘blood’. Its
geographical spread (including Anatolian) and archaic
morphology insure PIE status.
*kr£uh a ( nom./acc.), *kruh a 6 s(gen), *ki 6 uh a -s , *krduh a -
i}o- ‘blood (outside the body), gore’. [IEW 621 (*kreu-);
Wat 32 ( *kreua-)\ GI 604 (^reuH-); Buck 4.15; BK 265
( *k[ h ]ur-/*k[ h Jor -)]. Mir cru (< *kruh a -) ‘blood’, Weis crau
‘blood’, Lat cruor (< *kreuh a os ) ‘thick blood, gore’, OPrus
krawian ‘blood’, Lith kraujas ‘blood’, OCS kru vt ‘blood’, Rus
krovl ‘blood’, Grk Kpia ‘raw flesh’, Kpeag ‘piece of meat’,
Olnd kravis- ‘raw flesh’. The wide geographical spread and
archaic morphology both guarantee PIE status. Cf. the deri-
vative *kruh a ros ‘bloody, raw’: Lat crudus (dissimilated from
*cruro - ) ‘raw’, Av xrura- ‘bloody’, Olnd krura- ‘bloody’; and
in Germanic, *krouh a os : ON hrar, OE hreaw (> NE raw),
OHG ( h)ro , all ‘raw’.
It has been argued that the lexical distinction between
‘(inside) blood’ and ‘(outside) blood’ in PIE is emphasized by
derivatives and extensions of meaning that indicate two,
opposed metaphorical sets. According to this hypothesis, the
root for ‘(outside) blood’ *kreuh a - yields words signifying
aggression, e.g., Bret kriz ‘cruel’, Lat crudelis ‘cruel’, Lith
kruvinu ‘make bloody’, Grk Kpovto ‘beat, whip, crush’, and
dying, seen metaphorically in terms of the hardening (or
freezing) of ‘outside blood’, e.g., OIr cruaid ‘hard’, Lat crusta
‘crust’, Latv kreve ‘coagulated blood’, Olnd krudayati ‘makes
thick, harden’ and OHG hroso ‘ice’, Grk Kpvoq ‘icy cold’,
Latv kruv-es-is ‘frozen mud’. This connection, it is suggested,
establishes an underlying semantic notion that *kreuh a was
to be associated with a negative set of connotations involving
wounding, death, the drying out or hardening of the body,
and in the sense of Levi-Strauss, the “raw”, i.e., the natural
rather than the cultural world. However, while the words
associated with blood clearly derive from *kreuh a -, this is
not demonstrated for those that denote either ‘cold’ or ‘strike’
which can or must be derived from *kreu- (without a
laryngeal). Therefore, there are phonological grounds for
distinguishing both the words and meanings in PIE although
some form of secondary association between *kreuh a - and
*kreu- may have occurred. It is also suggested that *h iesh 2 f
‘(inner) blood’ not only was associated with the concept of a
life-giving body fluid but also denoted the patrilineal line,
the male’s own blood-line, in kinship terminology.
See also Body; Heart; Kinship; Sister. [D.Q.A., J. P M ]
Further Readings
Hamp, E. P (1979) Indo-European *kreuh-. IF 82, 75-76.
Linke, U. (1985) Blood as metaphor in Proto-Indo-European. JIBS
13, 333-376.
Parvulescu, A. (1989) Blood and IE kinship terminology. IF 94,
67-88.
BLOW
*bhel- ‘blow, blow up, swell (specifically used of genitalia)’.
[JEW 120-122 (*bheT); Wat 6-7 ( *bhel-\ GI 775 (*b h e/-);
Buck 10.38; BK 10 ( *buI-/*boI -)]. Olr ball ‘body part’, ball
feili ‘pudendum’, ball ferda ‘penis’, Lat follis ‘leather sack
inflated with air’, fid (< *bhl-eh a -) ‘blow’, ON blasa (< *bhl-
e-) ‘to blow’, OE blawan (< *bhle-u- ) ‘to blow’ (> NE blow),
OHG blasan ‘to blow’, Goth ulblesan ‘blow’, Grk cpaXXog
‘penis’, Arm belun ‘fertile’, Olnd bhanda- ‘pot’. The relatively
broad distribution of cognates makes this form solidly
reconstructible to PIE.
*bhlei- ‘± become inflated’. [ IEW 1 56 ( *bhlei-)} . ON blistra
‘blow’, Latv bllstu ‘become thick’, Grk (pXiSato ‘overflow of
moisture’. An enlargement of the previous entry.
— 7
BLOW
*peis- ‘blow through an aperture so as to make a noise’.
[IEW 796 ( *peis-)\ Wat 48 (*peis-)[. Lat spiro ‘blow’, ON
fisa ‘to fart’, OE fisting ‘farting’, MHG vtsen ‘to fart’, Lith pysketi
‘bursts, cracks’, OCS piskati ‘to whistle’, Rus piscu ‘squeak’,
OInd picchora ‘flute, pipe’, TochA pis- (< *piyask-) ‘blow (a
musical instrument)’. Latin spiro shows an initial s- which
makes its connection with the rest of this set a little doubtful.
The Baltic, Slavic and Old Indie forms point to a suffixed
stem *pi-sk~. The distribution supports PIE status.
*p(h)eu- ‘blow, swell’. [IEW 847 ( *pQ-); BK 34 ( *p[ h ]uw-/
*p[ h ]ow-)]. Mir uan (< *pou-ino- ) ‘foam, froth’, Weis ewyn
(< *pou-ino- ) ‘foam’, OPrus pounian (misspelling for
*pomnanl ) (< *pon-man ) ‘buttocks’, Lith pure ‘tuft, puff’,
Latv paure ‘summit, back of the head’, Rus pulja ‘ball’, Arm
(h)ogi (< *pou-io-) ‘breath’, OInd pupputa- ‘swelling of the
palate and gums’; *pu-g-\ ON fjuka ‘snowstorm’, Lith puga
‘snowstorm’, Latv puga ‘squall of wind’, Grk nvyq ‘buttocks’,
OInd phupphukaraka- ‘panting’; *p(h)u-s Lat pustula
‘bubble, blister’, Grk (pvoa ‘wind, blast’, OInd pusyati
‘flourishes, prospers’. The root-initial stop varies between
aspirated and unaspirated, perhaps for sound-symbolic
reasons. The large number of derivatives based on this root
and its broad distribution suggest PIE status.
*syei- ‘blow through a small aperture so as to hiss or buzz’.
[IEW 1040-1041 ( *suei-)\ Wat 68 ( *swei-)\ GI 105; Buck
10.38]. *sueisd -: Olr seitid ‘blows’, Weis chwythu
(< *suisd-) ‘blows’, OCS svistati ‘to whistle, hiss’, Grk enfeu
‘sizzle, crackle’, OInd ksvedati ‘buzzes, hums, murmurs’;
*sueighl-: Lat slbilo ‘whistle, hiss’, OHG swegala ‘reed, flute’,
Goth swiglon ‘to play the flute’. The stem *sueisd- may be
reconstructed to PIE with some certainty, based on the range
of languages in which it is attested and the fact that the
correspondences are fairly regular. The Latin and Germanic
forms may be derivatives based on the same root but due to
their onomatopoeic nature, it is also possible that they
represent parallel innovations in the two stocks.
*h 2 \}ehi- ‘blow’. [IEW 82-83 ( *ue -) ; Wat 73 (*we-)\ GI
584 (*Hu-); Buck 10.38]. OE wawan ‘to blow’, OHG waen
‘to blow’, Goth waian ‘to blow’, OCS vejati ‘to blow’, Grk
olt]gi ‘blows’, Av vaiti ‘blows’, OInd viti ‘blows 1 ; *h2uehi-
ntos: Weis gwynt ‘wind’, Lat ventus ‘wind’, ON vindr ‘wind’,
OE wind ‘wind’ (> NE wind), Goth winds ‘wind’. Hit huwant-
‘wind’, OInd vita- ‘wind’, TochA want ‘wind’, TochB yente
‘wind’. The Old Indie form may presuppose *h 2 uehintos with
vocalism of the syllabic nasal preceding loss of medial
laryngeal. Both the verbal root and the participial derivative
are very solidly attested to PIE.
*per - ‘blow (on a fire)’. [IEW 809 ( *per-)\ . OCS para
‘steam, smoke’, Grk npfjdco ‘blow’, mpnpppi ‘burn’, Hit
p(a)rai- ‘breathe, blow’; *preus- ON frysa ‘to pant, snort’, OInd
prusnoti ‘sprinkles, showers’. Some confusion exists among
forms based on the stem *preus- in the particular meaning
‘blow on a fire’ and forms based on the homophonous root
*preus- ‘freeze, burn’. Although the root *per- is only scantily
attested, its distribution suggests PIE status.
*bhes- ‘blow’. [IEW 146 ( *bhes-)\ Wat 8 ( *bhes-)\ GI 1 34
(*b h es-)[. Grk y/Vyo) ‘cool off’ (tr.) (originally ‘cool off by
blowing’), OInd babhasti ‘blows’, TochB pas- whisper’. If all
of these words belong together then we have evidence for
PIE status.
See also Fart; Sexual Organs; Swell; Wind. [M.N.]
I
BLUE see GREEN
BMAC
(BACTRIAN-MARGLANA ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPLEX) ^
The BMAC (also known as the Oxus culture) is a late Bronze
Age cultural phenomenon (c 2200-1700 BC) of southern i
Turkmenistan. Coincident with the collapse of urban societies
further south (Namazga V/VI periods), there was a
colonization of the oases of Bactria and Margiana from the
south (Namazga V type pottery is found on some of the earliest
BMAC sites). The proliferation of the new sites, however, has
also suggested that there was an additional demographic
element absorbed by the BMAC.
The settlements of the BMAC are typified by defensive forts
such as Gonur and Togolok, both circular and rectangular,
that may be surrounded by up to three walls. These greatly
resemble the qala, the type of fort in this region also known
from the historical period. Within the forts are residential
quarters, workshops and temples. The social structure of these
forts, at least on the basis of later ethnographic evidence,
suggests that each had its own ruler who may well have been
in competition with both neighboring forts and with nomadic
tribes of the region. The existence of nomadic stockbreeders
is attested on and near many of the fortified sites by the
presence of Andronovo pottery.
At the fortified site of Dashly 3 there was also a circular
ceremonial center. Investigation of some of the ceremonial
rooms has revealed evidence for cultic paraphernalia that has
been identified with the soma (Iranian haoma ) ritual, i.e.,
equipment for expressing a liquid, remains of both ephedra
and poppy, and it has been suggested that the *sauma ritual
emerged out of these BMAC centers and was carried )
southwards into the historical seats of the Indo-Aryans.
The economy of the BMAC was based on irrigation r
agriculture and stockbreeding. The primary cereal crop
identified so far is barley ( Hordeum vulgare) accompanied
by a variety of wheats ( Triticum aestivium/durum, T.
dicoccum ) and some pulses and lentils, i.e. , chick-pea (Cicer ) , i
pea ( Pisum ), grass pea ( Lathyrus ) and lentil (Lens). Among
the fruits, there is evidence of plums ( Prunus ), apple (Malus),
and grape ( Vitis ). The domestic animal remains were
dominated numerically by sheep and goat with small numbers
of cattle. The age-structure of the sheep, with many older
individuals known from the site of Gonur, suggests that they
were exploited for wool as well as meat. In the later period !
there is some evidence for camel. Wild animals included
gazelle, wild boar, tortoise, and eagle. Onager remains are
known from the culture as well but horse remains have not j
72
BMAC
BMAC b. Reconstruction of the site of Togolok;
c. Cylinder seal from a burial at Togolok (the
depiction of humans apparently dressed as
animals has been interpreted as evidence for a
shamanic ritual); d. Antenna sword.
yet been found although the presence of Andronovo material
on the sites suggests a knowledge of the horse since this animal
is very well represented on Andronovo sites further north.
Evidence of the domestic donkey ( Equus asinus) have been
recovered but its chronological position (BMAC or still later
in the Bronze Age) is uncertain.
The ability of the BMAC to expand over a large area was
due to its adoption of intensive irrigation. The structure of
the citadels, along with the large quantity of locally produced
status goods frequently recovered from burials, suggests a
hierarchical society. The grave-gifts included metal goods
(copper bowls, ornaments, silver buttons), ceramics and stone
vessels, and stone seals. The seals reveal scenes presumably
associated With mythological figures, e.g., snakes, dragons,
lions, and entire “narrative” scenes.
The BMAC now plays a very important role in discussions
of the archaeology of the early Indo-Iranians. One of the key
problems of identifying Indo-Iranian expansions into Iran,
Pakistan and India has been the chain of Central Asian urban
sites that apparently separated nomadic stockbreeders of the
Russian and Kazakhstan steppe, the Andronovo culture, who
conformed very well with respect to settlement, economy,
technology and ritual expected of the early Indo-lranians and
the earliest historically identified Indo-Aryan and Iranian
cultures further south. To the south of the Central Asian
centers were the local Iranian and Indian cultures which were
presumably or provably non-IE, e.g., to the southwest of the
Caspian were the Hurrians and Urartians while southern Iran
was occupied by the Elamites; the Harappan culture of India
is presumably non-Indo-European. There is no evidence that
these regions were penetrated significantly by the Andronovo
culture of the northern steppe. Hence, it has become
increasingly clear that if one wishes to argue for Indo-Iranian
migrations from the steppe lands south into the historical
seats of the Iranians and Indo-Aryans that these steppe cultures
were transformed as they passed through a membrane of
Central Asian urbanism. The fact that typical steppe wares
are found on BMAC sites and that intrusive BMAC material is
subsequently found further to the south in Iran, Afghanistan
and Pakistan, may suggest then the subsequent movement of
Indo-lranian-speakers after they had adopted the culture of
the BMAC. Such a model, obviously, presupposes that one
can associate an Indo-Iranian identity with the BMAC.
Arguments for this identity rests on several lines of
evidence. The geographical location of the BMAC or Oxus
sites conforms, it is argued, with the historical situation of
the Da(h)a and Pamoi mentioned in Greek and Latin sources
which have, in turn, been identified with the Dasas, Dasyus
and Panis of the Rgveda who were defeated by the Vedic Arya.
The presence of triple-walled circular forts in the BMAC also
matches the description of the fortified sites depicted in the
Vedas. Moreover, the BMAC sites have also yielded physical
— 73 —
BMAC
evidence of what has been presumed to be the Indo-lranian
*sauma cult, one of the characteristic religious distinctions
between the Vedic Arya and their enemies. On the model of
contemporary relationships between Tajiks, the settled farmers
of the area, and the semi-nomadic Uzbeks, the steppe
populations are presumed to have been in regular seasonal
contact with those settled in the oases. Such relationships
have tended to result in bilingualism among the settled
populations, one of the prerequisites of a language shift.
See also Andronovo Culture; Bishkent Culture;
Harappan Culture; Indo-Iranian Languages; Mehrgarh;
Sacred Drink; Vakhsh Culture. [J.PM.]
Further Readings
Hiebert, E (1994) Origins of the Oxus civilization. Antiquity 68,
372-387.
Parpola, A. (1994) Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Sarianidi, V (1994) Temples of Bronze Age Margiana: traditions of
ritual architecture- Antiquity 68, 388-397.
BOARD see PLANK
BOAT
*n6h a us{gt n. *n£ a y<5s) ‘boat’. [/EW755 ( *naus-)\ Wat 43
( *nau-)\ G1 582 ( *naHw-)\ Buck 10.83; BK 568 (*na-/
*n9-)]. OIr nau ( DIL no) ‘boat’, Weis noe ‘boat’, Lat navis
‘ship’ (borrowed > NE nave), ON nor ‘ship’, OE nowend
‘skipper, sailor’ (with, as sometimes happens, a “hardened”
laryngeal we have ON nokkui ‘boat’, OE naca ‘boat’, OHG
nahho ‘skiff, small boat’ reflecting a virtual *neh a ii-on-), Grk
vauc; ‘(war-)ship’, Oss naw‘ boat’, Olnd nau- ‘boat’; compare
the derivative *neh a uiios : Grk vqioq ‘of or belonging to a
boat’, Av navaya- ‘navigable’, OPers naviya ‘[riverl passable
only with a boat, not wadable’, Olnd navya- ‘crossable with a
boat’, Khowar na ‘mill-race, aqueduct consisting of hollow
logs’ (and similar words in other Dardic and Nuristani
languages, e.g. Ashkun as no ~ nawa ‘mill-race’, Kati nu ‘mill-
race, aqueduct consisting of hollow logs’). TochA new‘flood’
(< *naiwe by metathesis < *neh a uiio-\ it may be a direct
inheritance or, more probably, a borrowing from Iranian,
specifically Sogdian). In the Iranian Sarikoli we have wanew
‘irrigation channel’ reflecting *wi-nawiya. These latter
meanings may suggest that for the Proto-Indo-Iranians both
aqueducts and boats might be made out of hollowed-out logs.
From *(s)neh a - ‘swim’ which renders quite uncompelling GPs
attempt to derive this word from a West Semitic *’unw-(at-)
‘jar, vessel’. The evidence of Dardic and Nuristani might
suggest that this PIE ‘the swimmer’ might have been, in earliest
times, a hollowed out log. In any case, this word is widely
reflected in IE and is clearly the most usual word for ‘boat’ in
PIE.
*hxoldhu- ‘(dugout) canoe, trough’. [/EW31-3 ( *aldh-)\
Buck 10.83]. OE ealdop (< *h x oldhu-to/eh a ~) ‘trough’, ORus
loduka ‘boat’, Rus lodka ‘boat’, TochAB olyi (< *h x old
huhien-) ‘boat’. Different formations appear in Norw (dial.)
olda ‘trough’, NSwed (dial.) ille ‘trough’, ODan aalde ~ olde
‘trough’ (< Proto-Norse *alddn-), Lith aldija ‘boat’, OCS ladiji
~ aludiji ‘boat’ (Balto-Slavic < *h x oldhiieh a -). Here is the
primary word for ‘dug-out’ or the like. Sufficiently widespread
to be very probably a late PIE word.
*(s)kolmos ‘boat’ . [VW228-229], OHG skalm (< *skol-mo)
‘boat’, TochA kolam ‘boat’, TochB kolmo ‘boat’ (Toch <
*kolmo-on-). From *(s)kel- ‘cut’. Though reflected in only
two IE stocks, the geographical distribution of those two
stocks makes it probable that we have here evidence for a late
PIE word.
?*plovos ~ *plouiom ‘± watercraft’. [1EW 835-837
( *ploxt6-s)\ cf. Wat 52 ( *pleu -); GI 582 From
*ployos: Rus plov ‘boat’, TochB plewe ‘raft’; from *p!ouiom:
ON fley 1 ship’, Grk ttAoiov ‘ ship’; other formations: Grk nXovq
‘time for sailing’, Olnd plava- (< *pleuos) ‘boat’. From *pleu-
‘float’. This set of words is a second group reflecting an original
meaning ‘floater’ or the like. However, the derivational
processes which underly these words are all very productive
in these IE groups and it is quite possible that we have here a
collection of independent formations rather than the reflection
of a genuine PIE word.
The words for ‘boat’ that we can reconstruct for (some
part oQ the IE world are of two kinds: (1) those that appear to
have originally meant ‘swimmer’, ‘floater’, or the like ( *neh a us,
*ployos ~ *plouiom) and (2) those which appear to have
meant ‘that which is carved out’ ( *h x oldhu -, *(s)kolmos),
though clearly the differentiation of these two groups was
not absolute. This distinction between ‘swimmer’ and ‘that
which is carved out’ is not far removed from the terminology
employed in the archaeological study of vessels where three
forms of water transport may be distinguished: the float, a
buoyant object employed by its user partially submerged in
water; the raft, a means of transport where the material of
conveyance floats because of its own natural buoyancy; and
the boat, where the means of flotation are achieved by the
hollowed-out shape of the vessel which displaces the water.
The structural variations of the latter are quite large and range
from simple hide boats, to those which are reinforced with a
frame, birch and basket boats, plank boats (of a wide range
of constructions) and solid (dug-out) boats. As for the rafts,
there is considerable evidence in the ethnographic record that
they need not be simply a few logs lashed together but may
even be built in the shape of a boat and fitted with a sail.
Boats long predate the existence of the PIE language family
and are attested at least since the Mesolithic in Europe and
western Asia by either inference, e.g., the occupation of Ireland
by human communities by c 7000 BC after it had become an
island or the presence of obsidian on mainland Greece which
had been obtained from the Island of Melos in the Cyclades,
or direct archaeological evidence, e.g, clay models of vessels
such as a small clay boat from a Copper Age site in Bulgaria,
or the actual remains of dug-out canoes fashioned from lime-
wood discovered in a late Mesolithic settlement in Denmark.
— 74 —
The use of dugouts was not confined to the coastal regions of
Europe but we also find evidence in the inland waterways
and lakes. During the Neolithic period, dugouts of oak are
known from the Swiss lake-side dwellings. The use of birch-
bark and hide vessels is more elusive but they are also believed
to date from a very early period; indeed the latter is regarded
as far more seaworthy and they were employed also since the
Mesolithic. As the reconstructed PIE vocabulary for water
transport is confined to ‘boat’ and ‘oar’ (and does not include
the ‘sail’ which is encountered archaeologically from the
Bronze Age onwards, or any other specialized nautical terms),
there are neither grounds for presuming a particularly high
level of naval technology for the speakers of the proto-language
nor can the evidence of the boat be employed to specify the
homeland of the Indo-Europeans.
See also Float; Oar; Swim. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
Further Reading
McGrail, S. (1987) Ancient Boats in N. W. Europe. London and
New York, Longman.
BODROGKERESZTUR CULTURE
This middle Copper Age culture (c 4000-3600 BC) of
Hungary is known best from its seventy cemeteries which
show clear genetic links with its predecessor, the Tiszapolgar
culture. Settlement evidence is extremely meager and confined
to only a handful of sites without dear architectural remains. Bodrogkeresznlr a. Distribution of the Bodrogkeresztur culture
The economy was apparently mixed agriculture and stock-
breeding with cattle the predominant species, followed by
sheep/goat and pig. Wild fauna include the aurochs, red deer,
wild boar, roe deer and hare. Ceramics continue the forms of
the earlier culture although a particular form, termed a “milk
jug”, is also prominent. There is an increase of objects of
copper and gold, both implements (shaft-hole axes, awls) and
ornaments from the preceding culture. Flint and stone tools
also continue.
The Bodrogkeresztur cemeteries make a sharp distinction
according to sex with males buried on their right side, females
on their left; both sexes are oriented with their heads to the
east. Burials are accompanied by pottery, implements of stone
and copper, and ornaments of copper and gold. Social and
demographic analyses of the cemeteries have suggested that
the Bodrogkeresztur communities lived in small groups of
15-20 closely related people. Comparisons between the
distribution of wealth in the Bodrogkeresztur cemeteries and
those of the preceding Tiszapolgar period suggest that the
later burials were more egalitarian and showed less emphasis
on male primacy.
Within the Kurgan theory of IE origins, the
Bodrogkeresztur culture is explained as a “kurganized”, i.e.,
Indo-Europeanized, native culture of southeast Europe whose
structure was altered by steppe intruders although analysis
of the physical type indicates that the population was of the
local “Mediterranean” type rather than the intrusive Proto-
Europoid type of the steppelands. Alternatively, it has been
viewed as a culture stemming from a central-east European
(IE) homeland that, with the Salcu^a culture of neighboring
Bulgaria, migrated southwards to form the “Proto-Greeks” in
the third millennium BC.
See also TiszapolgAr Culture . Q . P M . ]
Further Reading
Skomal, S. (1985) In search of the Proto-Indo-European
archaeological assemblage. Mankind Quarterly 26, 175-192.
BODY
*kr6ps (gen. *kpp6s) ‘body’. [IEW620 ( *krep-)\ Buck 4.11;
BK 323 ( *k w [ h ]ur-/*k w [ h ]or-)\ . OIr crl ( *kfps) ‘body, flesh’,
Lat corpus ‘body’, OE hrif‘ belly, womb’, OHG (h)reEbody\
Av kdrdfs ‘body’, OInd kfp- ‘form, beauty’. This is the one
word reconstructible for PIE with the meaning ‘body’.
See also Anatomy. [D.Q.A.]
BOIL
*bher- ‘seethe, bubble’. [IEW 132-133 (*bher-); Wat 9
(*£>hreu-); BK 4 ( *bar-/*b9r -)] . Mir fobar(DIL fofor ) (< *uo-
bero-) ‘well’, Weis gofer (< *uo-bero -) ‘brook’, Lat fermentum
(< *bher-men-tom ) ‘ferment, leaven’, OE beorma ‘yeast,
leaven’, Grk (redup.) nopiptipco ‘bubble’, Av bara- ‘move
oneself quickly’, OInd bhuratV moves rapidly, quivers’. There
is some question whether the Indo-Iranian forms are cognate
with the others though this word still seems reconstructible
to PIE.
*bhereu- ‘seethe’. [IEW 143-145 ( *bh(e)reu-)\ Wat 9
( *bhreu-)\ Buck 5.22, 10.31]. Olr berbaid ‘boils, seethes’,
Weis berwaE boil’, Lat ferveo ‘boil’, OE breowan ‘to brew’ (>
NE brew), OHG briuwan ‘to brew’, Alb brume ‘dough’, OInd
bhurvani- ‘restless, excited’. An extension of *bher- ‘seethe’
with reference to cooking and brewing confined to the
European stocks.
*seu- ‘boil (something)’. [IEW 9 14-9 15 (*seu-); Wat 58
( *seut-)\ . ON sjoda (< *seu-t-) ‘to cook, boil’, OE seodan (<
*seu-t-) ‘to cook, boil’ (> NE seethe ), Goth (noun) saups (<
*seu-t~) ‘sacrifice’, Lith siausti ‘to rave, charge around’, Rus
sutfff ‘to joke, play with’, Av havayeiti ‘stews’. The range of
stocks in which this root is attested secures it to PIE. The
meaning ‘sacrifice’ in Gothic suggests the possibility that some
76 —
BORDER
sacrificed animals were boiled.
*jes- ‘boil’. [IEW 506 (*jes-); Wat 79 (*yes-); Buck 10.31].
Olr es(s) ‘cataract’, Weis (noun) ias ‘boiling’, OE gist ‘foam,
yeast’ (> NE yeast), OHG jesan ‘to ferment, effervesce’, Grk
o ‘boil, cook’, Hit is(sa)na- ‘dough’, Av yaesya- ‘boil’, OInd
yasyati ‘boils, foams’, TochA yas- ‘boil’, TochB yas- ‘excite,
ravish’ (< *‘make boil’). Broad distribution and semantic
regularity, especially with widespread reference to food
preparation, suggest PIE status.
*sret- ~ *sredh- ‘boil, be agitated, move noisily’. [IEW
1001-1002 ( *sr-edh- ~ *sr-et-)] . Mir srithit ‘spurt of milk or
blood’, OHG stredan ‘effervesce, whirl, boil’, Grk poOoq
‘rushing noise, roar of waves, clash of oars’, TochA sartw-
‘incite, instigate, encourage’, TochB sartt- ‘incite, instigate,
encourage’. If all of these words, as seems probable, belong
together then we have evidence for a PIE word.
See also Beer; Cook; Ferment; Wave. [M.N.]
BONE
*h 2 6st (gen. *h 2 6sts ) ‘bone’. [/EW783 ( *ost(h)-)\ Wat 46
( *ost-)\ GI 716 ( *q tl e/os-fr-)\ Buck 4.16]. Olr asna ~ esna (<
*h 2 estniio- ) ‘rib’, MWels eis(en) (< *h 2 estdn) ‘ribs’, Lat os
‘bone’. Alb asht ‘bone’, Grk ooteov ‘bone’, 6a<pvq (< *h 2 ost-
bhu-) ‘hip’, ocnocKoq ~ aoxctKoq (< *h 2 e/ostpkd-) ‘lobster’,
dor payaXoq ‘vertebra, ball of ankle joint, knucklebone’, Arm
oskr(< *h 2 ost-uf) ‘bone’, Hit hastai- ‘bone’, Luv has(sa) ‘bone’,
Av as-ca- ‘shinbone’, asti- ‘bone’, OInd asthi (gen. asthnas)
‘bone’, TochB asta (pi.) ‘bones’. (Possibly connected are Lat
costa ‘rib’ and OCS kostl ‘bone’ but the initial *k- is not
explained.) Practically universal in IE: clearly the PIE term
for ‘bone’.
See also Anatomy; Cosmology. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Hamp, E. P (1984) Indo-European ‘bone’ reconsidered. KZ 92, 197-
201 .
BOOTY
*sotu ‘booty (particularly men, cattle, and sheep)’, [cf. IEW
910 ( *ser -); GI 644 ( *se/orw -)]. Preserved as such only in
Hit saru ‘booty (particularly captured men, cattle, and sheep)’,
saruwai- ‘plunder, rob’; cf. the derivative *seryio/eh a - ‘±
pertaining to booty’ in Mir serb (< *serueh a -) ‘theft’, Weis
herw (< *seiyos) ‘raid (whose principal goal was usually
cattle); outlawry’. Perhaps belonging here also is Lat servus
‘slave’ if < *‘he of the booty’ (i.e., ‘someone brought home as
booty’).
See also Captive, Freeman, Reward, Servant; Steal, Wealth.
[E.C.P, D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1975) Hittite saru, Old Irish serb, Welsh herw. A Hittite-
Celtic etymology, in Indo-European Studies 2, ed. C. Watkins,
Cambridge, Mass., 322-331.
BORDER
*h^erh 2 os ‘border, line, limit’. 1 IEW 784 (*ous-); GI 647
( *e/orH-)\ Buck 12.3531. Hit arha- ‘line, rim, boundary,
confine(s)’, arha(i)- ‘go down the line, circulate, make the
rounds’, arahzena- ‘one living outside the boundary’, irhui ~
erhui(< *h^h 2 u-) ‘basket’ (< *‘circular line’). Cf. the derived
*h 4 drh 2 o/eh a -m OE or(< *h^drh 2 om) ‘beginning, front’, ora
(< *h^orh 2 -on-) ‘border, bank, shore’, Lat ora ‘brim, edge,
boundary, coast; region, rope, cable’ (< *‘line’); from *h 4 erh 2 o/
eh a - we have Lith dras ‘air, weather’ (< *‘what is outside’), is
oro ‘outside’, Latv ara ‘border, boundary, country, limit’. The
line or limit separating indoors from outdoors or the village
from the surrounding countryside. Widespread and old in
IE.
*morg- ‘border’. [JEW 738 ( *mereg-)\ Wat 42 ( *merg-)\
Buck 19.17]. Olr mruig ‘district’, Weis bro ‘district’ (Celtic
from a metathesized *mrog -), Lat margo ‘edge’, ON mprk
‘borderland, forest’, OE mearc ‘border, district’, OHG marka
‘border, district’, Goth marka ‘border, region’, Av maraza-
‘border country’, perhaps TochA markam- ‘characteristic
mark’. The distribution suggests PIE status.
*termQ ~ *t6rm0n ‘border’. { IEW 1075 (*ter-mp-); Wat
70 ( *ter-men-)\ GI 50 ( *t h er-H-)\ Buck 19.17], Lat termen
‘border’, Myc te-mi ‘border’, Grk x eppa ‘border, goal, end
point’, dxEpgcov ‘without limits’, Arm t‘arm ‘end’, Hit tarma-
‘stake’, OInd tarman- ‘point of sacrificial post’. From *ter-
‘cross over’. Specific points along borders were marked by
posts or stakes, hence from *ter-men-, literally, ‘that which
one crosses over’ to Hit tarma- ‘stake’. The use of stones, stakes,
posts, etc., as border markers arose with sedentism and
religious practices. In ancient Rome, for example, the father
of the family ritually circumambulated his fields whose
borders were marked by posts or stones which had been set
into the ground according to ritual prescriptions involving
sacrifices. In Rome, Greece and India, boundary posts or
stones were regarded as sacrosanct and harsh penalties were
exerted against anyone who violated such markers.
Historical records in Latin, Greek and Old Indie report
rituals intended to separate sacred, and thus living, space from
profane and thus uninhabitable space. Both the hearth and
the tomb were circumscribed with sacred rites. These rites
while emphasizing kinship, implicitly required the separation
of one hearth, one household, one homestead, and eventually,
a social unit bound by the same ancestral founder, from the
next. Social and religious considerations are therefore at the
inception of formal boundaries.
See a Iso Furrow; Line. (A.D.V.l
Further Readings
Della Volpe, A. (1992) On Indo-European ceremonial and socio-
political elements underlying the origin of formal boundaries.
J1ES 20, 71-122.
Eliade, M. (1959) The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of
Religion. New York, Harcourt, Brace and World.
— 77
BOTTOM
BOTTOM see GROUND
BOW AND ARROW
*g w (i)lSh a (gen. *g w ih a 6s ) ‘bow-string; taut thread’. [IEW
48 1 ( *g^iia ~ *g u iios )]. Lith gija ‘warp threads’, OCS zica
‘thread’, Grk piog (< *g w ih a -o-s ‘that provided with a bow-
string’) ‘bow’, Av jya ‘bow-string’, NPers zih ‘bow-string’, OInd
jya ‘bow-string’. Archaic in shape. In respect to the meaning
‘bowstring’, clearly at least a word of the southeast of the IE
world.
*h\Isus (perhaps originally *hi6isus , gen. *fijisyds ) ‘arrow’.
[IEW 301 ( *eis-)\ GI 643). Grk log (< *hiisyos ) ‘arrow’, Av
isu- ‘arrow’, OInd /su- ‘arrow’. From *hieis- ‘set in motion’.
Attested only in the southeast of the IE world.
*hs£rkuos ‘bow and/or arrow’. [IEW 67 ( *arqu-)\ Wat 3
( *arku-)\ Buck 20.24; BK 384 ( *har-ak[ h ]-/*tior-akl h J -)\ . OLat
arquus ‘bow’, Lat arcus ‘bow’, ON pr ‘arrow’, OE earh ‘arrow’
(> NE arrow), Goth arlvazna ‘arrow’. Attested only in the west
of the IE world.
?*tdksom ‘bow’, [cf. IEW 1059 (*fe/c y -); cf. Wat 69
(*tek w -)\ Fried 125-129]. Myc to-ko-so-wo-ko ‘bow-makers’,
Grk t6£ov ‘bow’, Scythian taxsa ‘bow’, MPers taxs ‘bow’. It
has often been assumed that the Greek word is borrowed
from Scythian, sometime after the founding of Greek colonies
on the northern shore of the Black Sea (Olbia, Tanais, etc.).
Certainly Athens was known for having a police-force of
Scythian archers. However, the apparent presence of the word
in Mycenaean, long before there is any recorded contact
between Greeks and Eastern Iranians, would suggest that
t o£ov might be inherited rather than borrowed. In any case,
this is a metonymic extension of *toksom ‘yew’ either in the
southeast of the IE world or in Eastern Iranian alone.
The use of the bow and arrow dates to the end of the
Palaeolithic (the last Ice Age) and it was one of the most
common and ubiquitous weapons known in Mesolithic
Eurasia. The archaeological evidence for the bow is derived
from well-preserved contexts, e.g., Swiss lake-side dwellings,
Danish bogs, and iconography. From the actual evidence of
prehistoric bows we find that the material of manufacture
ever since the Mesolithic was almost predictably yew followed
distantly by elm (cf. ON almr ‘elm; bow’, OE elm ‘elm’), and
less occasionally maple or pine (cf. PIE *dhonu- ‘fir’ which
may give Av Oanwara ‘bow’, OInd dhanus ‘bow’). That the
bow was not used exclusively for hunting is indicated by the
evidence of Mesolithic cemeteries in both the Baltic and the
Ukraine where arrowheads were found embedded in the
remains of the deceased. Similarly, during the Neolithic it
served not only for the hunting of the wild fauna found on
almost any site but also for warfare, e.g., in southern Britain
there is dramatic evidence for archery-based attacks on
Neolithic enclosures while in the Yamna culture of the Pontic-
Caspian steppe the discovery of single arrowheads in burials
is often interpreted as evidence for the cause of death rather
than a gravegood. Archery kits, comprising flint arrowheads
and wrist bracers and occasionally small bow-shaped
pendants, are a distinctive feature of the Beaker burials that
mark the transition from the end of the Neolithic to the early
Bronze Age across a broad region of western and central
Europe. There is also a large quantity of arrowheads found
among the slightly earlier Copper Age Rinaldone and
Remedello cultures of central and northern Italy.
There is some evidence for a transition to bronze
arrowheads in western Europe, e.g. , in Brittany there are some
sixty examples of bronze arrowheads found alongside Hint
while they also occur in the Argaric culture of Spain and they
are known later in the middle Bronze Age from southern
France. Despite the fact that Caesar mentions the possession
of the bow by the Gauls on the Continent, a Celtic word is
absent from any of the cognate sets due to the disappearance
of the bow and arrow from Insular Celtic-speaking territories
during the later Bronze Age. Although the bow and arrow
were well known in Ireland during the Neolithic and early
Bronze Age, there is no evidence for this weapon from c 1 500
BC until literary records of the Middle Ages when the Irish
found themselves on the receiving ends of Viking archers.
Earlier encounters with the arrow probably derived from Irish
raids on Roman Britain and the Insular Celts gained their
word for ‘arrow’ from the Romans, i.e. , OIr saiget < Lat sagitla
‘arrow’ (cf. Weis saeth , Bret saez). The critical factor here was
that in some regions of Eurasia the shift from a technology
based on chipped-stone tools to those made of bronze saw
the disappearance of arrowheads without any replacement of
the weapon in the new material.
The shift to metal arrowheads, the probable referent of all
our cognate sets, is seen best in the east where bronze
arrowheads appear in eastern Europe and especially in the
steppe region of Eurasia. Although most Neolithic evidence
indicates flint arrowheads, there are occasional finds of metal
arrowheads in the final stages of the Tripolye culture of the
northwest Pontic region and in the Corded Ware horizon (c
3300-2500 BC). The Catacomb culture of the third
millennium BC has yielded some evidence for the actual bows,
measuring about 90 to 130 cm in length, and these are
believed to have been composite bows, i.e., bows constructed
of segments of wood fitted together with lashings, gum and
bone plates. In addition to the bows there were also discovered
the remains of quivers with ten to twenty arrows; the later
measured about 45 to 60 cm long. By c 2000 BC bronze
arrowheads are found at Sintashta, a site regularly associated
with the (?lndo-) Iranians east of the Urals. During the first
millennium BC arrows of steppe type with three lobes are
found widely over the Eurasian steppe and into parts of central
Europe. But these were not the earliest metal arrowheads in
this region as they are also encountered in middle Bronze
Age burials in central Europe, i.e., c 1500 BC, and in the later
Urnfield culture (c 1200 BC). With respect to the Germanic
cognate set, bronze arrowheads were also occasionally found
in northern Germany and Poland during the late Bronze Age
and a quantity of Iron Age and Roman-period bows made of
yew have been recovered from a Danish bog.
— 78 —
BRAIN
Bronze arrowheads are also known in the Near East from
at least the third millennium BC and by the late second
millennium there were even occasionally arrowheads of iron.
In Anatolia, copper arrowheads are known from the third
millennium BC and bronze arrowheads are known among
the Hittites which are similar to those of Palestine. New
Kingdom Hittites are portrayed carrying bows and the Hittites
are credited with revolutionizing warfare in their own region
with their application of chariot-mounted archers in battle;
they also utilized archers on foot. In Greece arrowheads were
fashioned from obsidian in the early Bronze Age but bronze
arrowheads are known from the late Bronze Age Mycenaean
levels of Knossos in Crete and archers are depicted in
Mycenaean art. These Greek bows are generally of the
segment-shaped and double convex type but descriptions in
Homer of bows made of ibex horn and which are described
as naXivTovoq ‘bent-back’, has led to the suggestion that they
were also employing composite bows.
In India there is evidence of copper arrowheads from the
Harappan culture and seals from the same culture depict
composite segment bows. Later in the first millennium BC
there is abundant evidence for iron arrowheads over much of
India. The Indian arrowhead was inserted into a shaft of wood,
bamboo or reed. The bow is frequently mentioned as a major
weapon in early Indie literature.
From an archaeological perspective, the bow and arrow
must have been known to the Proto-Indo-Europeans
irrespective of the time or place of their homeland or the
more geographically confined clusters of cognate terms. For
the period of the fifth to third millennium BC the arrow was
one of the primary weapons employed by the peoples of
Eurasia until the emergence of close combat weapons, the
spear and the sword, in the second and first millennia BC.
While all the cognate sets presumably indicate a metal
arrowhead, the original referent, depending on the time depth
of the underlying proto-form, could just as well have been a
stone arrowhead. The probable referent of the bow mentioned
in the eastern cognate sets was the composite bow and this
might have extended back to PIE times. .
See also Medical God; Warriors. [D.Q.A., J.RM.j
Further Readings
Rausing, G. (1967) The Bow: Some Notes on its Origin and
Development. Bonn, Habelt.
Huld, M. E. (1993) Early Indo-European weapons terminology. Word
44, 223-234.
BOY see SON
BRAIN
*mr6ghmen-~ *mregh(m)n-o-bra\n [ IEW750(*mregh -
m(n)o-)\ Wat 43 ( *mregh-m(n)o-)\ GI 712-713 (*mreg^-);
Buck 4.203]. OE bregen ~ braegen ‘brain’ (> NE brain), MHG
bregen ~ bragen ‘brain’, Grk ppexpog ~ ppexpec ~ Ppeypa
‘forehead’. A word of the west and center of the IE world.
*mdstf ‘brain, marrow’. [GI 713]. Av mastrayan - ‘skullwall’.
— 79
BRAIN
OInd mastiska- ‘brain’, mastaka- ‘head, skull’, mastulunga-
(< *mastf-n-ga-l ) ‘brain’, (Indo-Iranian < *masty(g), gen.
mastnas ?), TochA massunt (pi.) (< *mest-eu - ) ‘marrow’, TochB
mrestlwe (*mostr- + [later] -/we?) ‘marrow’. Probably ultim-
ately related to *mosghos ‘marrow, brain’. Apparently, this is
the eastern word for brain while *mreghmen- is the western.
See also Anatomy; Head. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Bernabe, A. (1982) Nombres para el ‘cerebro’ en las lenguas
indoeuropeas. Revista Espanola de Linguistica 12, 53-68.
BRANCH
*R 6 hikdh 2 (gen. *kbikh 2 ds) ‘(forked) branch’ (< * ‘leaves
and branch of deciduous tree’?). [IEW 523 ( *Mkha)\ GI 596
(*k h ak h ~)\ Buck 8.55]. Goth hoha ‘plow’, OHG huohhili
‘wooden hook plow made from a curved branch’, OPrus sagnis
‘root’, Lith saka ‘branch’, saknis ‘root’, Latv saka ‘ramification
of a tree’, sakas ‘pitchfork’, sakne ‘root’, OCS socha ‘pole;
(primitive) wooden plow’, Rus sokha ‘(primitive) plow’,
posokh ‘forked staff’, Arm c‘ax ‘branch’, NPers sax ‘branch,
antlers’ (the latter two as if from *ksohikoh 2 ), OInd sakha
‘branch’. Archaic in its morphology and geographically
widespread; surely PIE in date. In origin a collective noun
derived from *Kehikom ‘edible greens’. The semantic variation
is intelligible: just as ‘branch’ in English means fork or other
bifurcation as much as anything arboreal, so many of the
reflexes of *kohikoh 2 mean ‘(forked) root’ or they mean ‘plow’
as early and primitive plows were made of tree-trunks or heavy
branches such that the forked end of it, or a large, forked
secondary branch, served as handles for the plowman. ‘Branch’
was most probably the early PIE meaning.
*kank- ‘branch’. [IEW 523 ( *kank-)\ GI 596 (*k h ak h -)\.
OIr cecht (< *kankto-) ‘plow’, Mir gee (with secondary g-
rather than c-) ‘branch’, Weis cainc (< Proto-Celt *kanku - )
‘branch’, ON har (< *hanha - ) ‘thole-pin; shark’ (from peg-
like teeth), Lith atsanki ‘barb; crooked projection from a tree’,
OCS spku ‘shoot, twig, sprout’, Rus suk ‘branch, knot’, OInd
sanku- ‘peg’, sakti- ‘spear’. Similar in shape to the preceding
word but not related to it in form. PIE in date.
*h 2 dsdos ‘branch’. [IEW 785-786 ( *ozdo-s ); Wat 46
(*ost-)\ GI 175 ( *Hos-t h -)\ Buck 8.55], OHG ast ‘branch’,
Goth asts ‘branch’, Grk o^og ‘branch, shoot’, Arm ost ‘branch’,
Hit hasduer ‘twigs, branches’. Compare, with lengthened-
grade, OE ost ‘knot in wood’, MDutch ost ‘knot in wood’.
Widespread and old in IE. This word and the PIE word for
‘nest’ ( *h 20 -sd-os and *ni-sd-6s, respectively) may have been
derived from the zero grade of the root ‘to sit' ( *sed- ), i.e.,
‘place to perch on, to sit in, etc’. But this idea, despite the
prestige of its authors, is problematic. The presence of several
words for branch, in any case, suggests a rather fluid situation
with a number of interlocking symbolic dimensions yielding
various outputs in various stocks for the concrete denotations
at issue.
*\}rOia)d- ‘root; branch’. [LEW 1167 (*u(e)rad-)\ Wat 78
•( *wrad-)\ GI 572 ( *wr(a)t’-/wr(o)t ’-) ; Buck 8.54], From
*ur(e)h a d-\ Lat radix ‘root’, ramus ‘branch’, ON rot ‘root’
(borrowed > OE rot > NE root). Alb rrenje (< *urh a dnio-)
‘root’, Grk pdfoiE, ‘branch, palm frond’; from *ufd-. Olr fren
(MIr frem) (< *pfdnio-) ‘root’, Weis gwraidd (< *u[dio~) ‘root’,
OE wyrt ‘herb, plant’, OHG wurz ‘plant’, Goth waurts ‘root’,
Grk pi£a (< *uredih a -) ‘root’, pddapvoq ‘branch, shoot’,
perhaps TochB witsako (if < *ufdi-k-eh a - with loss of the
expected *-r-) ‘root’. Though the difference in form is not
well understood, this is a word that in one shape or another
is universal in the west of the IE world and common in the
center. It is at least of late PIE date. The Greek root-branch
symbol intersects in some unrecapturable way with another
Greek ‘branch’ word ofog; perhaps OInd vfdh- ‘grow’ also
belongs here (cf. TochA tsmar ‘root’ from tsam- ‘grow’). The
alternative meanings ‘branch’ and ‘root’ of either the same
word or two related words in the same language, or in different
languages, seems, in the case of both *ur(h a )d- and
*kdhikoh 2 > to elaborate an early IE analogy, probably a
semantic near-universal, between the root and branch, i.e.,
the subterranean and aerial extensions or extremities of a
plant, a ghostly sememe of ‘branching arboreal extension’.
*h4og-‘ branch’. [IEW 691 ( *log-)\ GI 563-564]. OCS
loza ‘vine, tendril, shoot’, Rus loza ‘vine, tendril, shoot’, Grk
(Hesychius) oXoyivog ‘branchy’ (assimilated from *aloginos?).
Hit alkista(n)- ‘branch’, Av razura- ‘forest, thicket’ (< * ‘branchy
place’), NPers raz ‘grapevine’, Oss raezae ‘fruits, vegetables’.
Widespread and early in IE.
*gy£sdos ‘branch’. [IEW 480 ( *guoz-do-)\ . ON kvistr
‘branch’, OHG questa ‘tuft of leaves, brush for sprinkling holy
water, broom’. Alb gjeth ‘leaf’, and, o-grade in a collective
meaning: OSerb gvozd ‘forest’, OPol gwozd ‘mountain forest’.
Cf. Norw/Danish kvas ‘small branches cut from a tree’. A word
of the west and center of the IE world.
*yfb- ‘branch, sprig, twig’. Lat verbena leaves and saplings
for sacral use’, (pi.) verbera ‘thong, lash’, Lith virbas ‘twig,
sprig, switch’, Grk pafidoq ‘twig, rod’, pctpvoq ‘thorn-bush’.
A word of the west and center of the IE world, perhaps
ultimately related to the previous word.
*skyeis (gen. *sku}6s) ‘± needle and/or thorn (perhaps
branch)’. [IEW 958 ( *sk(h)uoi-)[ . OIr see (gen. seiad)
‘hawthorn’, Weis ysbyddad ‘hawthorn’ (Celtic < *skueiat-),
Lith skuja ‘fir-needle and cone’, Latv skujas ‘a firwood’, Rus
khvoja ~ khvoj ‘needles and branches of a conifer’ (with new
full grade and metathesis of initial cluster, i.e., *ksuoio/eh a ~) .
At least a word of the IE northwest; perhaps the coniferous
counterpart to *kdhikdh 2
See also Plants, Row; Trees, Vegetables. [PF., D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Knobloch, J. (1987) Ast, Ranke und Rabe in indogermanischcn
Sprachen. IF 92, 29-32.
BRAVE
*dhers- ‘brave’. [IEW259 ( dhers-)\ Wat 14 ( *dhers-)\ Buck
16.52], OE dear 1 dare’ (> NE dare), OHG gater ‘dare’ (< Gmc
— 80 —
BREAST
*dhorso-), Goth ga-dars ‘dare’, OPrus dyrsos ‘able’, Lith drpsu
‘dare’, Latv druoss ‘bold, safe, secure’, Grk Oepooq ‘bravery’,
Av darsi- ‘brave', Olnd dhfsndti ‘is bold, dares’. Although
sometimes compared, Lat In-festus (if < *in-ferstus) ‘hostile’
is controversial. The root is also found inflected in the zero-
grade, e.g., *dh[stis: OE dyrst ‘bold’, OHG geturst ‘courage,
bravery’, Olnd dhpsti- ‘boldness’ (also showing a zero-grade
is Grk Oapaoq ‘courage, boldness’); and *dhfsus: Lith drpsus
‘brave’, OCS druzu ‘brave’ (with problematic voicing of
*s> z), Grk Opacrvq ‘bold, spirited’, Olnd dhfsu- ‘brave’. Hit
dassus ‘heavy, strong’ is sometimes derived from *darsus but
such a derivation is very dubious. The root is well attested
and very likely of PIE status although precise formations vary
considerably across dialects.
See also Warriors. U.C.S.]
BREAK
*bheg- ‘break’ (pres. *bhen6gti) [IEW 114-115
( *bheg-)\ Buck 9.26; BK 22 (*bak’-/*bak’-)\- OIr boingid
‘breaks’, Lith bengti ‘to finish, end’, Latv beigt ‘end’. Arm
bekanem (with nasal suffix rather than infix) ‘break’, Olnd
bhanakti ‘breaks’. The underlying root of this present stem is
*bheg- ‘break’. The root and stem are both securely
reconstructible to PIE.
*bhreg- ‘break’. I IEW 165 ( *bhreg-)\ Wat 9 ( *bhreg-)\ Buck
9.261 . Lat frango (with nasal infix) ‘break’, OE brecan ‘to break’
(> NE break), OHG brehhan ‘to break’, Goth brikip ‘breaks’,
Olnd giri-bhraj- ‘breaking out of the mountains’. Some doubt
exists to the meaning of the Old Indie compound; if it does
indeed mean ‘breaking out of the mountains’ then the case
for reconstructing the root to the proto-language is strength-
ened. Otherwise, the root is probably of late, western, dialectal
status. Although some have connected this root with *bhrag-
‘clatter, make noise’, such an etymology is very unlikely.
*bhreus- ‘break, smash to pieces’. [IEW 171 ( *bhreu-s-)\
Wat 9 ( *bhreus-)\ BK 3 ( *bur-/*bor -)] . OIr bruid ( DIE bruid)
‘breaks, crashes’, MWels breu ‘brittle’, Lat frustum ‘piece’, OE
brysan ‘crush’ (cf. NE bruise ), Alb bresher (Gheg breshen)
‘hail’. The relatively limited spread of the cognates suggests a
late word. The form *bhreus- may, however, be an extended
form of *bbreu- ‘cut, break up’ which in turn is probably an
extension of *bher- ‘cut’ which would suggest that the basic
root is quite early.
*h 3 lem- ‘break’. [IEW 674 ( *lem-)\ Wat 36 ( *lem-)\ . OIr
ro-laimethar{DIL lamaid) ‘dares, ventures’, Weis llafasu ‘dare,
venture’, ON lemja ‘to lame, cripple’, OE lemian ‘to lame,
cripple’, OHG lemmen ‘to lame, cripple’, Latv lemesis
‘plowshare’, OCS lomljp ‘break’, Rus lorn ‘scrap, fragment;
crowbar’. Alb leme ‘threshing floor’, Grk vtoXepeq ‘without a
break, continually’. The distribution secures this form at least
to the west and center of the IE world.
*leug- ‘break, break off’. [IEW 686 ( *leug-)\ Wat 37
( *Ieug-)\ Buck 9.261 . OIr luebt ‘load, cargo’, Weis llwyth ‘load,
burden’, Lat luged ‘mourn’, OE to-lucan ‘to pull or tear to
pieces’, OHG liohhan' to tear, pluck’, Lith lauzti ‘break’, Latv
lauzt ‘break’, Alb lunge ‘knot’, Grk XevyaXeoq ‘unhappy’, Arm
lucanem ‘loosen’, Av fra-uruxti ‘destruction’, Olnd rujati
‘breaks, shatters', TochB lakle ‘pain, suffering’. The root is
securely reconstructed to PIE. The first element of the Greek
compound dXvKTonedri ‘shackles, fetters’ has been cited in
connection with this root (aXvKto- ‘unbreakable’ + jtedrf
‘fetter’), but such a connection is doubtful. It is interesting to
note that both the Greek and Latin formations based on this
root refer to unhappiness or grief, suggesting some meta-
phorical link between unhappiness and destruction which.is
also indicated in the Tocharian cognate. The precise nature
of the link is unclear, some scholars suggesting that it involves
the often violent manifestation of grief while others suggest a
metaphor of ‘breaking down mentally’.
*reup- ‘break’. [IEW 870 ( *reup-)\ Wat 55 ( *reup - ~
*reub-)\ Buck 9.26], Lat rumpo ‘break’, ON rjufa ‘to break’,
OE *reofan (past ptcpl. rofen ) ‘to break’ (cf. NE riff), Lith
rupeti ‘to grieve, afflict’, Olnd rupyati ‘suffers racking pain’.
If the Old Indie form belongs with this cognate set, then the
root is PIE; otherwise, it may be a later formation.
*yrehjg- ‘break, tear to pieces’. [IEW 1181-1182
( *ureg -); Wat 78 ( *wreg-), Buck 9.26). Lith rezti ‘to cut,
scratch’, OCS rezati ‘to cut, hew’, Rus rezati ‘to cut, slash’,
Grk pfiyvvpi ‘break’, Arm ergicane- ‘tear, rip up’. The
Armenian form points to a vocalism *-ei- and hence may not
belong to this cognate set. The Balto-Slavic and Greek forms
correspond fairly well and the reconstruction is moderately
secure to at least the central area.
?*bhres- ‘burst’. [IEW 169 ( *bhres -); Wat 9 (*bhres-)\.
Mir brosc ‘crash, din’, ON bresta ‘to burst, crack’, OE berstan
‘to burst’ (> NE burst), OHG brestan ‘to burst’. The Middle
Irish form is probably not cognate but rather a result of the
form blosc ‘noise’ being influenced by the initial cluster of
bris(s)id, bronnaid, and bruid, all of which mean ‘breaks’. If
the Irish form is discounted, then the root is only attested in
Germanic.
See also Grieve. (M.N .]
BREAST
*p6rkus (gen. *pfk6us) ± breast, rib’. [IEW 820 {*perk-)\
GI 712], Lith (dial.) pirsys ‘forepart of horse’s chest’, OCS
prusi (pi.) ‘breast, chest’, Rus persi (pi.) ‘breast, chest
(especially of a horse)’. Alb parz(em) ‘breast’, Av parasu- ‘rib’,
parasu- ‘rib, side’, Olnd parsu- ‘rib’, parsva- ‘region of the
ribs, side’. An eastern term in late PIE.
Female
*pstenos ‘woman’s breast, nipple'. 1 IEW 990 ( *speno-)\
Gl 365; Buck 4.41]. Grk (Hesychius) cjrfjviov ‘breast’, Arm
stin ‘woman’s breast’, Av fstana- ‘woman’s breast’, Olnd stana-
‘woman’s breast, nipple’, TochA passam (dual) ‘woman’s
breasts’, TochB pascane (dual) ‘woman’s breasts'. With the
following entry this word looks to be a strong candidate for
PIE status.
*speno - ‘(woman’s) breast, nipple’. [IEW 990 ( *speno-)\
81 —
BREAST
Buck 4.4 1 ]. OIr sine (< *speniio -) ‘teat’, ON spent teat, nipple’,
OE spanu ‘breast’, OHG spunni ‘nipple’, OPrus spenis ‘teat’,
Lith spenys ‘teat’. This word looks to be a western innovation,
by metathesis and simplification of the heavy consonant
cluster, of the (presumably more archaic) preceding entry,
i.e., *pst> *sp.
*hi6uhxdhf( gen *hiuhxdhnds) ‘breast, udder’. [IEW 347
( *eudh-)\ Wat 18 (*euadh-)\ GI 486 ( *eud h -)\ Buck 4.42],
Lat uber ‘udder, teat, (lactating) breast’, uber ‘richness, fullness;
fruitful, copious, rich’, ON jugr ‘udder’, OE Oder ‘udder’ (>
NE udder), OHG utar' udder’, Lith pa-udre ‘abdomen’, udroti
‘become big, get pregnant’, Grk ovdap ‘udder’, OInd Qdhar
(gen. udhnas) ‘udder’. Cf. Rus vymja ‘udder’, SC v'ime ‘udder’
(< *udh-men-). Old in IE, primarily referring to ‘udder’ but
also used more generally and symbolic of richness and
fullness. From *hieuh x dh- ‘swell (with fluid)’.
*dhehilus ‘nourishing, suckling’ and ~ *dhhiileh a - ‘teat,
breast’. [/EW242 ( *dhi-lo-)\ Wat 13 {*dhe(i)-)\ GI 487], Lat
fellx ‘fruitful, prosperous, happy’, Alb dele (< *dhohiliieh a -)
‘sheep, ewe’, Grk 6rj Aug ‘nourishing’, Olnd dharu- ‘suckling’;
Mir deil ( DIL dela) ‘teat’, ON dilkr ‘suckling lamb; young of
animal’, OE delu ‘teat, nipple’, OHG tila ‘female breast’, and
with new lengthened grade in the further derivative in Latv
dile ‘suckling calf’. All of these can be taken as rather banal
derivatives of *dhehi(i)- ‘suckle’. We may have a northwestern
(Celtic, Germanic, Baltic) and late IE word for ‘teat, breast’ in
*dhhiileh a ~.
*pap- ‘± mother’s breast, teat’. 1/EW91 (*ba x b-)~, Wat 47
(*pap-)]. Lat papilla ‘teat, nipple, breast’, MHG buoben
‘breast’, Lith papas ‘breast’, Olnd pippala- ‘nipple’. Probably
not a real “word” at any point in PIE but rather a continuously
reinvented nursery term (cf. NE pap, boob).
See also Anatomy. [D.Q.A.l
BREATHE
*ha6nhimi ‘breathe’. [ IEW 38 (*an(a»; Wat 2 (*ano-); GI
388 ( *anH-)\ Buck 4.51; BK 369 ( *an-ah-/*on-ah -)]. Goth
uz-anan ‘breathe one’s last’, Olnd aniti ‘breathes’, TochB anask-
‘breathe, inhale’. Though not widely attested the geographical
spread indicates great age within IE.
*hiehitm€n- ‘breath’. [IEW 345 ( *et-men-)\ Wat 17
( *etmen-)\ GI 388 ( *anH-)\ Buck 4.5 1 ; BK 369 ( *an-ah-/*dn-
ah-)]. OE aedm ‘breath’, OHG atum ‘breath’, Olnd atman-
‘breath, soul’, TochA ancam ‘self, soul’, TochB anme ‘self, soul’
(Toch < *antmen-, a conflation of this etymon and the next
one). See also *h\ehitr- ‘± lung, internal organ’.
*h a 6nhimos ‘breath’. [IEW 38-39 (*an(o)-)\ Wat 2
{*and-)\ GI 388 ( *anH-)\ Buck 4.51; BK 369 (*an-ah-/*dn-
ah-)\. Lat animus ‘spirit, wind’, Grk avepoq' wind’, Arm holm
(< *honm) ‘wind’, perhaps Olnd anila- (if < *anima-) ‘wind’
(for Tocharian, see previous entry). (Cf. OIr anal ‘breath’ and
Weis anadE breath’ from Cell -*h a enhi -do-). From *h a enhi-
‘breathe’. It seems reasonable that this word, based as it is on
a clearly attested verb ‘breathe’, is a later creation than
. *hieh\tmen- which has no such underlying verb. Both words,
however, show a wide geographical spread and, as Tocharian
demonstrates, must have existed, in at least a part of the PIE
world, side by side.
*k\}6sh x mi ‘breathe deeply, sigh'. [IEW 631-632
( *kues-)\ Wat 34 ( *kwes -)]. Lat queror ‘complain, lament,
bewail’, Av susi (dual) ‘the lungs’, Olnd svasiti ~ svasali
‘breathes, sighs’, TochB kwas- ‘lament, bewail’. With new long
grade ( *kuesh x - ): ON hvaesa ‘hiss, sizzle, snort’ (borrowed >
NE wheeze), OE hwStst ‘blowing’. Again the geographical
spread indicates PIE status for this word.
*dh]}6smi ‘breathe, be full of (wild) spirits’ (Balto-Slavic
‘breathe, exhale; expire’). [/EW268-271 ( *dheues-)\ Wat 14
( *dheus -); GI 388 (*d h eu-H/s-)\. OIr dasacht (< *duo
stako-) ‘rage, fury’, Lat furo (< *dhuse/o~) ‘rage’, belua (<
*dhqeslu - with dialectal b- rather than *[-) ‘wild animal’, OE
dysig ‘confused, dizzy’ (> NE dizzy), OHG tusik ‘confused’
(< *dhusiko-), MHG tuster(< *dhustro-) ‘ghost, spectre’, OE
dwaes ‘foolish’, MHG [was ‘fool, evil spirit’, and getwas ‘ghost,
spectre; foolishness’ (< *dhueso-), Lith dvesiu ‘perish, die (of
animals)’, dusas ‘heavy sighing, asthma’, dvasia ‘ghost, spirit’,
OCS dQchnQti ‘exhale, sigh’, dvachati ‘puff, pant’, Alb dash
‘ram’ (< *duoso- ‘animal’), Grk Oviw ‘rage’, Oeeiov ‘sulphur
(vapor)’, Hit tuhha(i)- ‘gasp’, TochB col (< *dhueslu-) ‘wild
(of animals)’. With new full-grades: ON dyr‘(wild) animal’,
OE deor ‘(wild) animal’ (> NE deer), OHG dor ‘(wild) animal’
(Gmc < *dheusom), Lith dausos (pi.) ‘upper air, paradise’,
OCS duchQ ‘breath, spirit’, Rus duch ‘breath, spirit’. Wide-
spread in IE though not universal; probably only secondarily
the usual word for ‘breathe’ in some IE areas. Related to *dheu-
‘breathe (one’s last)’. It has been suggested that the underlying
semantic difference between *dhuesmi and *h a enhimi might
be explained by presuming that the first meant ‘exhale’, hence
its association with ‘breathing one’s last’ while the latter, which
lacks such connotations, may have indicated ‘inhalation’.
*pneu- ‘± snort, sneeze’. [7EW838-839 ( *pneu-)\ Wat 52
( *pneu-)\ Buck 4.51 ; BK 560 ( *nap[ h ]-/*ndp[ h ]-)[. ON fnysa
‘puff, snort’, OE fneosan ‘sneeze’, Grk 7rv£co ‘breathe’. Probably
onomatopoeic in origin and only in Greek has it become the
ordinary word for ‘breathe’.
*bhes- ‘± blow’. [IEW 146 ( *bhes-)\ Wat 8 (bhes-)\. Grk
y/vyri ‘breath, spirit’, Olnd -psu- ‘breath’. Probably onomato-
poeic in origin; distribution suggests a late dialectal term in
PIE.
See also Anatomy; Blow; Cough; Death; Lung; Nose; Sigh.
[D.Q.A.]
BRIDE-PRICE
*\fedmo/eh a - ‘bride-price’. [IEW 1116 ( *ued-mno-)\ GI
660 ( *Hwed h -mno-)\ Szem 32.7.3.2.2]. OE wituma ‘bride-
price’, OHG widamo ‘dowry’, OCS veno (< Proto-Slavic
*vednom < *uednom) ‘bride-price’, Grk eSvov(< *fe8pov)
‘bride-price’. A word of the west and center of the IE world.
The family of the Indo-European bride received some form
of economic consideration from the groom or his family. This
— 82 —
BROAD
custom, the bride-price, is well-documented elsewhere and
is attested in a number of cognates from Germanic, Slavic
and Greek. Accordingly, an Indo-European proto-form, the
neuter noun *uedmo-, may be reconstructed on the basis of
OCS veno (< Proto-Slavic *vednom < PIE *uedmon) ‘bride-
price’ and Gk eSvov (< *fe8pov) ‘bride-price’. OE wituma
‘bride-price’ with various spellings of the stem vowel and Fris
wetma point to Proto-Gmc *wet(u)mon , an n-stem. The
shifting medial vowel of Old English weotoma and Old High
German widamo, widemo results from oblique forms of the
stem, the English and German reflecting the syllabic nasal of
the oblique, *wetip-n~, and the Frisian the consonant of the
nominative, *wetmdn. The occasional high stem vowel [i]
seen in OE wituma , Fris witma and OHG widomo results
from contamination with *widuwo‘ widow’. The [dl of OHG
probably reflects Low German influence.
The proto-form has often been wrongly taken as derived
from *uedh- ‘lead’, a root frequently used in connection with
marriage to either convey the concept of simply ‘leading’ the
woman away from her family into that of the husband’s or,
more aggressively, forcefully carrying off the wife away from
her family by abduction. A simple derivation from *uedh - ,
however, cannot be sustained as Grk 8, the Gmc *t and OCS
lengthening by Winter’s Law clearly points to PIE *d and not
*dh , nor is there a need to reconstruct a complex nasal cluster
*ijed-mno-. In such a case the [m] would always have been
syllabic. Normal processes of assimilation and paradigmatic
leveling of the productive Germanic n-stem accounts for all
observed variations. Alternatively, Szemerenyi has suggested
that a common form underlying both the word for ‘bride-
price’ and for ‘lead away in marriage’ might be sustained if
one presumed a PIE *h x ued- which saw a loss of laryngeal in
the words for ‘bride-price’ and metathesis ( *h x ued - >
*uedh x -) in the verb ‘lead away in marriage’ (cf. PIE *h 20 st-
‘bone’ but *osthx- in OInd asthi ‘bone’). Under this hypothesis,
the alternative Greek form ae8vov might more or less directly
reflect *h 2 ued-no~.
Later writers often mistake the custom of bride-price for
‘dowry’ and the word is thus often misglossed. The bride-
price reflects the goods presented from the male or his kin
group to the family of the bride which rounds off the
transaction between the two parties. This payment naturally
suggests that the family of the bride are deprived of her services
and hence she has relocated in marriage away from her own
parents. The dowry, on the other hand, is the property of the
wife which she takes into marriage and provides her with an
element of financial security against a negligent husband or
one who dies prematurely; it might also serve to assist the
married party in establishing a household but it did not
represent the social transaction between the two families.
There is no clear evidence for a PIE ‘dowry’.
See also Exchange; Lead 1 ; Marriage. [M.E.H.]
BRIDLE see REINS
BRIGHT
*leukds light, bright, clear’. [/FW 687-689 ( *leuk-), Wat
37 ( *leuk-)\ GI 779 (*l(e)uk h -)- Buck 15.32; BK 580 (* law-/
*hw-)\. OIr luacht ( DIL loch ) ‘glowing white’, luacha(i)r
‘brightness, gleam’, Weis Hug ‘bright’, Lith la ukas ‘blazed, with
a white spot on the forehead (said of animals)’, Grk Xevkoc;
‘light, bright, clear’, Olnd roca- ‘shining, radiant’, TochB
lyukemo ‘bright’, lyuke ‘light’. A derivative of *leuk- ‘shine’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*g w haidros 1 bright, shining’. [JEW 488 (* gPhai-d-ro-s)\
Buck 15.57], Lith gaidriis ~ giedras ‘fine, clear (of weather);
bright, cheerful (of mood); clear, limpid (of water)’, gaidra
‘cloudless sky, hot weather’, Latv dzidrs ‘azure’, Grk (pai8poq
‘beaming (with joy), cheerful’ (cf. Grk (paiSipog ‘bright,
shining, glistening; famous, glorious’). At least a word of the
central part of the IE world.
*(s)koitrds ~ *kitr6s ‘bright, clear’. [/FW 916 ( *(s)kai-)\
Wat 58 (*s/ceoi-)]. ON heid ‘bright sky’, heidr ‘clear’, OE hador
‘clear’, OHG heitar ‘clear’, Lith skaidrus ‘bright, clear (of
weather; clear, limpid (of water)’, Latv skaidrs ‘clear’ (the
unexpected shape of the Baltic words may reflect a voicing
dissimilation from *k..t > k..d ), Av ciOra- ‘clear’, OInd citra-
‘excellent, bright, variegated’. The Germanic and Baltic words,
on the one hand, and the Indo-Iranian, on the other, look to
be independent creations of an unattested noun *(s)koity
‘brightness’, related to the *koitus seen in ON heidr ‘honor,
rank’, OE had ‘rank, status’, -had ‘-hood’ (> NE -hood), OHG
heit ‘rank, status’, -heir ‘-hood’, Goth haidus ‘way, manner’ (<
‘appearance’), OInd ketu- ‘brightness, light, apparition, form’.
This complex is, as a whole, of PIE date.
?*glain- ‘bright’. [/FW 366-367 ( *gel-)\ Wat 18-19
(*ge/-)]. OE clzne ‘clean’ (> NE clean), claensian ‘purify,
cleanse’ (> NE cleanse ), OHG klemi ‘shiny, fine’, Grk
(Hesychius) yhaivoi ‘star-shaped ornaments’. The Greek
attestation is weak; just possibly a late word of the IE west
and center.
See also Light 1 ; Shine; White. [D.Q.A.]
BROAD
*plth 2 U~ (perhaps *pldth 2 US, gen. *pldi 2 dus) ‘broad, wide’.
[IEW 833-834 (*plat-)- Wat 51-52 ( *plat-)\ GI 683-684
( *p h (e)l-H-t b -)\ Buck 12.61 1 . Lith platus ‘broad’, Grk nXaxvq
‘broad’, Av poroOu- ‘broad, wide’, OInd pfthu- ‘broad, wide’.
Cf. the related abstract noun *pleth 2 es- in Olr leth ‘side (i.e.,
‘broad part of body’); half’, Weis lied ‘breadth’, OCS plesna
‘sole of foot’, ORus polu ‘half’, Rus pol ‘half’, Polab pol-tupe
‘thirty’ (< *pol- ‘half’ + kopy ‘sixty’), LowSorb polsta ‘fifty’ (<
*po/‘half; side’ + *krptom ‘hundred’), Grk nXaxoq ‘breadth’,
Av fraQah- ‘breadth’, OInd prathas- ‘breadth’. From *pleth 2 ~
‘spread’. Cf. also Hit palhi- ‘broad, wide’.
*y irh x us (gen. *\tfhx6us) ‘broad, wide’. [/FW 1165
(*uer-); Wat 77 (*wero-); Buck 12.61; BK 482 ( *wir -/
*wer-)]. Grk evpvq ‘broad, wide’, Av vouru- ‘broad, wide’,
OInd uru- ‘broad, wide’. A late southeastern dialectal term in
the IE world.
See also Half; Heap; Spread. [D.Q.A.)
— 83 —
BROTH
BROTH
*itihxS- ‘broth’. \IEW 507 ( *jus-); Wat 79 ( *yu-s-); GI 608
( *yeu-s )]. Lat iOs ‘broth’, OPrus juse ‘meat broth’, Lith jdse
‘fish soup’, OCS jucha ‘soup, broth’, Rus ukha ‘broth, fish
soup’, Grk fu/x7) (< *iuh x s-meh a -)‘ leavening’, NPers jusanda
‘broth’, OInd yds- ‘soup, broth, the water in which pulses of
various kinds have been boiled’. Widespread and old in IE.
From *ieuhx- ‘mix, join together’.
?*korm-~ *krem- broth, mash?’. [ IEW 5 72 (*k(e)r-em-)\
GI 608 (*k h r-em~) ]. OIr cuirm ‘beer’, MWels cwrwf ‘beer’,
Gaul Kovppt ~ Koppa type of beer, Lat cremor ‘broth, pap’,
OCS krQma ‘fodder’, Rus korrn ‘fodder’, OInd karam-bha-
‘barley porridge; soup’. It is not certain that all these words
belong together, certainly no single proto-form can be
reconstructed. Perhaps a word of PIE antiquity.
See also Beer; Boil; Ferment; Food. [D.Q.A.]
BROTHER
*bhr6h a ter ‘± brother (?father’s brother’s son, cousin)’.
I IEW 1 6 3- 1 64 ( *67i ra ter-) ; Wat 9 (*bhrater-)\ GI 666 (^ra-
Ht h er-)\ Buck 2.44; Szem 5.1; Wordick 134; BK 6 ( *bar -/
*b3r-)]. OIr brathair ‘brother, kinsman, cousin, tribesman’,
Weis bra wd ‘brother’, Lat Era ter ‘brother’, fratria ‘brother’s wife’,
Venetic (dat. sg.) vhraterei ‘to the brother’, ON brodir , ‘brother’,
OE brodor ‘brother’ (> NE brother ), Fris brother ‘brother’,
OSax brodar ‘brother’, OHG bruoder ‘brother’, Goth bropar
‘brother’, CrimGoth bruder ‘brother’, OPrus brati ‘brother’,
Lith brolis ( broterilis ) ‘brother’, Latv bralis ‘brother’, OCS
bratrQ ‘brother, cousin’, QRus brat(r)u ‘brother, cousin’, SC
brat ‘brother’, Czech bratr ‘brother’, Grk (Ionic and Hesychian)
(f>pr\xr]p ~ (ppritcop (Doric also (ppGrpp) ‘brother, member of a
phratry, (fellow) clansman, kinsman’, Arm elbayr ‘brother’,
Phryg (pi.) bratere ‘brothers’, Av bratar- ‘brother’, OPers bratar-
‘brother’, Pashto vror ‘brother’, Oss servad ‘brother; relative’,
OInd bhratar- ‘brother’, Ashkun bra ‘brother’, Waigali bra
‘brother’, Prasun waya ‘brother’, Kati br£ ‘brother’, TochA
pracar ‘brother’, TochB procer ‘brother’.
The lexeme ‘brother’ is one of the most widespread of IE
kinship terms, lacking in only two branches: Alb vella ‘brother’
which reflects Proto-Alb *W3lada (metathesized < *3 wadl-a
< *awa-del- ‘mother’s brother’s son’) and Anatolian (Hit
negna -, Luv *nana/i- brother’ [cf. nani(ya)- ‘brotherly’l , and
Lycian nene/i ‘brother’ are of obscure origin). In a third branch,
Greek, the original term survives with the meaning ‘kinsman’
and is replaced by dSeXcpeoq (< *srp-g w elbh-eio- ) ‘co-uterine’,
an indication that the IE term originally designated more
people than the male offspring of ego’s parents. The use of
the word for ‘brother’ as a confraternity can also be found in
certain religious institutions of ancient Italy such as the fratres
arvales ‘Arval Brothers’ and in the other west European
languages (e.g., Old Irish, New English) where it is employed
to designate members of Christian religious orders. The
extended use of this term to patrilineal parallel cousins can
also be found in Celtic where OIr brathair indicates not only
‘brother’ but also ‘kinsman, cousin; fellow-member of the same
kindred-group’. A wide use is also to be seen in Indie and the
term is extended to all cousins in Slavic while the use of Gk
(pprirpp as ‘kinsman’, as well as the use of terms derived from
‘brother’ for ‘cousin’ in Lithuanian ( pusbrolis ) also indicates
its application to a wider set of relations. Given the wide range
of individuals who might be included under the heading of
*bhreh a ter, the more specific designation of the ‘brother’ as
employed in modern English usage required the creation of
explicit qualifiers, e.g., Lat frater germanus ‘brother (of the
same stock)’ or Grk opo-naxpioc, ‘of the same father’ = OPers
hamapita ‘of the same father’.
The proto-form *bhreh a ter has stimulated abundant
etymological speculation as to its deeper formation, e.g., the
long dismissed (and completely inadmissible) attempt to
compare it with OInd bhartar- ‘bearer, preserver, protector,
husband’ and derive it from a PIE ‘protector (of his sisters?)’.
More recently, O. Szemerenyi has analyzed the word as *bhr-
(the zero-grade of *bher- ‘carry, bear’) + *h 2 eh x t[‘ fire’. The
underlying sense would then be ‘fire-bearer’ or, better, ‘fire-
tender’, the presumption being that the young males of a
family would be delegated the task of procuring firewood
and taking care of the household fire. For a word which is
likely to be so deeply embedded in the antiquity of the
evolution of PIE, such speculations are hardly convincing.
See also Kinship; Sister. [M.E.H ]
BROTHERHOOD
?*bhreh a tpiom ~ *bhreh a triieh a - ‘brotherhood’. [7EW163-
164 ( *bhrater-)\ cf. Wat 9 ( *bhrater-)\ cf. GI 666
(*7^ rafter-)]. OCS bratrija ‘brotherhood’, Grk (ppatpia
‘brotherhood’, OInd bhratfyam ‘brotherhood’. ‘Brotherhood’
is reflected as a neuter noun in Indie. The Slavic and Greek
feminines may arise from older collective neuter plurals (<
*bhreh a triieh a -). Both Slavic and Greek have apparently also
remodeled the form on the basis of the oblique stem zero-
grade without the syllabic -p found in Sanskrit. In light of
these discrepancies, it is possible that the form is a later
innovation and not the relic of a PIE term.
See also Age Set; Brother; Companion. [M.E.H ]
BROTHER-IN-LAW
*daih a u£r ‘husband’s brother’. [IEW 179 ( *daijjer)\ Wat
10 ( *daiwer-)\ GI 662 ( *t’aiwer-)\ Buck 2.65; Szem 24;
Wordick 219-220], Lat levir ~ laevir (with d replaced by
?Sabine I) ‘husband’s brother’, OE tacor ‘husband’s brother’,
Fris taker ‘husband’s brother’, OHG zeihhur ‘husband’s
brother’, Lith dieveris ‘husband’s brother’, Latv dieveris
‘husband’s brother’, OCS deverl ‘husband’s brother’, Pol
dziewierz ‘husband’s brother’, Rus deverl ‘husband’s brother’,
Grk SGrip (< *8ccjafrip) ‘husband’s brother’, Arm taygr
‘husband’s brother’, Pashto levar ‘husband’s brother’, OInd
devar- ‘husband’s brother’. Distribution guarantees PIE
antiquity.
?*S}d(u)ros ‘wife’s brother’. [7EW915 ( *sie[u]-ro-)\ GI 663;
Szem 27]. OCS surf ‘wife’s brother’, SC sura ‘wife’s brother’,
Arm hor ‘son-in-law’, OInd syala- ‘wife’s brother’. This
— 84
BROWN
traditional set has been challenged by Szemerenyi who has
suggested that the Slavic words may be derived from
*seuriio~, a vfddhied form ( *seuro- ) of PIE *su- ‘woman, wife’,
i.e. , a term used to denote males related by way of their wife.
A similar origin for the Old Indie word (< *s(u)ielo-) has also
been suggested. The traditional reconstruction still seems
more likely. A word of the center and east of the IE world.
?*syeiazrds ‘wife’s brother . [Wordick 185-186], Fris s wager
‘wife’s brother’, OHG swagur ‘wife’s brother’, OInd svasura-
(< *svasura -) ‘pertaining to the father-in-law’ (the presence
of svisun- ‘grandson of the father-in-law’ may imply an Old
Indie noun *svasara - ‘father-in-law’), Kashmiri hahar ‘wife’s
brother’, Sindhi hura ‘spouse’s brother’. A derivative of
*suekuros ‘father-in-law’, perhaps independent in Germanic
and Indie. The derivative’s restriction to ‘wife’s brother’
parallels the derivatives of *h2euh20S ‘grandfather’ such as
Lat avunculus ‘mother’s brother’.
*sjjeliion- ~ *sijelih x on~ ‘wife’s sister’s husband’. [JEW 1046
( *sue-lo-)\ Szem 27; Wordick 208], ON svili ‘wife’s sister’s
husband’, Grk eiXioveq< *jreXwv£q ‘wife’s sisters’s husbands’,
(Hesychius) deXtoi ‘wife’s sisters’ husbands’ (< *sip-siielioi
‘± co-brothers-in-law’) . Distribution suggests a word of the
northwest and center of the IE world. As with the preceding
word, Szemerenyi has suggested that this form is built on
*su- ‘woman, wife’.
*g(e)m(hx)ros ‘sister’s husband, son-in-law’. [IEW 369
(*gem(e)~); cf. Wat 19 {*gemo-)\ GI 664 {*g’en-)\ Szem 20;
Wordick 241-242], Lat gener (< *gem-er-, possibly under
the influence of genere ‘beget, bear, bring forth’) ‘daughter’s/
sister’s husband’, Grk yapppoq (< *gameros or < *gamro- <
*gijiro-) ‘sister’s husband’. Another form *g(e)mhx~ter can be
seen in Lith zentas ‘daughter’s/sister’s husband’, OCS zpti
‘daughter’s/sister’s husband’, Rus zjatl ‘daughter’s/sister’s
husband, husbands sister’s husband’, and Alb dhender(Ghtg
dhanderr) ‘groom’; cf. also Av zamatar- ‘son-in-law’, Olnd
jamatar- ‘son-in-law’. Subject to morphological rebuilding in
the various stocks that attest it, to the point that the actual
PIE form cannot be reconstructed. However, it is nevertheless
widespread and old.
?*s\}6iniios ‘wife’s sister’s husband’. Lith svainis ‘brother-
in-law’ (particularly ‘wife’s sister’s husband’), Latv svainis
‘brother-in-law’ (particularly ‘wife’s brother; wife’s sister’s
husband’). Derivationally related to *suoiniieh a -' wife’s sister’
seen in Lith svaine ‘sister-in-law’ (particularly ‘wife’s sister;
brother’s wife’), Latv svaine ‘wife’s sister’, Arm k‘eni ‘wife’s
sister’. Though *suoiniios is found only in Baltic, the presence
of *suoiniieh a - in Armenian suggests an earlier wider
distribution. So too does the existence of OHG (ge)swio {<
*sueidn ) ‘brother-in-law’ (particularly ‘sister’s husband’).
Morphologically *sijoiniio/eh a - might reflect originally an
adjectival derivative of *sueion.
For the four people whom the term ‘brother-in-law’ may
be applied, PIE made a clear distinction, having separate terms
for each. The best recorded of these was ‘husband’s brother’,
*daih a uer , a term represented in seven stocks. With the
exception of Latin, where the word appears to have been
borrowed from an alien dialect, the phonological corres-
pondences are regular throughout the distribution and an
original PIE term cannot be doubted.
An archaic-looking term for ‘wife’s brother’, *siduros , is
preserved in Indie and Slavic, and perhaps Armenian,
although in that dialect the form reflects ‘son-in-law’ and may
be a borrowing from an otherwise unattested Iranian cognate.
The fact that a modem derivative for ‘wife’s brother’s son’
survives in Rus surin ‘wife’s brother’s son’ suggests that this'
was an ancient word and may have been the PIE term despite
its limited eastern distribution.
Widely separated Old Norse and Greek words for ‘wife’s
sister’s husband’, point to an IE term *sueliion. In Lithuanian
a special term svainis exists, derived from the term for wife’s
sister, svaine (cognate with Arm k‘eni).
In many stocks ‘sister’s husband’ is not distinguished from
‘daughter’s husband’, *g(e)m(h x )ros, a feature that is typical
of many Omaha systems where relatives linked by daughters
and sisters receive identical terms.
Finally, Germanic and Indie suggest the existence of a
vfddhied or lengthened- grade form, *syekuros, derived from
‘husband’s father’. Despite its archaic appearance, the
application of this form to ‘wife’s brother’ is probably a parallel
innovation (lengthened-grades are highly productive in both
Germanic and Old Indie) from a common IE adjectival
meaning ‘pertaining to the father-in-law’ and this is the
meaning attributed to the Old Indie form which occurs very
late in Sanskrit literature.
See also Kinship; Son-in-Law. [ M . E . H . ]
BROWN
*bher- ‘brown’. [IEW 136 ( *bher-)\ Wat 7 ( *bher-)\ GI
190 ( *b h er-)\ BK 29 (*bur y -/*bof y -)]. From *bhrunos
( *bhruh x nos? ): ON brunn ‘brown’, OE brun ‘brown’ (> NE
brown), OHG brun ‘brown’, Grk qjpvvoq ~ (ppiJvrj ‘toad’; other
formations include ON bjpm (< Proto-Gmc *bemu-) ‘bear’,
OE bera (< Proto-Gmc *berd ) ‘bear’ (> N.E bear), Lith beras
‘bay (color of a horse)’, Mitanni papru- ‘brown (of horses)’,
OInd babhru- ‘red-brown’. The root is widespread, though
with the exception of the same formation in Germanic and
Greek and the word for ‘beaver’, each stock shows its own
morphological innovation(s). Also, its strong and sometimes
exclusive association with either the color of animals or the
names of animals suggests that is probably not a “primary”
color although it did develop into one in Germanic.
?*badios ‘(yellow) brown’. [ IEW 92 ( *badios)\ Wat 4
( *badyo~) ] . Olr buide ‘yellow’, Lat badius ‘bay, chestnut brown
(of a horse)’. The ltalo-Celtic evidence is sufficient only to
reconstruct this word to the far west of the IE world. Although
the word may refer to the color of a horse in Old Irish, it may
be much more widely applied and usually is unlike the term
in Latin which seems to be primarily restricted to the color of
horses.
See also Beaver; Black; Color; Dark. [D.Q.A.]
85 —
BRUSH
Bug-Dniester a. Distribution of the Bug-Dniester culture.
BRUSH see TREE
BUG-DNIESTER CULTURE
The Bug-Dniester (or Dniester-Bug) culture is an early
Neolithic culture of the northwest Black Sea region during
the seventh and sixth millennia BC. The culture reveals a
transition from a predominantly hunting-gathering-fishing
economy to the adoption of domesticated animals (pig, cattle)
and ceramics with the retention of a local Mesolithic tool
technology. The hunting-gathering component in the
economy is clearly local and included the hunting of aurochs,
red and roe deer and wild pig with extensive exploitation of
fish resources (eel, pike, carp). The presence of a domestic
component in the economy has been variously seen as
evidence for an intrusion of Balkan farmers into the north-
west Black Sea region, the product of acculturation where
local Mesolithic populations adopted elements of the
agricultural economy from their Balkan neighbors, or a local
native development of agriculture (it has been suggested that
the cattle and pig were locally domesticated while the presence
of wild wheat [Aegilops cylindrica ] and grinding stones on
some very early sites may mark a local transition to or
predilection for agriculture long before contacts with Balkan
farming communities). These later contacts are believed to
be evident in the adoption of domestic wheat (emmer
Bug-Dniester b. Round-based pot; c. Bone fishhook;
d. Antler mattock.
[Triticum monococcum ], einkom \T. dicoccon ], spelt [T.
spelta ]) and barley ( Hordeum vulgare). Other cultigens or
consumable plants include pea ( Pisum sativum ), sloe ( Prunus
spinosa ), cherry plum ( Prunus cerasifera), bullace ( Prunus
insititia ), and Cornelian cherry ( Comus mas)\ traces of oats
(A vena) and possibly millet ( Panicum ) have also been
recovered. Architectural remains include semi-subterranean
huts in the earlier phases with the development of surface
dwellings in the later periods.
While the Bug-Dniester culture does not impinge normally
on the identification of any specific IE stock, the nature of its
agricultural economy marks a watershed between some of
the major theories of IE origins. Proponents of an early
Neolithic homeland associated with the spread of agriculture
from Anatolia might tend to see the Bug-Dniester culture as
the result of agricultural (and IE) expansions from the Balkans
toward the steppe and forest steppe of the Pontic-Caspian
region. Those supporting a homeland in the Pontic-Caspian
itself would see in its evidence for local continuity possible
support for the local development of agriculture in that region
or, at least, a development independent of a migration of
Balkan populations (and their languages). In this way, early
agricultural populations to the west of the Bug-Dniester
culture would be non-IE and the IE homeland might be
situated somewhere to the east of the Bug-Dniester culture.
— 86 —
BURN
See also TRB Culture; Kurgan Tradition; Tripolye Culture.
U.P.M.]
BUILD
*dem(ha)- build (up)’ (pres. *d6m(h a )-e/or). [JEW 198-
199 ( *dem-/*demo-)\ Wat 11 ( *dem(o)-)\ GI 646 ( *t'em-)\
Buck 9.44; BK 133 ( *t’im-/*t’em-)\ . OHG zeman ‘be fitting’,
Goth ga-timan ‘match’, Grk degco ‘build’, degag
(< *deml} a s-) ‘body, stature, form’, HierLuv tama- ‘build’, Khot
pa -dim -‘make’ (< Proto-Iranian *pa ti-damya-), TochAB tsam-
‘increase, grow’. From *dem(h a )-ro- comes a Germanic group:
ON timbr ‘timber, wood felled for building’, OE timber
‘building; building material; trees, woods’ (> NE timber),
timbr(i)an ‘build, construct, erect; cut timber’, OHG zimbar
‘material, building’, zimbaren ~ zimbaron ‘build’, Goth timrjan
‘build (up), strengthen; benefit; edify’. Widespread and old
in IE. It is perhaps significant for the history of Germanic
building techniques that this word has, in its derivative
*dem(h a )ro-, tended to become restricted to ‘build in/with
wood’. Old and widespread derivatives of the verb, though
without the final laryngeal, mean ‘house’ in many IE stocks.
The relationship of this *dem(h a )- and the apparently similar
*demh a - ‘tame’ is disputed.
*k w ei- ‘pile up, build’. [JEW 637-638 (*E y ei-); Wat 33
( *k w ei-)\ Buck 9.44; BK 320 ( *k w [ h ]ay-/*k w [ h ]ay-)\ . OCS dm
‘order’, Grk noieo) (< *k w oi-u-eio- t denominative verb from
suffixed ograde of extended form *k w oi-uo-) ‘to pile up,
make’, Av kay- ‘choose’, OInd cinoti ‘pile up’. Distribution
suggests a term primarily of the eastern part of the IE world.
Generally, words for ‘build’ are found in dialectally
restricted roots that reflect different utilization of the various
materials available for construction, e.g., OHG flehtan ‘plait’
and OCS plotd ‘fence’ from *plek- ‘plait’, or Osc felho- ‘wall’
and Grk xelyog ‘wall’ from *dheigh- ‘to knead, mold’ which
also gives Lat fingere (< *dhingh -) ‘to shape’ and OE die ‘dike,
ditch, embankment’ (> NE dike). Other terms derive from
the concept of ‘settle’, e.g., Grk kzi^co ‘build’, OInd Esi- ‘settle’
from *tkei- ‘lie’.
See also Textile. [A.D.V, D.Q.A.]
BURDEN
*hi 6 nhxes- ‘burden’. [IEW 321 ( *enos-)\ BK 423 ( *an -/
* 9 n-)]. Lat onus ‘burden’, OInd ana- ‘goods wagon’. The
underlying verb is perhaps to be seen in Hit anniya- ‘do’.
See also Carry; Wagon. [D.Q.A.]
BURN
*hgeidh- ‘bum; fire’. [IEW 11 ( *ai-dh)\ Wat 1 ( *aidh-)\
Buck 1.85], Olr aed ‘fire’, Lat aedes ‘temple’, OE ad ‘heat,
fire’, OHG eit ‘heat, fire’, Lith iesmi ‘firewood’, OCzech niesteje
(< Slav *esteja) ‘furnace’, Grk aidco{ tr.) ‘bum’, ai'dogai (intr.)
‘bum’, aiOoq ‘fire’, Av aesma- ‘firewood’, OInd indhe (< *h a i-
n-dh-toi) ‘kindle’, edha- ‘firewood’. Distribution indicates PIE
status.
*hael~ ‘burn’. [/EW28 ( *al-); BK 376 ( *al-/*dl-)) . Lat altar
‘altar’, adoled ‘bum a sacrifice’, Swed a/a ‘blaze, flare up, burn’,
OInd alatam ‘firebrand, coal’. Though only sparsely attested,
the geographical distribution of those attestations would make
PIE status likely. 1-
*h 2 ehx~ ‘burn, be hot’ (pres. *h 26 h x qr). [cf. IEW 69
( *at(e)r-)\ Wat 4 (*ater-)\. The underlying verb is preserved
as such only in Palaic ha- ‘be hot’. Derived verbal abstracts
are attested in Olr aith (< *h2eh x -ti-) ‘kiln’, Hit has (acc.
hassan) ‘soda ash, potash; soap; (pi.) ashes’ (< *h2ehxds).
Other, more widespread, derivatives are *h2eh x -seh a - ‘hearth’
in Lat ara ‘sacrificial fireplace, fire-altar’, Hit hassa- ‘fireplace,
hearth, fire-altar’; *h2ehx-ter- ‘fire’ (< *‘burner’) in Av atar-
fire’; and *h 2 ehx-mer- ‘(heat of the) day’ in Grk rjgap ‘day’.
An enlarged *h 2eh x -s- is probably to be seen in *h2fr x s-ter-
‘star’ (< * ‘ember’?). Further extended by an originally present-
forming suffix *-dh- is seen in Lat arded ‘bum’ and TochA
astar ‘pure’, TochB astare ‘pure’ (< *h2eh x -s-dh-ro-) . The
evident antiquity of these derivatives assures the verb’s PIE
antiquity. The recurring association of this verb with the sacred
(‘fire-altar’, ‘[sacred] fire’, ‘pure’) is noteworthy. With the loss
of all laryngeals in most IE stocks this root came to lack much
phonetic body and, presumably as a result, almost everywhere
it has been replaced by other words for ‘burn’. +
*deh a u-‘ kindle, bum, blaze’. [/EW179-180 (*dau-)\ Buck
1.86]. Olr (vn. dat. sg.) doud ( DIL doiid) (< *doid < *dau-
io) ‘burning’, MWels deifyaw(< *dau-) ‘bum, singe’, cynneu
(< *kom + day-io) ‘kindle’, Grk daio) (<*deh2U-jo or
*dh2V-) ‘kindle, burn’, OInd dunoti ‘kindles, burns’, TochA
twas- ‘kindle, ignite, light’, TochB tu - ~ twas- ‘kindle, ignite,
light’. PIE status certain.
*dheg v h- burn’ [IEW 240-241 ( *dheg«h -); Wat 13
( *dheg w h-)\ GI 725 ( *d h eg h o-)\ Buck 1.85; BK 142
(*dyak w [ h }-/*dydk w [ h ]-)\. Olr daig(< *degi-) ‘flame’, MWels
godeith (< *-deith < *-dheg w h-teh a ~) ‘blaze’, perhaps de
‘burning’, Lat foved (< *dhog w heie/o~) ‘heat, cherish’, febris
‘fever’, Lith degu ‘burn’, OCS zegQ (where z < g for d) ‘burn’,
Alb djeg ‘bum’, Grk reqypa ‘ash’, Av dazaiti ‘bums’, OInd
dahati ‘burns’, TochAB tsak- ‘bum’. Good distribution indi-
cates PIE status. Goth dags ‘day’ has also been placed here
but this has been challenged since the derivatives from
*dheg w h- have the meaning ‘summer’ (e.g. , OPrus dagis, OInd
ni-dagha-) and not ‘day’. As it stands beside fidur-dogs , it
may point to *dhfaxgh-, *dhoh x gh - respectively; *dhbxgh-
may be found in TochAB tsak- ‘light, give light’.
*hieus - ‘burn, singe’. [IEW 347-348 ( *eus-)\ Wat 18
( *eus-)\ GI 725 (*eus-); Buck 1.85], Lat uro ‘bum’, ON ysja
‘fire’, usli ‘glowing ashes’, OE ysle (< *hius-) ‘glowing ashes’.
Alb ethe (< *hieus-dh-iieh a -) ‘fever’, yll (< *hiuslid) ‘star’,
Grk evco ‘singe’, OInd osati ‘bums, singes’. PIE status assured.
*guelhx- ‘bum, glow; charcoal’. [IEW 399 ( *g(e)u-lo-)\ Wat
20 (*g(e)u-lo-)\ Buck 1.82], Olr gual{< *ge/oul-) ‘charcoal’,
ON kol ‘charcoal’, OE col ‘glowing piece of wood’, OHG kol
(< *kula~), kolo{< *kulon) ‘charcoal’, Lith zvilti ‘gleam’, Latv
zvilnet ‘flame, glow’, OInd jvalati ‘burns’, jvala- ‘flame; coal’.
Very doubtful is Arm krak (< *guro -?) ‘fire, glowing coals’;
the Celtic form is cognate only if it has a secondary full-grade
— 87 —
BURN
based on the zero-grade *gul(hx)~. Nevertheless, even with
cognates in the northwest and Indie, the distribution is fair
and indicates considerable antiquity.
*sye/- ‘burn’. [JEW 1045 (*sye/-); Wat 68 (*swel-)]. OE
swelan ‘burn’, OHG swilizon ‘burn’, Lith svjlu ‘singe’, Latv
sve/u ‘singe’. Grk eiXt], e'Xrf, eXs ‘heat of the sun’ is unclear
as is ctXeoc (< *sy?h x -?) ‘warmth, heat’. The supposed
connection with *sh a uel- ‘sun’ is semantically attractive only
for Greek and still does not explain ei X- nor eX- nor aX-
( *sh a yel - > *afeX~). Moreover, *suel- is a root, whereas
*seh a u-(e)l- ‘sun’ is a derived noun. Although sometimes
compared here, Olnd svarati ‘lights, shines’ probably does
not exist. The root is solidly attested only as a
“northwesternism” .
*suelp- ‘bum, smoulder’. [IEW 1046 (*sye/p?o-s)]. Lat
sulp(h)ur ‘sulfur’, OE s we/? ‘sulfur’, OHG swebal ‘sulfur’, Goth
swibls ‘sulfur’ (Latin and Germanic < *suelpl [gen. *sulplds]
‘that, which burns’ with different kinds of dissimilation of the
*?.../), TochAB salp- ‘be set alight, blaze up; burn’. An
enlargement of the previous word. +
*yer- ‘bum’. [IEW 1166 (*yer-); Wat 77 (*wer-); cf. GI
725; BK 491 ( *wur-/*wor-)\ . ON varmr ‘warm’, OE wearm
‘warm’ (> NE warm), OHG warm ‘warm’, Goth warmjan ‘to
warm’, Lith virdu ‘boil’, Latv vgrdu ‘boil’, OCS variti ‘boil,
cook’, Hit ur-ani (< by dissimilation *urari) ‘bums’, warant-
‘burnt’, TochA wratk- ‘cook’. Alb vorbe ‘cooking pot’ is
doubtful while Arm varem ‘burn’ is probably an Iranian loan.
The Germanic forms have also been derived from *g w her~.
Even excluding doubtful items, there is still some claim to IE
antiquity.
?*ker- ~ *kerhx- ‘bum, roast’. [IEW 571-572 ( *ker(d)-)\
Wat 30 (*ker-)\ BK 207 (*d[ h ]ar-/*ti[ h ] 3 r-)}. ON hyrr (<
*kuija < *kpio-) ‘fire’, OE hierstan ‘roast’, OHG hersten ‘roast’,
herd (< *herp~) ‘hearth’, Goth hauri (< *k[-io-) ‘coal’. Although
cited elsewhere, the following cognates do not belong here:
Lith kuriu ‘heat, build’, OCS kuriti ‘smoke’, Rus ceren ‘hearth’,
Olnd kudayati ‘bums’. Doubtful also are Lat carbo ‘charcoal’,
Arm xar(s)em ‘roast, boil’, xorovel ‘roast, boil’. Thus the root
is found with certainty only in Germanic.
?*Keh a u- ‘bum’. [7EW595 ( *keu-)\ Buck 1.851. Grk kccicd
‘(< *keh a u-io) ‘bum’, Kccvpcc ‘burning heat (of the sun)’, TochA
kom ‘sun’, TochB kaum ‘sun’ (< *keh a u-ni- ‘burning heat [of
the sun]’). Uncertain is Lith kuleti (< *kuh a -l- with metathesis
of *kh a u-l) ‘get (a) burning (feeling)’, kales (with regular
metonymy) ‘rust, blight’ (= ‘burning of plants’). If the
Tocharian words go with the Greek, then there is some claim
to PIE antiquity for this root.
?*h3ep- roast’. Grk onxoc; ‘roasted, baked’, Hit happin(a)-
‘open flame’. The connection between these words is a mere
possibility; the Hittite word is not cognate with Grk eyco
‘cook’, Arm ep'em ‘cook’. Dubious antiquity.
?*preus- ‘burn’. [IEW 846 ( *preus-)\ Wat 53 ( *preus-)\ .
Lat pruna (< *prusna ) ‘glowing coals’, Alb prush ‘glowing’,
Olnd plosaii ‘burns’. The evidence is not very reliable as the
Old Indie form is late and has a /.
The large number of words for ‘burn’ is not surprising as it
concerns a very essential process. Probably the words had
different meanings, but these are hard to establish now. The
following more specific meanings may be tentatively
suggested: *h a eidh- ‘the steady process of burning’; *hieus-
‘singe, burn something’; *guelhx-‘ glow’; *h3ep- ‘roast’; *suel-
‘smoulder’; *uer- ‘to (make) warm (by fire)?’, and *h2eh K -
‘burn (to offer or purify?)’.
See also Ash 2 , Charcoal; Cook; Day; Dry; Fire, Hearth;
Heat; Hunger; Pure; Star. [R.S.PB., D.Q.A. + ]
BURY see DEATH BELIEFS
BUTTERFLY
*pelpel- ‘butterfly’. [JEW 801 ( *pel-)] , Lat papilid
‘butterfly’, ON fifrildi ‘butterfly’, OE fifalde ‘butterfly’, OHG
flfaltra ‘butterfly’, Lith peteliske ‘butterfly’. These words seem
related in some fashion, and attest a word of the IE northwest,
but the exact pre-form is not reconstructible. An expressive
word subject to various kinds of phonological deformation.
See also Insects. [D.Q.A.]
BUTTOCKS
*hidrs(o)- ‘rear-end’. [IEW 340 (*ers-); Wat 46 ( *ors-)\
GI 717 (*ors-)]. Lat dorsum (if < *d-hiorso~, whether with a
prefix *d- or by misdivision in phrases such as *tod hiorsom
‘this back’) ‘back, ridge’, ON ars ‘arse’, OE ears ‘arse’ (> NE
arse/ass ), OHG ars ‘rump’, Grk oppoq ‘rump’, Arm or'rump’,
Hit arra- ~ arri- ~ arru- ‘rump’. Cf. also OIr err ‘back of chariot’.
Though sparingly attested, we have here the PIE word for
‘rump, buttocks’.
*n(o)hxt- ‘± rear-end’. [/EW770 ( *not-); Wat 45 ( *not-)| .
Lat nails ‘buttocks (of humans)’, Grk vg>tov ‘back’; possibly
related in some fashion is Goth nota ‘stem (of a ship)’ with
-t- rather than the expected *-p- (crossed with nati ‘net’?).
Though its archaic morphology argues a great age, its
geographical distribution suggests that it was probably a
regionalism in late IE.
*bulis l ± rump’. [IEW 99 {*b(e)u-)\ Wat 5 ( *beu-)[ . Lith
bulls ‘rump’, Grk (Hesychius) pvXXa ‘stuffed’, Olnd buli-
‘vulva; anus’. Confined to the center and east of the IE world.
*ghQgheno/eh a - ‘± buttock’. [IEW 438 ( *ghengh-)\ Wat
22 ( *ghengh-)\ . Grk koxcovtj (< kakhdne ) ‘crotch’, Olnd
jaghana- ‘hind end, buttock, pudenda’. Related to Olnd jangha
‘shin’ and further to Goth gaggan ‘go’. The Greek and Old
Indie formations do not quite match, so they may be
independent creations. If they do reflect a common source,
we have at best a late dialectal term in IE.
See also Anus; Haunch. ID. Q. A ]
BUY see EXCHANGE
— 88 —
c
CABBAGE see VEGETABLES
CALL
Shout
*gal- ‘call out, speak’. \1EW 350 ( *gal-)\ Wat 18 ( *gal-)\
Buck 19.13, 18.41], Probably Olr gall ‘swan’, Weis galw ‘call’,
Lat gallus ‘cock’, ON kail ‘shout’, kalla ‘to shout’ (borrowed >
NE call), OE ceallian ‘call’, OHG kallon ‘speak loudly’ (Gmc
< *galso -), Lith galsas ‘echo’, OCS glasQ ‘voice’ (and
reduplicated glagoliti ‘speak’), Rus golos ‘voice’, Oss yalas
‘sound’. With Iranian, sufficiently widespread that its IE status
is assured.
*gar- ‘shout, call’. [1EW352 (*gSr-)', Wat 18 (*gar-)\ Buck
18.13, 18.14]. Olr do-gair ‘call’, gair (noun) ‘shout’, gairm
(noun) ‘shout’, Weis garm ‘shout, cry’, gawr ‘shouting’, Lat
garrio ‘chatter, prattle’, ON kpr ‘sickbed’, OE cearu ‘care,
sorrow, mourning’ (> NE care), cearian ‘mourn’ (> NE to care),
cearm ‘noise’, OHG chara ‘mourning’, charon ‘mourn’, Goth
kara ‘care’, karon ‘be concerned’, Grk yrjpvg ‘voice, call’,
(Hesychius) yappidco ‘rail at’, Arm cicatn ‘swallow [bird]’,
cicamuk ‘nightingale’, Oss zarun ‘sing’, zar ‘song’. Widespread
and old in IE.
*neu- '± cry out’. [IEW 767 (*neu-)\ Wat 44 (*neu-); Buck
18.43; BK 571 ( *nawV*naw -)]. Olr nuall ‘cry, noise’, Lat
nuntius ‘message; messenger’, Latv nauju ‘cry’, NPers navldan
‘cry’, Olnd navate ‘shouts, cries’, TochAB nu- ‘roar’. Sufficiently
widespread to be assured of PIE antiquity.
*ghel- ‘cry out, sing (particularly of birds)’. [IEW 428
( *ghel -); Wat 21 ( *ghel -)] . ON gjalla ‘resound’, goela ‘comfort,
soothe’, gala ‘sing’, gola ‘howl’, OE giellan ‘yell, cry out’
(> NE yell), galan ‘sing’ (cf. nihte-gale ‘nightingale’), OHG
gellan ‘resound loudly’, galan ‘sing’, (cf. nahti-gala
‘nightingale’), Goth goljan ‘greet’, Rus galitisja ‘mock’, na-galiti
‘cry, sing’, Grk ‘swallow’, Kiy^ri ‘thrush’. At least a
word of the west and center of the IE world.
*(s)yeh a gh- ‘± cry out; resound’. [IEW 1110 (*uagh- -
*suagh~), G1 106; BK 481 ( *wa-/*wo-)[ . ON soegr ‘noise’,
svagla ‘splash’, OE swogan - swegan ‘to sound’ (> NE sough),
Goth ga-swogjan ‘sigh’, Lith sugti ‘howl’, Lith svageti ‘sound’,
suokti (the final -k- comes by crossing this word with kaukti
‘howl’) ‘sing’, Latv svadzet ‘rattle, clang’, sudzet ‘mourn’, Grk
rjXP ‘noise’, u ‘to sound, ring’, i)xd> ‘echo’, iaxeca - idyco
(< *ui-uh a gh~) ‘cry, shout; resound, ring’. Cf. Lat vagid ‘cry,
squall (of babies), scream’ as if from PIE *ueh a g-. At least a
word of the west and center of the IE world.
*(s)trep- ‘± cry out, dispute’. [IEW 1037 ( *(s)trep - ~
*(s)treb-)\ Wat 67 (*strep-) ]. Lat strepo ‘cry loudly, make
noise’, ON prefa ‘dispute, wrangle’, OE prafian ‘restrain,
reprove; urge, demand’, prceft ‘dissension’. Mir trena (pi.)
[DIL trlan[ ‘celebration, festival, rites, funeral games’ has been
placed here as if from *trepno- but is more likely to derive
from the ordinal ‘third’ (triad), i.e., a third part or triple
celebration. A western dialectal term in late IE.
*\feh a b- ‘cry, scream’. [IEW 1109 ( *uab-)\ Wat 73
(*wab-)\ Buck 18.13; BK481 (*wa-/*W9-)\. ON oepa ‘shout’,
OE wepan ‘weep’ (> NE weep), OHG wuoften ~ wuofan
‘bewail’, Goth wopjan ‘cry out, call loudly’, Lith vobyti
‘summon at court’, Latv vabit ‘entice, summon to judgment’,
OCS vabljp ‘cry’. At least a northwestern term in late IE.
Invite
*gheu(hx)- call to, invite, invoke’. [7EW4 13 (*ghau-)\ Wat
23 ( *gheu(d)-)\ Buck 18.41], Without the final laryngeal of
the root we have Olr guth ‘voice’, and the Germanic word for
‘god’ (e.g., ON god- gud, OE god [> NE god[, OHG got, as
*‘± that which is invoked’). From a present *gheuhxe/o-\ OCS
zovq ‘call’, Rus zavu ‘call’, Av zavaiti ‘calls’, Olnd havate ‘calls,
invokes’; from a present *ghuh x eh a ~: OCS zuvati ‘call’, Av
zbatar- ‘one who invokes’, Olnd hva- ‘call, invoke’, TochB
kuwa- ‘call, invite’. Cf. the related noun in Slov zov ‘call’, Av
89 —
CALL
zava- ‘call’, Olnd hava- ‘call’. With intensive reduplication
and with expressive *-a-\ Grk Kccvydopcci ‘speak loudly, boast’,
Av zaozao- ‘call after’, (perhaps then with dissimilation [ *ghau-
*ghau(h x )-> *khau-gh-[ Arm xawsim ‘speak’). Other present
formations are seen in Lith zaveti ‘conjure’, Latv zavet ‘conjure’,
Arm jawnem ‘consecrate, bless’. Widespread and old in IE.
*kelh i- ‘call out to’. [IEW 548-549 ( *kel-)\ Wat 28-29
(*keh-)\ G1 174 ( *k h ~ll-e(s)-)\ Buck 18.13, 18.14; BK 244
(*k[ h ]al-/*k[ h ]9l-)]. Olr cailech ‘cock’, Weis ceiliog ‘cock’, Lat
cald ‘call together, summon, convoke’, calendae ‘first days of
the month when it was publicly announced on which days
the nones and ides would fall’, ON hjala ‘chatter, talk’, Latv
kaluot ‘chatter’, Grk KaXeco ‘call’, KaXprcop ‘herald’, KXrjSpv
‘by name’, Hit kalless- ‘call’, Olnd usa-kala- ‘cock’ (if < ^dawn-
caller’). Widespread and old in IE. Enlargements of this verb
include: OE hlowan ‘roar, low’ (> NE low), OHG (h)ldjan
‘roar’, OPrus kaltza ‘ring’, kelsai ‘read, sound out’, Lith kalba
‘speech’.
*keuk- ‘cry out (to)’. [IEW 535-536 ( *kau-)\ . Lith saukiu
‘call, cry, shout; summon’, Latv saukt ‘call; summon; proclaim
(in church); elect’, TochB kuk- ‘call out to’. A Baltic-Tocharian
correspondence which must be at least of late IE date.
Cry Out
*kreuk- ‘cry out, raise the hue and cry’. [IEW 571
( *(s)k(o)reu-)\ . OE hream ‘(juridical) outcry’, Av xraos- ‘call’,
Olnd (anu) krosati ‘cries out, raises the hue and cry’. Here
we have preserved, at the far western and eastern fringes of
the IE world, a word with particular legal associations, namely
the raising of the hue and cry for a thief or other malefactor.
See also Animal Cry; Bird Cry; Steal. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1970) Studies in Indo-European legal language,
institutions, and mythology, in Indo-European and Indo-
Europeans, eds. G. Cardona, H. Hoenigswald, A. Senn,
Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 321-344.
CAPTIVE
*kaptos ‘captive’. [IEW 527 ( *kap-to-s)\ GI 125
( *k h apf 1 -)-, Buck 20.47; BK 242 ( *k[ h ]ap[ h ]-/*k[ h ]9p[ h ]-)]. Olr
cacht ‘captive, female slave’, Weis caeth ‘slave’, Lat captus
‘captive’, ON haptr ‘prisoner’, OE haeft ‘captive, slave; bond,
fetter’ (> NE haft), OHG haft ‘bound; device for retaining,
fetters’, Goth (dat.) -hafts ‘laden with, subject to’, qipu-hafto
‘pregnant’. A participial formation from the verbal stem *kap-
‘take, seize’ (cf. Lat capio 1 1 seize, take hold of, take’). Clearly
a west IE word whose development lies in the taking of
prisoners of war and their subsequent disposal as slaves.
See also Booty; Warriors. [E.C.R]
CARP
*Kdph 2 elos ‘carp ( Cyprinus spp.)’. [IEW 614
( *kop(h)elo-s)\ GI 28 ( *Kop h elo-)\ . Lith sapalas ‘chub
( Cyprinus [or Leuciscus ] dohula)'. Latv sapal(i)s ‘Dvina-carp,
chub ( Leuciscus idus, L gnslagine)’, Olnd saphara- l Cypnnus
sophore\ carp (in general)’. Though attested only late in Old
Indie the exact semantic and phonological equation with the
Baltic words need not be doubted. It would be nice to add
Khot kava- ‘fish’, Oss kaeE fish’ here as *koph 20 shut the differ-
ence in initial consonants is difficult. Similar phonetically,
but unrelated (to this word or to each other), are OHG karp(f)o
‘carp’ (whence medieval Lat carpa ‘carp’ and Rus korop ‘carp’)
and Grk Kvnpivog ‘carp’. At least a word of the center and
east of the IE world.
*gh6rsos ‘asp’ or ‘pikeperch’? Norw gjors ‘pikeperch
( Stizostedion lucioperca )’, Swed gars ‘ruff ( Gymnocephalus
cernua aka Acerina cemua)', Rus zerekh (< *gherso-) ‘asp
( Aspius aspius)'. Probably to be connected here, though the
connection is not without phonological difficulties, is Olnd
jhasa- ‘a kind of large fish, Pisces (the zodiacal sign), fish’.
Also possibly cognate is Lat gerres ‘± Maena \njlgaris' if it is a
borrowing from some other IE group (if it were directly
inherited we would expect *ferres). Clearly the Germanic and
Slavic words belong together but even with only three
attestations deciding the original meaning is very difficult.
Both the pikeperch and the ruff are members of the percidae ,
though the pikeperch is about three times as large as the ruff.
The asp, however, is a member of the cypnnidae and
intermediate in size between the pikeperch and the ruff. The
Old Indie cognate, if it is that, would argue for a relatively
large fish as opposed to a smaller one. At least a word of the
west and center in IE; if the Old Indie is cognate then we
have good evidence for pan-IE status.
The distribution of the common carp extends across Europe
(it has been identified on Swiss Neolithic sites) and into
Central Asia and it is extremely well represented on sites north
of the Black Sea from the Mesolithic period onwards. It was
not only exploited as a source of food but necklaces and other
ornaments fashioned from the teeth of the carp are a frequent
artifact in the middle Dnieper region. Cyprimds are also
known from the Indus river system and were exploited in the
Harappan culture. The asp and pikeperch are known from
central and northern Europe and across eastern Europe to
Central Asia.
See also Fish, Perch. [D.Q.A., J.PM ]
CARROT see VEGETABLES
CARRY
*bher- ‘carry’ (pres. *bh£re/o-) [ IEW 128-132 ( *bher-)\
Wat 7 ( *bher-)\ GI 16 (*b h er-). Buck 10.61; BK 6 ( *bar -/
*bar-)]. Olr beirid ‘carries’, Weis cymeraf' take’, Lat Zero ‘carry’,
ON bera ‘carry, bear’, OE beran ‘carry, bear’ (> NE bear), OHG
beran ‘carry, bear’, Goth balran ‘carry, bear’, perhaps Lith beriu
‘strew’ and Latv be^u ‘strew’ though the semantic divergence
is great, OCS berp ‘take’, Rus beru ‘take’, Alb bie
(< *bhene/o-) ‘carry, bring’, Grk (pepca ‘carry’. Arm berem
‘carry’, Av baraiti ‘carries’, Olnd bharati ‘carries’, TochAB par-
carry’. Cf. the widespread derivatives (1) *bhermn- load’:
— 90
CAT
OCS brem p ‘load’, Grk (peppa ‘fruit’, OInd bharman- ‘load’;
(2) *bh[U's ‘carrying’: Lat fors ‘luck’, ON burdr ‘birth’, OE
gebyrd ‘birth, fate’, OHG giburt ‘birth, fate’, Goth gabaurps
‘birth’, Arm bard ‘pile’, Av barati- ‘carrying’, Olnd bhfti-
‘carrying’; (3) *bhoros ‘what is borne’: OCS su-boru
‘collection’, Grk (popog ‘produce; tax’, NPers bar ‘fruit’, Olnd
bhara- ‘acquisition, booty, burden’, perhaps TochA pare ‘debt’
and TochB peri ‘debt’; (4) *-bhords ‘bearing’: Grk -(popog
‘bearing’, Arm -vor ‘bearing’, Av -bara- ‘bearing’, Olnd -bhara-
‘bearing’; (5) *bhdr ‘one who bears (away)’: Lat fur ‘thief’,
Grk (pcop ‘thief’. Absent in Hittite, but otherwise practically
universal and certainly old in IE.
*y egh- ‘bear, carry’ also ‘ride’? (pres. *y 6ghe/o~). [IEW
1118-1120 ( *uegh-)\ Wat 74 ( *wegh-)\ G1 627 {*we^-)\
Buck 10.66; BK 301 ( *wag y -/*wag y -)\ . Weis amwain ‘drive
about’, Lat veho ‘bear, carry, convey; draw’, ON vega ‘move,
bring’, OE wegan ‘bring, be in motion’ (> NE weigh), OHG
wegan ‘move, weigh’, Goth gawigan ‘move, shake’, Lith vezii
‘drive’, OCS vezQ ‘drive’, Alb vjedh ‘steal’, Grk (f)exero) ‘he
should bring’, Av vazaiti ‘transports; leads’, Olnd vahati
‘carries, transports, conveys; leads’. Cf. the derivative *ueghtis
in Lat vectis ‘bar, pole, lever’, ON vett ‘weight’, OE wiht
‘weight’ (> NE weight ); *jjeghitlom in Lat vehiculum ‘vehicle’,
Olnd vahitram ‘vehicle, ship’; *ueghio- in OE wicg ‘horse’,
Av vazyam ‘load’; *uoghos in OCS vozu ‘wagon’, Grk o%og
‘wagon’; *ueghnos in Olr fen ‘wagon’, Weis gwain ‘wagon’,
TochA wkam ‘way, manner’, TochB yakne ‘way, manner’ (and
similarly *uoghno- in NE wagon). Widespread and old in IE.
In many stocks it means ‘ride (in a wagon or on a horse)’ but
it is not certain that this meaning can be reconstructed for
PIE itself. Perhaps the best evidence that it could mean ‘ride
in a wagon’ in PIE is the apparent agreement of Lat vehiculum
and Olnd vahitra -. However, it cannot be absolutely excluded
that these are independent creations in their respective stocks.
See also Bear 2 , Burden; Drive; Litter; Ride; Wagon.
ID.Q.A.]
CASE
?*y elutrom ‘case’. [ IEW 1141 ( *uelu-tro-m)\ Wat 75-76
( *welu-tro-)\ BK 486 (*waPV*woF'-)]. Lat involucrum
‘covering case’, Grk eXvrpov ‘case’, Olnd varutra- ‘cloak’. From
*ye/- ‘wind, turn’. Possibly a PIE word but also possibly
independent developments in the three stocks that show it.
See also Bag. [D.Q.A.]
CASTRATE
*p6dhhs ‘castrated’. [7EW1115 ( *uedh-ri-s)\ Buck 3.14;
BK 478 (* wad-/* wad-)]. Grk eOpig ‘eunuch’, Luv wida(i)-
‘strike’, Olnd vadhri- ‘castrated’. The agreement of Greek and
Old Indie in this instance suggests at least a late dialectal
word in IE. Derived from the root *uedh- ‘strike’.
Castration, the surgical removal of the testes of the male,
was employed in stockbreeding regimes in order to induce
both physical changes, e.g., speed growth and the accumula-
tion of fat, and behavioral, e.g., reduce aggression in bulls in
order to render them more useful as traction animals. Evidence
for prehistoric castration is limited to metrical analysis of the
bones of males where castrates will be expected to have a
greater length to width ratio than unaltered males. Given
natural variations in populations, such a technique results in
frequent controversy over whether one can actually discern
the presence of castrates although some have presumed that
the mere presence of paired bovine draught, seen in central
and eastern Europe from the fourth millennium BC onwards,
itself should suggest the existence of oxen (castrated males).
Nevertheless, even bulls, if their diet is reduced to inhibit
aggression, may be yoked to pull carts.
See also Barren; Sexual Organs and Activities; Strike.
[D.Q.A.J.RM]
CAT
?*bhel- ‘wildcat; any small carnivore’. Weis bele (<
*bhelego-) ‘marten’, Lat FeZes ‘(wild) cat; any small carnivore’,
Olnd bharuja- ‘jackal’ (only lexically attested), Maldivian balu
‘dog’. This word seems the most likely candidate for the PIE
designation of the wildcat ( Felis silvestris) which, whatever
homeland model one adopts, must have been part of the faunal
environment of the PIE speakers as it is found from Ireland
into Asia while in Central Asia we have the Pallas’ cat or the
manul ( Felis manul) and in India the yellow cat ( Felis hbyca)
and the jungle cat ( Felis chaus). However, the original meaning
of the reconstructed word, if indeed it can be ascribed PIE
antiquity, is doubtful. Another possibility is that the Welsh
and Latin words alone belong together with a meaning of
‘marten’.
??*kat- ‘cat’. [IEW 534 (*kat-)\ GI 513 ( *k h at h -); Buck
3.62]. Olr caff ‘cat’ (if not from Latin), VulgLat cattus ~ gattus
‘wild cat’. From Latin are derived both the Baltic (OPrus catto
‘cat’, Lith kati ‘cat’, Latv kape ‘cat’) and Slavic (Rus kot ‘cat’)
names of the ‘cat’. Cf. also Arm katu ‘cat’ and Oss gaedy ‘cat’.
The appearance of the word cattus is relatively late in Latin,
as was the introduction (from Egypt?) of the domestic cat
which is its typical referent (though it may refer like the older
feles to the wildcat as well). The word can us is presumably
borrowed from some non-Latin source as is, in turn, the source
of many of the other European words for ‘cat’. In Latin itself
there was a secondary association with catulus ‘young animal,
whelp’ that is of IE provenance, cf. ON hadna ‘young goat,
kid’, MHG hatele ‘goat’, Rus kotitisja ‘bear young’.
Distinctions between the wild and early domestic cats on
the basis of skeletal remains are difficult although domestic
cats will tend to be slightly smaller with respect both to stature
and dentition. In general, the domestication of the cat is widely
presumed to have occurred in North Africa and possibly not
until just before the New Kingdom in Egypt, i.e. , the sixteenth
century BC, although some would claim that it may have
been domesticated as early as the Old Kingdom in the third
millennium BC. Whatever the precise date of its
domestication, it is to Egypt and such lexical forms as Nubian
kadis ‘cat’ that the chain of borrowings of both the animal
— 91
CAT
and the word is initiated. Domestic cats are said to have spread
into the Aegean world before the twelfth century BC and the
cat was present in Italy by the first centuries BC from whence
it spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. Its arrival
in India may be set to the third millennium BC. The domestic
cat can interbreed with the wildcat.
See also Marten. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
CATACOMB CULTURE
Early Bronze Age culture(s) north of the Black Sea and
Caucasus dating c 3000-2200 BC. The Catacomb culture was
closely related to the somewhat earlier (Pontic) Yamna culture
and occupies much of the same region while the successor to
the Yamna culture in the east (Volga region) was the Poltavka
culture. As the Catacomb culture occupies such a large area
and can be divided into regional variants (on the basis of
ceramic styles and to some extent burial practice), it is also
termed the “Catacomb cultural-historical area” and the
regional variants may themselves be designated as cultures.
Evidence for settlements is quite sparse and the
overwhelming majority are regarded as short-term seasonal
camp-sites situated near sources of water. Several more
substantial settlements are known such as Matveyevka on the
Southern Bug which had three large structures with stone
foundations. On the small island of Bayda on the Dnieper
river was discovered a late Catacomb stone-built fortress with
a surrounding ditch. The economy is believed to have relied
considerably on stockbreeding; remains of cattle, sheep/goat
and horse have all been recovered with minimal remains of
pig. Plant remains are very rare but traces of wheat, both
einkom ( Tritieum monocoecum ) and emmer (I. dicoccon ),
have been found, and remains of wooden plows have been
recovered from Catacomb burials.
The Catacomb culture derives its name from its burial rite
which augmented the shaft grave of the Yamna culture with a
burial niche at its base, the so-called catacomb. Individuals
were normally placed in the flexed position on their right
side and might be accompanied with weapons — axes (both
stone and metal), maces, arrows, daggers — and ornaments,
including silver rings. Animal sacrifices, including the head
and hooves of cattle, sheep and goat, accompanied burials
(animal remains occur in about 16% of the graves). Ceramics
were more elaborate than those of the Yamna culture and
included, especially in female burials, low footed vessels
interpreted as “censers”, presumed to be used in rituals
involving some narcotic substance such as hemp. Wheeled
vehicles are also found in burials and some have suggested
that they include among their number some of the earliest
chariots. In some regions of the Catacomb culture, particularly
those centering on the Seversky Donets, there is considerable
evidence for artificial skull deformation, possibly as both an
aesthetic device and ethnic marker.
Another Catacomb cultural practice of considerable interest
concerns skulls where the face of the deceased has been
modelled in clay. This involved the infilling of eye sockets,
ears, nasal cavity and mouth with clay and, in various degrees,
modelling the surface features of the face. There are about a
hundred examples known from the Dniester east to the
Donbas which would constitute some 3% of all excavated
Catacomb burials. In some instances modelled faces are clearly
associated with status burials accompanied by wheeled
vehicles, axes, scepters, and other prestige items. Although
males are more likely to have this treatment, women and
children are also found with modelled faces. It has been
suggested that the Catacomb clay masks may have been a
distant prototype for the later gold masks that were found
accompanying the shaft-grave burials of the Mycenaeans.
Another marked occurrence (9% of burials examined)
involving the skull was the artificial widening of the occipital
or trepannation (i.e., drilling holes in the skull), presumably
associated with some (ritual-)medical practice.
Sets of tools from Catacomb burials have suggested the
existence of craft specialists such as bronze workers while
evidence of other crafts, e.g., weapon manufacture, weaving,
have been found. Weapons occur in about 10% of all burials.
From palaeodemographic studies of the burials ( 1 200 have
been studied) and assessment of the steppe resources, a
population of some 50,000-60,000 has been estimated for
the Catcomb culture in the north Pontic.
The presence of the catacomb niche in burials has been
regarded by a number of archaeologists as a diagnostic cultural
marker which permits one to trace either movements from
the steppe or to the steppe, depending on one’s preference.
Thus, the existence of niche-like chambers in burials from
Italy across the eastern Mediterranean has been suggested as
evidence for the spread of Catacomb people through these
regions and other parallels in metal and figurine types have
been proposed to support a movement of steppe populations
through Syria into Palestine c 3000-2500 BC. As the practice
of skull deformation has also been found in the east
Mediterranean, contacts (presumably quite distant) have been
sought to explain its appearance in the Catacomb culture. All
of these suggestions, however, are driven by purely archaeo-
logical suppositions rather than linguistic and while IE-
speaking populations must be accommodated in Anatolia
(where there is really no serious evidence for “Catacomb
migrations”) or later in north Syria (Indo-Aryans among the
Mitanni), there is no reason to postulate IE-speakers in
Palestine in the late fourth or third millennium BC. One
further diagnostic item is the hammer-head pin, a character-
istic ornament of the Catacomb culture which has been found
much further afield in central Europe and Italy and these
have been tied to either folk-expansions or at least the diffusion
of a style from the steppe.
As for the ethno-linguistic identity of the Catacomb culture
in its own territory, the culture is variously seen as ancestral
to Indo-Iranians or perhaps Thracians although there have
been some recent attempts to represent it as providing a
common background to Greek, Armenian, and Indo-lranian.
See also Poltavka Culture; Yamna Culture. [J.PM.]
— 92
CATACOMB CULTURE
Catacomb I a. Distribution of the Catacomb culture(s).
— 93 —
CATACOMB CULTURE
Further Readings
Kadrow, S. et al. (1994) Nomadism and Pastoralism in the Circle of
Baltic-Pontic Early Agrarian Cultures: 5000-1650 BC. Baltic-
Pontic Studies 2, Poznan.
Shepel, E. A. (1996) Populations in the Northern Donets basin from
the 3rd to 2nd millennia BC.J1ES2A, 1-26.
Zanotti, D. G. (1981) The effect of Kurgan Wave Two on the eastern
Mediterranean (3200-3000 BC) J/E5 9: 275-302.
CATAL HUYUK
Neolithic settlement site in central Anatolia dating c 7200-
6100 BC. The site occupied 13 ha and although only a small
portion was excavated, it revealed an amazing complex of
what have been identified as both rectangular multi-roomed
dwellings and religious sanctuaries. The economy was based
on cattle raising and agriculture — wheat, barley, pea, vetch
and wild seeds and fruits. Cattle comprised the largest group
of livestock while sheep were apparently still hunted along
with a variety of other mammals, including the onager, half-
ass, boar, deer, wolf, bear, etc. Lime-plastered rooms with
painted walls and plastic decoration of animals, in particular
bulls’ heads, have supported the concept of a bull cult at Catal
Huyiik. Moreover, an abundance of figurines, particularly
female figures, has been interpreted as reflecting devotion to
goddesses. Burials were found below house floors and not
interred until the body had been exposed and the flesh cleared
by birds and insects (an apparent theme on the walls of some
of the shrines). Although most burials were unaccompanied
by goods, some were associated with a wide range of orna-
ments and occasionally weapons.
For those who derive the Indo-Europeans from Anatolia,
either with the initial spread of the agricultural economy or a
somewhat later expansion, the site of Catal Huyiik has been
held up as a typical Proto-Indo-European site. V A. Safronov,
for example, has argued that Qatal Huyiik specifically satisfies
all twenty-seven of his lexico-cultural traits that define the
PIE community, although most of these — settled life, domestic
livestock, agriculture, hunting wild animals, ceramics, etc. —
are so generic that almost, any Neolithic site in Eurasia could
accommodate his criteria and some of his proposed features,
94 —
CATAL HUYUK
e.g., a “written” symbolic system or language, can hardly be
regarded as diagnostic markers of the Proto-Indo-Europeans.
Opponents to assigning an Indo-European identity to Qatal
Hiiyuk emphasize that it actually fails to meet the minimum
requirements of an Indo-European site or culture, lacking as
it does the horse and wheeled vehicles (it antedates the
appearance of wheeled vehicles anywhere by some two
millennia); that its proto-urbanism is very much at variance
with both the lexico-cultural evidence and the emergence of
most IE groups in history; that its “goddess-centered” religious
ethos is contradicted by the reconstructed male deities and
the strongly patriarchal society of the early Indo-Europeans;
and that it occupies a territory which is later assigned to the
Hatti, the non- IE occupants of the lands settled subsequently
by the Hittites.
See also Anatolian Languages; Indo-European Homeland.
Q.PM.l
Further Readings
Mellaart, J. (1967) Catal Hiiyuk: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia.
London, Thames and Hudson.
Safronov, V A. (1989) Indoevropeyskiye Prarodiny (Indo-European
homelands). Gorki, Volga-Vyatka Publishing House.
Yakar, Jak (1991) Prehistoric Anatolia. Tel Aviv, Institute of
Archaeology.
CAVE see CAVITY
CAVITY
*h 2 ehjos ~ *h 2 eulos ‘elongated cavity, hollow’. I JEW 88-
89 ( *au-lo-s ); cf. GI 5231. From *h 2 eluos: Lat alvus ‘belly,
womb; hold (of a ship)’, alv(e)arium ‘beehive’. Hit halluwa-
‘hollow, deep’; from *h 2 eulos: Norw aul 1 Angelica sylvestris\
OPrus aulinis ‘leg of a boot’, Lith aulas Teg of a boot’, aulys
‘beehive’, OCS ulica ‘alley’, Rus ulica ‘street’, ulej ‘beehive’,
Grk avXog ‘flute’, evavXog ‘river bed’, Arm ul ‘way’, TochB
aulon ‘blood vessels’. The notion of ‘beehive’ comes from that
of a hollow tree for a swarm. The metathesis of the *-l- and
the *-u- parallels that seen in Lat nervus ‘nerve’ and Grk
vevpov ‘nerve’. Distribution indicates PIE age.
*ghfyaifos ‘gaping hole’. [IEW 449 ( *gheu-)\ Wat 23
(*gheu-); BK 234 ( *ga-/*ga-)\ . Grk yaog (< * yd fog) ‘chaos,
infinite space’, yavvog ‘gaping’, TochA ko ‘mouth’, TochB
koym ‘mouth’ (< *ghuh a iom < *ghh a uiom , or < *ghohaiul —
the exact form of the Proto-Tocharian word, much less its
PIE antecedent, is unclear). With suffix in north European:
OE goma ‘gum, palate’ (> NE gum), OHG goumo ‘gum,
palate’, Lith gomurys ‘palate’. From *gheh a u- ‘gape, yawn’.
*h 2 &ios ‘cavity’. [Puhvel 3:143-144]. Arm ayr L c ave’, Hit
hariya- ‘valley, vale, dale’. Cf. also Lith armud ‘abyss, bottom,
depth’. Despite the limited number of attestations, this word
is probably old in IE.
*R6uhxT (gen. *kuh x nds) ‘hole, opening’. [IEW 593-594
( *kuui ) ; Buck 12.72] . Lat cavema ‘cave’, Grk Kvap (< *kuhxf)
‘eye of the needle; opening of the ear’, Arm sor
(< *kouhxero-I) ‘hole’, Av sura- ‘hole, gap’, OInd stma- ‘lack’.
sunya- ‘empty, hollow’, TochB kor(< *kuh x p) ‘throat’. Deri-
vatives from the root *k ouh^- include Mir cua ‘hollow’, Weis
cau (< *k ouh x uos) ‘hollow, concave’, Bret kao ‘cave', Lat cams
‘hollow’ (whence NE cave). Alb thelle (< *kouh x -i-lo-) ‘deep’,
Grk (Hesychius) kooi (pi.) ‘cavities in the earth', KoiXog
(< *kouh x -i-lo-) ‘hollow’. The term primarily indicates a
depression in a surface but may also refer to an opening of
some depth, even a gap. The geographical distnbution strongly
suggests PIE status.
*Eoi\}-is~*Eoiiji-eh a - ± tube’. [7EW919-922 (*skei-)\. Lith
seiva ~ saiva ‘spool’, Latv saiva ‘spool’, OCS ce\Tnlca Tyre,
pipe’, Polish cewa ‘tube, pipe’, TochB kaice ‘± trough, tub;
body of lute’ (< *koiue-Ten-, or *koiui-Ten -) . The Baltic
represents a satom-development of *k~, the Slavic a centum -
development. Sometimes taken to be from *(s)kei- ‘cut, split’
but semantically the derivation seems most dubious.
?*k£iij[(t) (gen. *kaiyptds) ‘cave, fissure (in the earth)’.
[IEW 521 ( *kaiur-t)\ BK 271 (*k[ h Jay-/*kl h ] 3 y-)}. Grk
(Hesychius) Kaiazag (pi.) ‘ditches, fissures opened by
earthquakes, (Doric) KaiaSag ‘pit or underground cavern in
Sparta into which state-prisoners or their corpses were
thrown’, OInd kevata- ‘cave, hollow’. Limited distribution
suggests at best a word of the center and east. The meanings
range from a gap caused by an earthquake to a place in which
to throw bodies of criminals. One of a small number of
proposed Greek-Old Indie isoglosses, this equation has been
challenged in both Greek and Old Indie etymological
dictionaries.
See also Mouth; Valley. [A.D.V, D.Q.A.]
CEDAR see JUNIPER
CELTIC LANGUAGES
The Celts emerge in historical records during the first five
centuries BC when they dominated much of western and
central Europe and had begun impinging on the literate
peoples of the classical world. Known to the Greeks as the
KeXtoi and Romans as Celtae or Gallatae, they are most closely
identified with the La Tene culture (c 500-1 BC) of western
Europe but, as the distribution of Celtic languages exceeds
that of La Tene metal work, Celtic origins and initial
expansions no doubt lie still earlier in the Iron Age or Bronze
Age. Usually, the period of Proto- or Common Celtic is set to
c 1000-500 BC.
Continental Celtic
The Celtic languages are geographically and historically
divided into two broad groups— Continental and Insular
Celtic. Of the two, the Continental Celts have left the earlier
sources but these are neither abundant nor did any
Continental Celtic language survive late antiquity. The ancient
Gauls came into close contact with the Greek trading colony
at Massilia (Marseilles) from whence they eventually adopted
a form of the Greek alphabet to leave about seventy
monumental inscriptions and several hundred others on the
— 96 —
CELTIC LANGUAGES
sides of pots. These date from the end of the third century BC
while other inscriptions in central Gaul appear to date to the
first century BC. Other than these short dedicatory
inscriptions, the Gauls have also left some more extensive
documents of a religious nature such as the c 64-word lead
tablet from Chamalieres and the c 160- word inscribed tablets
from a burial at Hospitalet-du-Larzac. The most famous
extensive document is the Coligny Calendar, a much mutilated
bronze tablet providing the names of sixty-two Celtic months
covering a five year span and designating days as ‘bad’ or
‘good’, i.e., Gaul mat(u), cf. OIr maith , Weis mad ‘good’, an
extraordinary testament of the early Celts’ astronomical and
astrological proclivities.
The Gaulish inscriptions provide us with some ’evidence
for morphology and better evidence for personal and
mythological names (e.g., the same name of a deity is found
in Gaul Lugus and OIr Lug). These names, coupled with the
extensive references in Latin literature and later recorded place
names, are of considerable comparative interest in association
with similar evidence from the Insular Celts. It is clear that
the Gauls were largely P-Celtic, i.e., they had replaced the
PIE labio-velar *k w - with a pure labial p, hence Gaul petru-
‘four’ but OIr cethair, Lat quattuor , etc. Nevertheless, even in
some of the the Gaulish inscriptions, place names or the
Coligny Calendar, there are still traces of the labio-velar,
rendered in Gaulish as qu, e.g., Sequanna (the River Seine).
What is also to be noted is that the Gauls themselves were
not linguistically unified and there is considerable (and
predictable) variation from one region to another.
Celts, under a chief namecTBrennus, are reported to have
sacked Rome in 390 BC and settled extensively in northern
Italy where they formed the province of Gallia Cisalpina. These
Celts were subjugated by the Romans by 192 BC but their
language partially survived as Lepontic. The inscriptional
evidence for Lepontic, devised in an Etruscan-derived
alphabet, is the earliest of any of the Celtic languages and
begins about the sixth century BC and runs to the first two
centuries BC. These inscriptions largely coincide with the
territory of the Golasecca culture and confirm the presence
of Celts in northwest Italy before the sacking of Rome. The
Lepontic inscriptions are frequently of a funereal nature while
there are also about sixteen coin inscriptions. The narrow
geographical range of Lepontic has suggested that it be treated
as a dialect of Gaulish but it also shows a number of more
conservative features than Gaulish.
Celtic tribes also exploded into southeastern Europe where
they sacked Delphi in 279 BC. These latter invaders also
settled in present day Turkey in 270 BC and became the
Galatians who gave their name to the later Roman province
to whom St Paul later addressed his Epistle. In general, the
language of these Eastern Celts is known entirely from coin
inscriptions, place and personal names.
The third main branch of Continental Celtic is variously
known as Ibero-Celtic or Hispano-Celtic which is attested in
Iberia between Burgos on the west and Zaragoza on the east.
Celtic Distribution of the Celtic languages.
The first references to Celts in Spain may date to the time of
Herodotus (mid-fifth century BC) who claimed that Celts
occupied lands even beyond the Pillars of Hercules (Straits of
Gibraltar) and the name Celti-Iberian emerges by the third
century BC. Evidence for Hispano-Celtic is to be found on
inscriptions written in a syllabic script borrowed from the
native non-Indo-European populations of Iberia. Occasionally,
texts are also found in the Roman script. The Hispano-Celtic
inscriptions are generally short and date to the first centuries
BC. These consist of about fifty coin inscriptions, and about
thirty longer ones, some of which are of considerable length.
The longer inscriptions include tesserae hospitales , documents
reflecting pacts between individuals or communities. The
bronze tablet that carries the Botoritta inscription runs to c
190 words and a much longer inscription has been recently
discovered suggesting that we are a long way from fully
realizing the potential of Hispano-Celtic for the study of the
Celtic stock. Unlike Gaulish and Lepontic, Hispano-Celtic
retains the PIE labio-velars. In the years after 220 BC, Iberia
was assimilated into the Roman world and its native languages,
other than Basque, became extinct. In Portugal there is
evidence of another IE language, Lusitanian, which has
sometimes been regarded a dialect of Hispano-Celtic but more
often has been given separate language status. Tartessian, a
language of the southernmost tip of Iberia, also shows some
traces of Celtic in its personal names.
The extinction of the Celtic languages is largely due to the
spread of Latin or, in regions peripheral to the center of Celtic
expansion, the absorption of Celtic speakers by resident
populations. Writing in the fifth century, St Jerome suggested
that a language spoken in the territory of the earlier Galatians
was similar to that of the Treveri, a Gaulish tribe living in the
vicinity of Trier which has been taken by some to suggest
that Celtic had survived in both regions until this time while
it has also been argued that Gaulish survived in Brittany to
— 97 —
CELTIC LANGUAGES
Proto-Indo-European and Celtic Phonological Correspondences
PIE
Celt
PIE
Olr
Weis
*p
>
0
*pltnos ‘wide’
lethan ‘wide’
llydan ‘wide’
*b
>
b
*pibeti ‘drinks’
ibid ‘drinks’
lb- ‘drink’
*bh
>
b
*bhugos ‘goat’
boc ‘buck’
bwch ‘buck’
*t
>
t
*tauros ‘bull’
tarb ‘bull’
tarw ‘bull’
*d
>
d
*die- ‘day’
dia ‘day’
dydd ‘day’
*dh
>
d
*dhudr ‘door’
dorus ‘doorway’
dor ‘door’
*k
>
c
*R (u)udn ‘dog’
cu ‘dog”
ci ‘dog’
*g
>
g
*genu ‘jaw’.
gin ‘mouth’
gen ‘cheek’
*gh
>
g
*ghndne/o- ‘find’
ro-geinn ‘finds room’
gann- ‘find room’
*k
>
c
*kreuh a - ‘blood’
cru ‘blood’
crau ‘blood’
*k w
>
c
*k w etuer- ‘four’
cethair ‘four’
ped war ‘four’
*g w
>
b
*^ v 6us ‘cow’
bo ‘cow’
buch ‘cow’
* g w h
>
g
*g v hedhie/o- ‘ask’
guidid ‘asks’
gweddi ‘prayer’
*s
>
s
*senos ‘old’
sen ‘old’
hen ‘old’
*i
>
0
*h iiuh x pkos ‘young’
oac ‘young’
ieuanc ‘young’
>
w
♦yehjros ‘true’
hr ‘true’
gwir ‘true’
*m
>
m
*mehil- ‘small animal’
mil ‘animal’
mil ‘animal’
*n
>
n
*neuios ‘new’
naue ‘new’
newydd ‘new’
*1
>
1
*legh- ‘le’
lige ‘bed’
lie ‘bed’
*r
>
r
*reumn- ‘horse-hair’
ron ‘horse’s mane’
rhawn ‘horse’s mane’
>
en (W an)
*dgg w heh a t- ‘tongue’
tengae ‘tongue’
tafawd ‘tongue’
*rp
>
em (W am)
*kiptom ‘hundred’
c£t ‘hundred’
cant ‘hundred’
*1
>
li
*pltnos ‘wide’
lethan ‘wide’
llydan ‘wide’
*r
>
ri ~ ar
*kpdieh a - ‘heart’
cride ‘heart’
craidd ‘midpoint’
*mfuos ‘dead’
marb ‘dead’
marw ‘dead’
*e
>
e
*d£kiji ‘ten’
deich ‘ten’
deg ‘ten’
*e
>
I
*uehiros ‘true’
fir ‘true’
gwir ‘true’
*i
>
i
*pibeti ‘drinks’
ibid ‘drinks’
ib- ‘drink’
*1
>
I
*h a rih x mos ‘number’
tlm ‘number’
rhif ‘number’
*o
>
0
*roth 2 os ‘wheel’
roth ‘wheel’
rhod ‘wheel’
*6
>
a
*doh 3 nus ‘gift’
dan ‘gift’
dawn ‘gift’
*a
>
a
*h a enhjtlo- ‘breath’
anal ‘breath’
anadl ‘breath’
*a
>
a
*m£h a ter ‘mother’
mathair ‘mother’
modrydaP queen-bee’
*u
>
u
*srutus ‘flowing’
sruth ‘stream’
ffrwd ‘stream’
*u
>
u
*kuh x los ‘back(side)’
cQl ‘back’
cil ‘back’
♦hi
>
0
*hiekuos ‘horse’
ech ‘ horse’
ebol ‘colt’
*h 2
>
0
*h 2 ftkos ‘bear’
art ‘bear’
arth ‘bear’
*h 3
>
0
*h 3 elVn- ‘elbow’
uilen ‘corner’
elin ‘elbow’
♦h4
>
0
*h 4 6rghiieh a - ‘testicle’
[Mir] uirge ‘testicle’
-
play an important role in the formation of the Breton language.
Whether this latter observation was accurate or not, there is
very little evidence other than in Brittany that the Celtic
languages on the Continent had not largely disappeared by c
400 AD.
Insular Celtic
The surviving Celtic languages all belong to the Insular
Celtic group and derive from ancient languages spoken in
the British Isles before the Roman conquest of Britain. The
Insular Celtic languages are traditionally subdivided into two
groups: Goidelic and Brittonic (or Brythonic), with Goidelic
also being termed Q-Celtic because of its retention of the PIE
labio-velar while Brittonic is similar to Gaulish in its alteration
of *k w to p, e.g., Lat quinque ‘five’ and Olr coic ‘five’ but
OWels pimp ‘five’, cf. Gaul pempe ‘five’. These differences
are trivial in that they are met elsewhere within other IE stocks
and do not alone provide a basis for distinguishing languages.
There is considerable disagreement among Celticists con-
cerning the historical implication of the division between
Continental Celtic and Insular Celtic. Some argue that the
shared innovations of all the insular Celtic languages indicate
— 98 —
CELTIC LANGUAGES
that they represent a separate division of Celtic and shared a
common prehistoric linguistic development apart from that
indicated in the Continental Celtic languages. Others,
however, argue that certain conservative features are to be
found explicitly in Goidelic, Hispano-Celtic. and perhaps
Lepontic which indicate that they represent an early Celtic
spread along the periphery while the central core of Celtic
languages, i.e., Gaulish and Brittonic, are more closely related
to one another.
The earliest evidence for Insular Celtic is to be found in
the works of Greek and Roman travellers and, consequently,
comes at least second or third hand. It begins about the fourth
century BC with names gleaned from the travels of the
geographer-explorer Pytheas (c 325 BC) and continues
throughout the classical period, e.g., Ptolemy’s description of
the British Isles (c 2nd century AD) with names of rivers,
tribes, and places. The Roman Conquest of Britain from the
Claudian invasion of c 43 AD onwards set the stage for
considerable bilingualism in Britain where approximately 800
Latin words were borrowed into the Brittonic vocabulary.
Native British coin inscriptions, beginning ^about the first
century BC, provide some of the earliest native testimony for
the Brittonic language. More useful are Brittonic inscriptions
that date to about the fifth century AD. Irish missionaries
reintroduced literacy to post-Roman Britain where we can
subsequently see the emergence of the main Brittonic
languages. The principal language is Welsh which may have
been written as early as the sixth or seventh centuries AD,
the period assigned to Archaic Welsh, and its traces rest almost
entirely in place-names and personal names in Latin
documents. Old Welsh marks the period from the ninth to
twelfth centuries while the period with far more abundant
texts, Middle Welsh, runs from the twelfth to fifteenth. Modem
Welsh is set to begin about the fifteenth century. Welsh has
survived better than Irish, benefiting from a much closer
association with the attempts of the Methodist church to
increase literacy, which stimulated the use of Welsh in the
reading of the Bible and in hymns.
Cornish, which is derived from the early Brittonic languages
of south-western Britain, is first attested in the Old Cornish
period (c 800-1200). Other than place or personal names,
the main source of information is the Vocabularium Comi-
cum , a Latin-Cornish glossary with 961 entries. Most of our
evidence derives from the Middle Cornish period (c 1200-
1575 AD) and mainly from late mediaeval plays dating to
around 1450-1500. Late Cornish begins c 1575 and includes
a few religious works and plays but by then the language was
in a state of collapse and it became extinct by 1800. Although
there has not been a native speaker for nearly two centuries,
a revival movement has resurrected the Cornish language
(taking the more abundantly represented Middle Cornish
grammar and pronunciation as its model) and some thousand
people now claim to know at least some Cornish.
Breton occupies the most controversial place of the Celtic
languages since its origins are confused if not disputed. The
traditional explanation involves a migration of Celtic tribes
to Brittany from southwest Britain in the fifth to seventh
centuries, impelled either by Anglo-Saxon pressure from the
east or Irish pressure from the west. The natural problem is
that the goal of such a migration was a formerly Celtic-
speaking territory of Gaul and the traditional explanation
presupposes that Celtic had become entirely extinct in this
region before the introduction of Insular Celtic. There is a
school of thought that argues that such a scenario may be
disproved and that the Breton language actually represents a
fusion of both British colonists and existing late Gaulish
speech. Breton is divided into Primitive Breton (c 500-600
AD), Old Breton (c 600-1000 AD), Middle Breton (c 1000-
1600 AD) and Modern Breton from 1600 onwards. Breton
has been largely losing a battle against monoglot French-
speakers and today all Breton speakers are bilingual. Estimates
of the number of speakers runs about 550,000, largely in the
older age ranges although there are now serious attempts to
insure that the language does not become extinct.
The home of the Goidelic languages is Ireland. Here, the
earliest native evidence consists of Ogham Irish, known from
ogham inscriptions from about the fourth-sixth centuries AD.
The ogham system of writing was devised by someone familiar
with Latin, although the actual graphic system is very different
and consists of patterns of notches scratched on the corners
of memorial stones. These ogham inscriptions are confined
largely to southern Ireland (c 350 examples) and Wales (c 50
examples) where the Irish attempted to establish colonies
during the collapse of Roman rule. These inscriptions retain
the Celtic case endings and are easily comparable to both the
earliest British inscriptional evidence and that of the
Continental Celts. Subsequently, the case endings and much
else were lost during the extremely brusque restructuring of
the Irish language in the fifth and sixth centuries. An indication
of this simplification can be seen in the ogham name
CUNAGUSOS which, by the seventh century, was rendered
Congus. The seventh century coincides generally with the
period designated as Archaic Irish but most of the early
evidence for the Irish language derives from Old Irish. This is
the state of the language which was written in the Latin
alphabet of early Irish Christianity and set to the period c
700-900 AD. Old Irish provides a relatively voluminous body
of material, the earliest of which is clearly religious, e g.,
glosses and commentaries on the Bible, but also includes a
body of native narrative and historical literature as well as
poetry. Among the most marked characteristics of Old Irish
are such features as the construction of words with numerous
prefixes, the use of infixed pronouns, the “conjugation’’ of
prepositions according to person, and a particularly compli-
cated system of verbal endings. Middle Irish is the name given
to the literature of the period c 900-1200 AD and Modern
Irish (with c 180,000 speakers) runs from c 1200 onwards.
The Goidelic language was spread by Irish immigrants to
both Scotland and the Isle of Man from about the fifth century
AD onwards. The Scots employed the Irish standard as their
— 99
CELTIC LANGUAGES
literary language up until the seventeenth century and the
birth of a distinctive Scots Gaelic is generally set to about the
thirteenth century and the spoken vernacular (c 80,000
speakers) has emerged very much as a separate Goidelic
language. A Goidelic language was introduced to the Isle of
Man about the fourth and fifth centuries when the Irish were
attempting to expand into western Britain. Manx was not
recorded until the seventeenth century and although it was
the main language of the Isle of Man through the eighteenth
century, it was completely replaced by English in the twentieth
century with the last native speaker dying in 1974. However,
by this time Manx language enthusiasts had begun studying
Manx from the last native speakers and a revived Manx
survives among about 650 people.
Description of Celtic
Although the Continental Celtic languages are important
for the elucidation of Proto- or Common Celtic, the abundant
texts of the Insular Celtic languages, primarily Old and Middle
Irish, coupled with Welsh, provide the basic comparative
foundations of the Celtic languages and the evidence by which
the Celtic stock contributes to the reconstruction of PIE.
Phonologically, the most familiar characteristic of the Celtic
languages is the loss of PIE *p in Celtic, e.g., Lat pater ‘father’,
porcus ‘pig’, and piscis ‘fish’ but OIr athair ‘father’, Mir ore
‘pig’, and Olr lasc ‘fish’; also, the Celtic languages de-aspirated
the PIE aspirated stops so that they fell together with the non-
aspirated stops, i.e., PIE *gh/g> Celt *g, PIE *dh/d> Celt d,
and PIE *bh > Celt *b. Among the vowels, PIE *e > Celt *1,
and PIE *o > Celt *a. The most unusual features of the Celtic
languages are to be found in the Insular Celtic languages.
These exhibit, on the one hand, certain quite archaic features,
particularly in the verbal system and word order, but also
many features found only in Insular Celtic, such as
“conjugated” prepositions, e.g., OIr la ‘with’, but lem ‘with
me’, lat ‘with you’, leiss ‘with him’; infixing of pronouns, e.g.,
OIr bend ‘he carries’ but no-m-beir ‘he carried me’. The
restructuring of the Insular Celtic languages also resulted in
mutation, where the initial of a word experiences the effect of
the ending of a preceding word in the same clause even though
the ending has been dropped. For example, where a nasal
ending previously existed, it will modify the initial of the
following word to a corresponding nasal, e.g., OIr secht
(< *septem ) n-ocht (< *oktd ) ‘seven eighths’.
The dialectal position of the Celtic languages is disputed
in detail although not in general. Similarities with Italic led
to the presumption of an Italo-Celtic stage before the
emergence of the individual stocks, and there is little question
that both Celtic and Italic do share a number of common
features, e.g., several preverbs, assimilation of *p...k w to
k w ...k w (e.g., PIE *penk w e' five’ > Lat quinque , OIr coic), the
superlative suffix *-isrpmo~, the optative in -a-, a number of
uniquely shared lexical items, e.g., Lat terra: OIr fir ‘land’. By
the 1960s, closer examination of all the putative shared
features by a number of scholars suggested that so few
correspondences existed and the differences were so great
that the concept of a period of Italo-Celtic unity was largely
rejected. It was argued that both stocks appear to have
developed independently from late PIE although there may
have been occasional contacts. But despite the collapse of the
Italo-Celtic hypothesis, most attempts to reconstruct the
interrelationships of the IE languages tend to group Italic and
Celtic closer to one another than to most other IE languages
and there are some today who wish to resurrect some form of
Italo-Celtic hypothesis. Against the broader spectrum of
dialectal relationships, Celtic is often held to be a peripheral
language which separated rather early (but after Anatolian)
from the main continuum of late IE dialects.
Celtic Origins
The earliest historical references to the Celts, dated to the
sixth and fifth centuries BC, place them broadly between
southwest Iberia and the Atlantic on the west to near the
mouth of the Danube on the east. By the fifth century BC, the
distribution of many of the Celts of western and central Europe
coincides in general with the La Tene art style that dominated
Europe north of the Alps and the equation Celts = La Tene is
broadly correct for this region as long as one understands
that La Tene art could and did spread beyond the borders of
Celtic speech and that not all Celts can be associated with a
La Tene artwork. This divergence between the distribution
of Celtic speech and La Tene culture is particularly true of
Lepontic which is clearly linked to the Golasecca culture and
whose inscriptional evidence predates the appearance of the
La Tene. In Iberia there is effectively no evidence for the La
Tene and southern Ireland is similarly devoid of La Tene metal
work despite the fact that this very region provides the earliest
inscriptional (ogham) evidence in Ireland for a Celtic language.
On the other hand, the appearance of graves with intrusive
La Tene metalwork in east central Europe does tend to
correlate with historical testimony concerning the eastward
movement of Celts. In short, the La Tene provides an imperfect
marker for the sphere of influence of the Celts and may attest
late expansions but cannot reflect the area of the earliest
distribution of (Proto- or Common) Celtic speakers.
The La Tene is generally seen as an organic outgrowth
(under the admittedly heavy stylistic influence of Greek and
eastern models that penetrated western Europe through Greek
colonies in Marseilles and elsewhere) of the west European
Hallstatt culture. The Hallstatt culture (800-500 BC) has a
broader distribution than the La Tene but also does not
provide evidence of a unitary “Celtic phenomenon”. For
example, it is represented in Iberia but only very minimally
so. A similar situation obtains in Ireland where about fifty
bronze copies of Hallstatt swords provide the primary evidence
for a Hallstatt “culture”. From this evidence it is clear that
there is not a single Iron Age culture that can explain the
origin and dispersion of all the Celts.
Generally, the archaeological evidence for continuity can
be traced further to the late Bronze Age Umfield culture of
— 100 —
CELTIC LANGUAGES
the thirteenth century BC and even earlier but with a de-
creasing sense of linguistic utility. It is clear from the Celtic
languages that they shared common words for ‘iron’ and other
technological items (‘shield’, ‘caldron’, etc.) that they are
unlikely to have encountered anywhere prior to the Umfield
or late Bronze Age. Moreover, the GolasecCa culture of north-
west Italy is part of the general Umfield phenomenon and
there is some evidence of the spread of the umfields into
northwest Iberia as well. Hence, the initial spread of the Celtic
languages may have begun during the late Bronze Age and
involved some population movements and later migrations
are suspected for the Iron Age. But major shifts in populations
are not envisaged: analysis of skeletal remains from the
Hallstatt and La T£ne, for example, point to broad homo-
geneity among western and central European populations with
more marked differences between them and those of the
British Isles. Similarly, it has not been possible to discern any
particularly genetic features which are shared by all of tfie
main Celtic-speaking populations, even in the British Isles.
Here the physical and genetic composition of the Celtic popu-
lations has generally been regarded as merely “residual” or
“peripheral” European rather than particularly derived from
some continental Celtic “homeland”. For this reason
archaeologists in western Europe have also emphasized other
social processes that may have led to the spread of the Celtic
languages. The establishment of Bronze Age hillforts and later
centers of Iron Age chieftains has been viewed as providing
an arena for language change and diffusion with varieties of
Celtic expanding along marriage networks between the social
elites (vaguely like French among the Russian nobility of the
early nineteenth century) or via travelling craftsmen who
received the patronage of such elites. It has even been suggest-
ed that Celtic may have served as something of a pidgin or
lingua franca among the trade-routes of western Europe. This
latter theory, however, seems most unlikely as pidgins are
characterized by brusque simplification of grammar, a feature
that is hardly supported by both the conservatism of recon-
structed Common Celtic and the complicated evolution that
some of the Celtic languages took, such as Old Irish with its
augmentation of the existing verbal forms.
Finally, there are those who hold to a theory of Indo-
European origins that would seek the roots of all IE stocks in
Europe in the spread of the agricultural economy from the
Near East. Such a model would have the (Proto-) Celtic stock
emerging out of the languages of the Neolithic inhabitants of
western Europe during the period c 5000-4000 BC. This
model, however, seems most unlikely given the general
similarity of all the Celtic languages with one another that we
find with the first inscriptional evidence, e.g., the Old Irish
expression ‘the women’ would be rendered inna mna which,
were we to find it on an ogham inscription of the fourth-
seventh century AD, would have been written *indas mnas,
the precise form that we do find it on a Gaulish inscription of
c 100 AD. It is most improbable that the (Proto-) Celts were
able to maintain parallel linguistic development from Ireland
Celtic The archaeological antecedents of the Celtic languages (shaded
area).
across western continental Europe from the beginning of the
Neolithic to the historical period, a time-span on the order of
four thousand years. For this reason, linguists have generally
confined the search for the Proto-Celts to the later Bronze
Age (c 1200 BC onwards) or the Iron Age.
As Celtic languages spread in the early historic period, they
provide us with cautionary evidence concerning the
relationship between the process of linguistic expansion and
visibility within the archaeological record. Even where we
can trace in time the course of Celtic movements, such as the
spread of Goidelic speakers from Ireland to Scotland in the
first millennium AD, such a migration is in no way supported
by hard archaeological evidence.
See also Golasecca Culture; Hallstatt Culture; Indo-
European Languages, La TEne Culture; Urnfield Culture
Q.PM., D.Q.A.)
Further Readings
Language
Ball, M. J. (ed.) (1993) The Celtic Languages. London and New
York, Routledge.
Lambert, P-Y. (1994) La langue gauloise. Description linguistique,
commentaire et inscriptions choisies. Paris, Editions Errance.
Lewis, H. and H. Pedersen (1937) A Concise Comparative Celtic
Grammar.
Schmidt, K.-H. (1986) The Celtic languages in their European
context, in Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Celtic
Studies, eds. D. Ellis Evans, J. G. Griffith, and E. M. Jope, Oxford,
199-221.
Watkins, C. (1966) Italo-Celtic revisited, in Ancient Indo-European
Dialects, eds. H. Bimbaum and J. Puhvel, Berkeley and Los
Angeles, University of California Press, 29-50.
Dictionaries
Dictionary of the Irish Language. (1913-1976) Dublin, Royal Irish
Academy.
— 101 —
CELTIC LANGUAGES
Geriadur Prifysgol Cymru. A Dictionary of the Welsh Language
(1950—) . Cardif, Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru.
Vendry£s,J. etal. (1959—) Lexique etymologique de Tirlandais ancien.
Paris, CNRS.
Origins and Culture
Moscati, S. et al. (eds.) (1991) The Celts. London, Thames and
Hudson.
Fischer, E (1986) Die Ethnogenese der Kelten aus der Schicht der
Vor- und Friihgeschichte, in Ethnogenese europaischer Volker,
eds. W. Bernhard, A. Kandler-Palsson, Stuttgart and New York,
Gustav Fischer, 209-224.
Green, M. (ed.) (1995) The Celtic World. London, Routledge.
CEMETERY H CULTURE
Indus Valley late Bronze Age culture (c 2000-1400 BC)
which takes its name from a series of burials deposited in the
upper levels of Harappa, one of the major towns of the Harap-
pan culture or Indus Valley civilization. The stratigraphic
position of the burials suggests that they followed the collapse
of urban society in north India-Pakistan. The burials were
dug into a mass of debris of Harappan pottery overlaying an
earlier cemetery (designated R 37), which belonged to the
Harappan culture. The burials from Cemetery H are divided
into two stratigraphical groups: the earliest were extended
inhumations while the latter burials involved the deposition
of bones (after exposure) in an urn. Among the complete
burials, which were accompanied by pottery vessels, there
was also some evidence of the sacrifice of a sheep or goat.
The urns, which were covered with lids, generally
contained only partial remains of the deceased after exposure.
These ranged in age from adults to infants. The upper stratum
yielded some 135 urns although many of them contained no
evidence of human remains. The ceramics, which consist of
forms foreign to the Harappan culture but techniques of
manufacture reminiscent of it, have led some to suggest a
synthesis of native Indus and foreign elements. Among the
ceramics were vessels decorated with peacocks, bulls, a goat
and a dog which have been interpreted in the light of Vedic
mythology. The excavator of Cemetery H, Maho Sarup Vats,
for example, discerned within the body of the peacocks a
horizontal figure, the suksma iartra , representing the souls
of the deceased in Indie religion. The dogs are compared with
the two hounds of Yama, the Indie lord of the dead. The goat
is regarded as an archetypal pathfinder. A mythological figure
(of uncertain interpretation) is depicted carrying a bow and
standing between two bovines. For this reason, the Cemetery
H culture has occasionally been regarded as evidence for a
mobile and intrusive population associated with early Indo-
Aryan movements into India. An earlier theory that the
Cemetery H “people” represented Indo-Aryan destroyers of
the Indus towns is now rejected since there is a clear hiatus
between their burials and the abandonment of the towns.
Moreover, the paucity of Cemetery H remains in the Indus
region does not support the proposition that it was responsible
— 102 —
CERNAVODA CULTURE
for major cultural and linguistic change. On the other hand,
certain traits of the Cemetery H culture with regard to
cremation have been linked further north to the Swat culture,
which has often been seen as evidence for some form of Indo-
Aryan movement toward the sub-continent. The evidence of
physical anthropology, however, offers no further support for
an intrusive element in the Cemetery H population since
anthropological analysis of the skeletons from the Cemetery
H inhumations finds them very close to both the early burials
of the Swat culture and the local Harappan (R-37) populations.
See also Harappan Culture; IndoIranian Languages;
SwSt Culture. [J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Kennedy, K. (1995) Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric
skeletal record from South Asia?, in The Indo- Aryans of Ancient
South Asia , ed. G. Erdosy, Berlin and New York, de Gruyter, 32-
66.
Vats, M. S. (1940) Excavations at Harappa. 2 vols. Delhi, Government
of India.
CENTAUR
??*g w hondheiyos centaur’. [Del 73]. Lat Februus
(presiding god of Lupercales), Grk Kevjavpoq ‘centaur’, Av
ganddrdwa- (name of monster), Shughni zindurv ‘werewolf’,
Olnd gandharva- (mythical being). Most of these comparisons
cannot be maintained. The old comparison between the Greek
and Old Indie forms is rightly dismissed in etymological
dictionaries as fantastic. Nor is Lat Februus ‘god of death and
purification’ cognate as it belongs with Grk Ovo) ‘offer (on the
sacrificial fire)’ < *‘fumigate’ (cf. Grk [Homeric] Oeeiov
‘sulphur [used for purification]’ which is derived from PIE
*dheu-s~). The various Indo-lranian forms may be cognate
with one another but lack a clear etymology.
The Greek centaurs (Grk Kevtctvpog ‘centaur’) are
described as a savage bunch of mythical beings, half human,
half horse-like, living in the woods or mountains of Elis
(Arcadia) or Thessaly. They represent wild life and animal
desires; they are lustful, often attempting to rape women; and
they indulge in heavy wine drinking. Individual centaurs have
myths of their own, like Nessus whom Herakles tackled and
who ultimately caused the latter’s demise, as he was poisoned
by fabric dipped in the dying centaur’s blood. Attempts to
attribute this term to greater antiquity were made in an early
work of Georges Dum6zil but the edifice of such a proposal
has long since been rejected.
See also Horse. [E.C.P]
Further Reading
Dumezil, G. (1929) he probleme des Centaures: Etude de mythologie
comparie indo-europ6enne. Paris, Annales du Musee Guimet.
CERNAVODA CULTURE
The Cemavoda I culture is a late Copper Age culture
(c 4000-3200 BC) of eastern Romania and Moldova, situated
primarily in the lower Danube region. The culture occupied
the previous territory of the Gumelni(a culture, part of the
continuum of east Balkan tells that had been occupied since
the early Neolithic. According to the Kurgan theory of IE
origins, the earlier Neolithic culture was destroyed and a
hybrid “kurganized” culture involving local and steppe
elements was created. The latter is seen in the shift from stable
tell settlements to hill-top settlement and defensive archi-
tecture (Cemavoda I was surrounded by three ditches), the
disappearance of painted wares and their replacement by
coarse ware pottery, especially employing shell-temper and/
or decorated with cord impressions (both features of steppe
ceramics), the abandonment of surface buildings for timber
semi-subterranean houses, and the occasional presence of the
horse. In Moldova, the Cemavoda culture is attested by
cemeteries where the deceased were placed in the flexed
position on their left (less frequently right) sides in a pit that
might have been elaborated with a timber or stone structure.
The covering of the deceased and the bottom of the burial
chamber with ocher as well as the tumulus erected over the
grave, sometimes with a stone kerb, are all traits also
encountered among the steppe cultures. According to the
“Kurgan theory”, subsequent steppe migrations pushed the
Cemavoda culture south and west where its western variant
played a part in the formation of a “Balkan-Danubian complex”
— 103 —
CERNAVODA CULTURE
of cultures, among which the Baden culture is quite
prominent. In the eastern part of its distribution in Moldova,
the Cernavoda I culture is one of the components that
underlies the foundation of the Usatovo culture.
Cernavoda II and Cernavoda III refer to later cultures in
the same general vicinity, the first perhaps reflecting an
intrusive steppe culture and the latter a continuation of
Cernavoda I into the early Bronze Age. In the historical period,
the area of the Cernavoda culture was occupied by Dacian-
and Thracian-speaking populations.
See also Baden Culture; Dacian Language; Ezero Culture;
Kurgan Tradition; Thracian Language; Usatovo Culture.
U PM ]
CHAFF
*pelo/eh a - ~ *pelou- ‘chaff’. [7EW 802 ( *pel-)\ cf. Wat 48
(*pe/-)]. Lat palea ‘chaff, Lith pelal ‘chaff’, Latv peli ‘chaff’,
Rus (dial.) pe/a ‘chaff’; OPrus pelwo ‘chaff, Lith pelus ‘chaff,
Latv pelus ~ pel(a)vas ‘chaff’, OCS plevy ‘straw’, Rus (dial.)
polova ‘chaff, OInd (pi.) palavas ‘chaff. In one form or
another, widespread in IE and clearly of PIE date. Related to
words for ‘dust’, e.g., Lat pulvis ‘dust’.
?*k w et- ‘chaff, bran’, [cf. IEW 632 (*kuet-)\. Mir caith (<
*k w dti-) ‘needle, bran’, Grk mrvpov (< *k w e tUro~) ‘bran’,
(Hesychius) nrjxeot ‘bran’. If these words all belong together,
we have evidence for a word of the west and center of the IE
world.
See also Agriculture; Grind; Plants; Thresh; Winnow.
[D.Q.A.j
CHARCOAL
*hx6ngl (~ ?*hx6ng6l) ‘charcoal’. [IEW 779 (*angelo-)}.
Nlr aingeal ‘light, fire’, OPrus anglis ‘charcoal’, Lith anghs
‘charcoal’, Latv uogle ‘charcoal’, OCS pgif charcoal’, Rus ugoli
‘coal’, NPers angist ‘charcoal’, OInd aiigara - ‘charcoal’. The
variation e/ 0/0 of the second syllable and the variation of o-
stem and /-stem suggest that we have new o-stem and /- stem
derivatives of an old root noun in which may itself derive
from *h x pg w nis ‘fire’. Except for the New Irish and a few
others, such as Russian, meaning ‘coal’, all of the other forms
stand for ‘charcoal’, the almost pure carbon derived by burning
wood under controlled conditions, e.g. , by covering it with a
sod. The cognates in five stocks, in any case, virtually
guarantee its PIE status.
*g(e)ulo- ~ *gulom ‘fire, glowing coal’. [IEW 399 (*g(e)u-
lo~)\ Wat 20 ( *g(e)u-lo-)\ BK 299 (*k’al-/*k’dl-)\. OIr gual
(< *ge/oulo-) ‘coal’, ON kol ‘charcoal’, OE col ‘coal’ (> NE
coal), OHG kolo ‘charcoal’ (Gmc < *gulo~), TochB soliye
(< *geuliio- or *geulihien-) ‘hearth’. The meanings of ‘fire,
glowing coal’ and of TochB ‘hearth’, suggest but do not prove
that in some stocks this word may have had a specific recent
meaning crucial in a domestic economy where fire must be
preserved through the night or borrowed from a neighbor.
By one hypothesis, in fact, this second charcoal word was
derived from a verbal root *geu- ‘to glow’, but this is
speculative. One of the birch-bark containers found with Otzi,
the Neolithic Ice-man, held a variety of pieces of charcoal
and leaves that was interpreted as an ember carrier.
Both the charcoal words illustrate isomorphic semantic
shifts: an earlier meaning of charcoal (ON kol , OCS pgli) shifts
to ‘coal’ as part of technological change while the original
meaning is conveyed by a qualified form such as ‘charcoal’ or
‘wood charcoal’, e.g., Rus drevesnyj ugoli.
See also Burn; Fire; Hearth. [PF.l
CHERNOLES CULTURE
Situated in the forest-steppe region between the rivers
Dniester and Dnieper, the Chemoles culture sees the transition
from Bronze to Iron Age (1050-725 BC) northwest of the
Black Sea. The culture derives from the preceding Belogrudov-
ka culture that occupied the territory during the Bronze Age.
Settlements include both open sites and hillforts which might
be surrounded by multiple banks and ditches. Houses were
generally surface dwellings and substantial, on the order of
10 x 6 m in size. Material culture comprised objects of stone
(axes), bronze (axes, weapons, ornaments) and iron (tools).
Distinctive metal horse-bits are known from the culture and
even the ritual interment of the horse. Burials vary and there
is evidence of both inhumation under barrows and cremation
in umfields, especially in the later periods. The later testimony
of Herodotus places the “Scythian Farmers” in the region
earlier occupied by the Chernoles culture and this also
coincides well with the region of earliest Slavic river names.
For this reason, the Chemoles culture is sometimes portrayed
as either a stage in the development of the Slavic languages
or at least some form of late Indo-European ancestral to the
evolution of the Slavic stock. Imports and metallurgical
developments suggest that the Chernoles culture was in
contact with Scythians from whom a series of Iranian
loanwords and river names may have been passed into the
(Proto-)Slavic and further, (Proto-)Baltic languages.
See also Slavic Languages . [j . R M . 1
CHERNYAKOVO CULTURE
The Chemyakovo culture occupied the northwest Black
Sea region (the Ukraine, Moldova, Romania and southern
Poland) from the second to the fifth centuries AD. Its sites
number in the thousands. Settlements vary considerably in
size, the most thoroughly excavated ranging from about
twenty-five to forty-five habitations. Houses comprised at least
three different types: semi-subterranean structures, surface
dwellings constructed of wattle and daub, and stone-built
structures. In the later period in the forest region there are
post-built walls that foreshadow the typical “Slavic” dwellings
of later cultures. Another frequent feature on the settlements
were storage pits in which there were found remains of various
wheats ( Triticum monoccocum , T. diccocum, spelt) and
barley. Clay ovens were also regularly found in the houses.
Only a few sites show evidence of defence, such as earthen
walls with timber palisades or stone-built walls. Cattle was
— 104
= h N> '- *'»?■
Chemoles b. Hillfort at Chemoles (up to 1.5 km across).
Chenryakovo a. Distribution of the Chemyakovo culture.
Chemoles a. Distribution of the Chemoles culture
CHERNYAKOVO CULTURE
CHERNYAKOVO CULTURE
the primary livestock, followed by sheep, pig and horse;
remains of the donkey are also known. The economy was
further enhanced by trade with the classical world, and Roman
material such as coins, pottery, amber, alabaster, and glass
beads, have been encountered on Chernyakovo sites.
Cemeteries of the Chernyakovo culture are well known
and many have been excavated. They reveal both inhumations
(extended with head to north or west) and cremations in an
urn or small pit. Grave-goods were frequent and included
pottery, tools, weapons, ornaments and what have been
interpreted as food offerings for the dead.
The Chernyakovo culture embraced a territory which was
settled by a variety of ethno-linguistic groups. A primary
element were the highly mobile Sarmatians who spoke an
Iranian language. They are particularly evident in the
inhumation burials throughout the region and they occupied
not only the steppe but also the forest-steppe, and they
replaced or assimilated earlier Iranian speaking Scythian
tribes. A second major component is seen to derive from the
north, where elements of the Przeworsk and Zarubintsy
cultures are particularly marked in cremation rituals. These
two cultures are often assigned to the early Slavs. To the west
there were also local groups of Dacians and Getae and the
area was also penetrated by Germanic tribes. The culture has
been presented as a convenient contact zone to explain lexical
borrowings between Germans and Slavs, and Iranians and
Slavs. The culture was brought to an end in the fourth and
fifth centuries AD by the Hunnic migrations.
See also Przeworsk Culture; Slavic Languages;
Zarubintsy Culture. Q.PM.]
CHERRY
*lqnom ~ *kpies- ‘cherry ( Comus mas , Prunus padus)\
[IEW 572-573 (*/cer-); Wat 30 (*ker-)\ GI 554-555
( *k h fno-)\ Fried 115-121], Lat comus ‘cherry’, Lith Kimis
‘divine protector of cherry’, Grk Kpavoq ‘cherry’.
The hard core of the evidence for the cherry are Latin
comus and Greek Kpavoq (cf. also Homeric Kpdveia , on
which Circe fed the ‘wallowing swine’ into which Odysseus’
men had been transformed). These are strongly supported
by the name for the Baltic, that is, Lithuanian ‘patron of
cherries’, Kimis (where Grk ap, Lat or, and Lith ir are the
regular reflexes of PIE syllabic *f). This PIE *kpn- may
conceivably be supported by the Slavic form for the red or
black cherry such as Rus Ceremukha (< *cherem- < Common
Slavic *cherm- < late PIE *kerm-) although it should be
emphasized that the generally Slavic root for ‘black’ (e.g., Rus
cernyj) is a much likelier source. A Thracian or Phrygian
cognate might be the source for the Grk Kepacoq ‘cherry’;
Alb thane ‘cornel cherry’, whatever its precise origin, cannot
be placed here as an inherited cognate.
The problematical ‘cherry’ term could refer to the members
of two distinct genera. First, the cornel cherry (Comus mas)
was found from central and southern Europe across the Black
Sea region to the Caucasus while several species of the cherry
(Prunus sp.) — bird, sour, mahaleb, and the cherry proper —
were found widely over temperate Europe and Anatolia. There
is abundant evidence for the consumption of wild cherries in
the Neolithic and Bronze Age but the earliest evidence for the
domestic cherry does not appear until the classical period.
Other than its fruit (which served both humans and as fodder
for livestock), the cornel tree along with the shoots of the
wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana) were favored for the pro-
duction of arrow shafts in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. As
in some modern languages, the same term (here *k(e)m-)
may have comprised both genera on the basis of shared
properties, notably the succulent, edible and often red or black
berries. While the grammatical gender cannot be established,
there are lexical and cultural grounds for thinking that the
cherry had feminine connotations.
See also Trees [PE]
CHICK-PEA
*/a/cer- ‘chick-pea ~ garbanzo (Cicer arietinum)' . [IEW 598
( *kiker-)\ Buck 5.67]. Lat cicer ‘chick-pea’. Maced (Hesychius)
KiKEppoi ‘birds’ pease (Lathyrus ochrus)' , Arm sisern
(< *keiker-) ‘chick-pea’. Grk KpToq(i[ < *kikrios ) ‘chick-pea’
is sometimes placed here but is more often rejected as cognate
in most etymological dictionaries.
The geographical distribution suggests that this word may
be a borrowing from some Near Eastern or Mediterranean
source but there is nothing in the shape of the word that
demands that it be a loanword. The chick-pea (Cicer arieti-
num) along with the pea (Pisum sativum) was part of the
early Neolithic wheat-barley agricultural complex although
it differs from the latter by being a primarily warm climate
plant. The distribution of the wild chick-pea (Cicer arietinum
subsp. reticulatum) is confined to southeastern Turkey and it
is from here that the spread of the domestic chick-pea is
derived. It appears in archaeological contexts by the eighth
millennium BC in sites in Anatolia and Syria in quantities
markedly less than Pisum. Its earliest appearance in Greece
derives from the early Neolithic and it is presumed to have
been part of the initial Neolithic suite of domesticates intro-
duced from the Near East. However, unlike the pea, it is not
found further to the north and is so far absent from the
botanical remains recovered from sites in the north Balkans,
Moldova, the Ukraine and the Swiss lakeside sites. It is known,
however, in southern France during the Neolithic. Although
popular in Italy, its archaeological attestation is very meager
before the classical period. Its earliest appearance in Afghan-
istan and India dates to about the third millennium BC and
today India produces 80% of the world’s chick-pea crop.
See also Agriculture; Food; Pea; Plants; Vegetables.
[D.Q.A.J.PM]
CHILD
*tekndm ‘child, offspring’. [IEW 1057 ( *tek-no-)\ Wat 69
(*tek-)\ Buck 2. 43 cf also 2.271. ON pegn‘ man, free servant’,
OE pegn ‘servant, follower’ (> NE thane), OHG degan ‘servant,
— 106 —
CHUST CULTURE
follower’, Grk tekvov ‘child’. Cf. Av taxma- ‘seed, offspring’,
OInd takman - ‘child’. Distribution suggests PIE status.
Terms for ‘child’ often overlap specific kinship labels such
as ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ or terms for servant. It is doubtful that
PIE made extensive use of any gender-neutral term; usually
gender specific terms such as ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ were employed.
One originally neuter term, derived from the root *tek- ‘beget’
(Grk xiktco < *ti-tk-(o), is preserved as ‘child’ in Greek and
matches Germanic terms for ‘servant’ which is semantically
upgraded in many areas to mean ‘servant of the king’ >
‘nobleman’ (cf. thane in Macbeth'). Indo-Iranian cognates
suggest an original meaning ‘seed, sprout’, a meaning also
recorded in Greek. Geographically more restricted but
showing a similar range of meanings is ON bam ‘child’, OE
beam ‘child’ (> NE bairn [preserved in Scotland]), OHG bam
‘child’, Goth bam ‘child’ (< Proto-Gmc *bama-), Lith bemas
‘servant’, Latv bgms ‘child’, all from *bher- ‘bear (a child)’.
Other roots associated with begetting a child were employed,
e.g., *genhj- ‘give birth’ which underlies OHG kind ‘child’.
Elsewhere, a variety of terms signifying a ‘young animal’ are
specialized as human terms, e.g., Lat puer ‘boy’ akin to pullus
‘colt, chick’. Also, terms for ‘free’ or ‘noble’ are applied to
children as in Lat liber suggesting a concept of legitimacy.
These latter seem to be individual developments in the various
stocks.
See also Bear 2 ; Daughter; Kinship; Son. [M.E.H.]
CHIN
*smek- ‘chin, jaw’. [ 1EW 968 ( *smek-) ; GI 96-97 ( *smek* 1 -
r-); Buck 4.142]. OIr smech (< *smekeh a ) chin’, Lat mala (<
*(s)m e ksla-) ‘cheek, jaw’, maxilla (< *(s)m e kslola-) ‘jaw(bone),
lower part of face’, cf. also *sm6kuf l c hin, beard’: OE sm£ras
(pi.) (< *smahria~) ‘lips’, Lith smakras ~ smakra ‘chin’, Latv
smakrs ‘chin’, Alb mye/cer'chin, beard’, Arm mawru/c“beard’,
Hit z(a)mankur ‘beard’, OInd smasm- (< *sma$m-) ‘beard,
(especially) moustache’. Clearly PIE in distribution and status.
?*men- ‘chin’. [IEW 726]. MWels mant ‘mouth, jaw’, Lat
mentum ‘chin’ (Italo-Celtic < *m#-fo-), Hit meni- ‘chin’. The
Italo-Celtic on the one hand and the Hittite on the other may
well be independent creations from *men - ‘project’.
Alternatively, we may have evidence of a root-noun *men-
‘chin’ (again derived from *men- ‘project’) with different
morphological renewals in Italo-Celtic on the one hand and
Hittite on the other.
See also Anatomy; Hair; Jaw. [D.Q.A.]
CHUST CULTURE
The Fergana Valley of eastern Uzbekistan was occupied at
the end of the Bronze Age or early Iron Age (c 1500-900 BC)
by the Chust culture. Settlements varied in size from small
single dwelling sites to larger settlements over 10 ha in size,
Some sites indicate defensive architecture and others occupy
hilltop locations. The actual domestic structures are not well
known but were sometimes built of mud-brick. Frequent in
settlements are large pits that are believed to have served for
the storage of grain. Wheat, barley and especially millet have
been recovered along with agricultural tools (sickles and hoes).
Stone sickles and stone knives as well as painted pottery of
the Chust culture have been related to developments further
east in Xinjiang. Domestic animals included cattle, sheep/goat,
horse, asses, camel and possibly pig. Wild animals included
gazelle, onager and saiga antelope. Pottery was hand-made;
both bronze (spearheads, knives) and some iron objects are
attested. Burials are variable with interment on the edge of
settlements in pits; hoards of skulls are known as well as
human remains mixed with those of animals. The physical
type has been identified as Europoid and has been variously
interpreted as the remains of Iranian peoples moving towards
the east or Iranian-speaking people retreating from the eastern
steppe or Xinjiang who had been forced west. Either way, the
presumption is that the Chust culture reflects the increasing
sedentization of earlier mobile (?Iranian) pastoralists.
See also Bishkent Culture; Indo-Iranian Languages;
Vakhsh Culture. [J.P.M.]
— 107 —
CIRCLE
CIRCLE
*seric- ‘make a circle, complete; make restitution’. [IEW
912 (*serk-); Wat 58 ( *serk-)\ G1 707-708 (*serk h -)}. Lat
sarcid ‘make restitution; make whole (i.e., repair, mend)’,
sarcina ‘bundle’. Alb gjarkez ‘peritoneum’ (< *‘that which
surrounds’), Grk epxoq ‘enclosure, hedge, (courtyard) wall;
net; snare’ (epKoq odovtwv ‘set of teeth’), opKccv rj ~ epKccvr}
‘enclosure, fence; trap, pitfall’. Hit samikzi ‘makes restitution’,
TochA sark ‘circle, cycle’, TochB serke ‘circle, cycle; complete
set’ (kemesse serke ‘set of teeth’). Though the underlying verb
survives only in Latin and Hittite, and then in what was an
originally metaphorical meaning, the distribution of
derivatives assures its PIE antiquity.
*h 3 irbhis ‘circle, orb’. [VW 597]. Lat orbis ‘ring, circle,
cycle; round surface, disk; world, earth, orb’, TochAB yerpe
‘disc, orb’ (with Tocharian A borrowed from Tocharian B;
TochB < lengthened grade *h 3 erbhos). The pattern of
distribution suggests at least late PIE date.
See also Fence; Wall; Wheel. [D.Q.A.]
CLADISTICS see SUBGROUPING
CLAN see FAMILY
CLAY
*mldho/eh a ‘clay’. [ IEW 719 ( *mel-dh-)\ cf. Wat 40
( *mel -)]. OE molde ‘sand, dust, soil; land, country’ (> NE
mould), Goth mulda ‘earth, clay’, Grk paX&ri ‘modelling
mixture of wax and pitch’, OInd mpt- ~ myd- ‘clay, loam’. The
deaspiration in Old Indie is probably due to influences from
the adjective mfdu- ‘soft’; the verb mardh- ‘be moist, sticky’
preserves the expected aspiration. From *meldh- ‘soft, weak,
flexible’. The agreement of Germanic and Indie would seem
to assure PIE status for this word.
*gloiyios ‘clay’. [ 7EW 3 62-364 ( *gloi-uo-) ] . OE dsg ‘clay’
(> NE clay), Fris klay'c lay’ (< Proto-Gmc *klaijaz), Lith (pi.)
gleives ‘slime’. La tv glievs ‘?clay\ Grk yXoioq ‘clay’. Cf. also
Lat gluten - (< *gloi-ten~) ‘glue’. At least a word of the west
and center of the IE world.
?*isti- ‘clay’. [VW 184-185]. Av istyam ‘brick’, zamdistva-
‘clay-tile’, Olnd istaka ‘brick’, Khowar ustu ‘sun-dried brick,
large clod of earth’, TochB iscem (< *istio-m- ?) ‘clay’. It is
possible that the Tocharian word was borrowed from Iranian
but, if so, the borrowing was very early. If the Tocharian is an
independent inheritance, then we have evidence here for a
word of the IE east.
Ceramic technology exploits naturally occurring clays
which need not vary greatly from other soils; thus, our inability
to recover a marked distinction between ‘(potter’s) clay’ and
other types of ‘earth’ occasions little surprise. The term
suggesting the greatest precision is *mldho-. Although the
gloss at times is merely a generic ‘earth, soil’, the root
connection is ‘be weak, flexible’ which possesses the inherent
notion of modelling and thus suggests that ‘clay’ was indeed
part of the original semantics. The term *gloiuo~, which is
geographically more confined, emphasizes gluey or slimy
aspects of the substance which seems further removed from
the concept of modelling clay. The Grk KEpapoq ‘potter’s clay,
pottery’ is a local innovation, perhaps derived from the verb
KEpavvvpi ‘mix’. In the preparation of ceramics, the clay is
frequently mixed with another substance, e.g., grit, crushed
shell, vegetable matter, crushed sherds, in order to avoid
shrinkage and consequent breakage during firing. The other
primary use of clay would have been in the production of
daub as an insulation for wattle and daub houses.
See also Pot. [M.E.H., D.Q.A.]
CLEAN
*hierhx- ‘wash’. [Puhvel 1:116]. Hit arr(a)- ~ arriya- ‘wash’,
TochA yar- ‘wash’. The agreement of Anatolian and Tocharian
would seem good evidence for PIE status for this word.
*kleu- ‘clean’. [IEW607 (*kleu-)\ Wat 31 (*kleu-)\. OLat
cloaca ‘gutter, sewer’ (although the Latin grammarians cited
a verbal form duo ‘clean’ as the basis of this form, the verbal
form is not elsewhere attested), OE hlut(t)or ‘pure’, OHG
hlut(t)ar ‘pure’, Goth (acc. pi.) hlutrans ‘pure, clean’, Lith
sluoju ‘sweep’, Grk xAuffiCwash’. Although sometimes cited
here, Weis clir ‘clean, bright’ is almost certainly an English
loan. The distribution of cognates suggests that this word was
at least known in the west and center of the IE world.
*leuh 3 ~ ‘wash, bathe’. [IEW 692 ( *lou- ); Wat 37
(*leu(9)-)- GI 147 {*loH°-), Buck 9.36; BK 581 ( *law-ah -/
*hw-ah-)]. Lat lavo ‘wash, bathe’, Myc re-wo-te-re-jo ‘for
bathing’, Grk Aobft) ‘wash’. Arm loganam ‘bathe, wash myself.
Although these forms correspond semantically, there are some
phonological problems. Both the Mycenaean and Armenian
forms point to hy the nasal present exhibited in the Armenian
word is purely an Armenian development.
*m(e)uhx~ ‘wash (in urine?)’. [7EW741 ( *meu -)]. Mhmun
‘urine’, OPrus aumusnan ‘wash’, Lith maudyti ‘bathe’, Latv
maudat ‘bathe’, maut ‘submerge’, OCS myjp ‘wash’, Rus mytl
‘wash’, Grk (Cypriot) pvhaoaoQai ‘wash oneself, Av mu&ra-
‘dirt’, OInd mutra- ‘urine’. Old Indie, Baltic and Slavic all
point to *muhx~. The Greek form is rather unclear (u/u?; A
for <5, not < SX7). The semantics is also difficult and may
suggest an underlying meaning ‘wash’ developing into some
stocks as ‘dirt’ rather than ‘wet’. Alternatively, the semantic
development may possibly be related to the ritual practice of
washing in cow’s urine which is attested in India. It might be
noted that human urine was also employed by the Romans
as a mouthwash (the ammonia brightened teeth) and urine
was a regular component of mouthwashes and toothpastes
up to the eighteenth century.
*neig w - ‘wash’. [7EVV76 1 ( *neig?-)\ Wat 44 ( *neig w -)\ Buck
9.36], OIr nigid ‘washes’, ON nykr ‘water spirit’, OE nicor
‘water spirit’, NE nix ~ nixie ‘water sprite’, OHG nihhus ‘water
spirit’, Grk v7f<y ‘wash’, Av naenizaiti ‘washes’, OInd nenekli
‘washes’. Cf. also the derivative *nig w tos ‘washed, clean’: Olr
necht ‘clean, pure’, Grk dvinxoq ‘un-washed’, OInd mkta-
‘washed’. The Old Irish form points to a root in the shape
108 —
CLOTHING
*neig- rather than *neig w -, and thus may not belong with
this cognate set. Aside from this uncertainty, the root is
reasonably well attested for PIE.
*peuhx~ ‘clean (by straining or sieving)’. \IEW 827
( *peu-)\ Wat 51 (*peud-)\. OHG fowen ‘sieve, clean grain’,
Olnd pa vayati ‘cleanses, purifies’. Cf. also the various deriva-
tives *puhx-to-s ‘cleaned’: Lat putus (with short -u- perhaps
influenced by putare ‘to prune, clean’) ‘clean’, Av putika-
‘serving as purification’, Olnd puta- ‘clean’; *puh x -ro-s ‘clean’:
Mir ur ‘new, fresh’, Weis ir~ iraidd ‘fresh, green’, Lat purus
‘pure, spotless’. The distribution of the root *peuh x - and its
derivatives suggests solid reconstruction to PIE. Attempts to
connect this root with *puh x r- ‘fire’ (± ‘the purifier’) are highly
speculative.
See also Pure. [M.N.; R.S.P.B.; D.Q.A.]
CLOSE (THE EYES)
*meigh- ~ *meik- ‘close the eyes’. [IEW 712-713
( *meigh -)]. From *meigh-\ Lith (uz-)migti ‘fall asleep’, Latv
(zaiz-)migt ‘fall asleep’, miegt ‘close the eyes’, ORus megnuti
‘blink’, Rus mzatl ~ mzitl ‘blink, close the eyes’; from
*meik-\ Lat micare ‘move quickly, flash’, OSorb mikac ‘blink’;
Toch B mik- ‘close the eyes’ is ambiguous as to *-k- or
*-gh~. In one form or another widespread in IE.
See also Eye; Sleep. [D.Q.A.l
CLOTH see TEXTILE
CLOTHE (ONESELF)
*h\eu- ‘put on clothes’. [IEW 346 (*eu-); Wat 1 7—18
(eu-); Gl 610 (*eu-); Buck 6.11; BK 394 {*haw-/*hdw-)\. Lat
induo ‘put on, get dressed in’, exud ‘divest oneself (of)’, Lith
auti ‘put on shoes’, aveti ‘wear shoes, boots, stockings’, Latv
aut ‘put on shoes, stockings’, OCS ob-ujp ‘put on shoes’, iz-
uti ‘take off shoes’, Arm aganim ‘dress’. Cf. also OIr fuan
(< *upo-ou-no- ) ‘outer garment, tunic’, TochB ewe ‘inner skin’.
The geographical distribution of this lexeme suggests
considerable antiquity in IE . A widespread nominal derivative
is *hioutleh a - in Lat sub-ucula ‘under tunic’, Lith aukle
‘shoelace’, Latv aukla ‘cord’, Av aodra- ‘footwear’, though the
wide variation in meaning suggests independent creations
rather than a word of PIE date.
*y es- ‘be dressed; dress’ (3rd sg. present [1] *y 6 s(t)o ‘is
dressed, wears’, [2] *yos#e£z 'dresses, clothes’). [7EW1172-
1173 (*ues-); Wat 78 ( *wes-)\ GI 610 (*wes-); Buck 6.11;
BK 460 ( *haw-/*how-)\ . [1] Grk evvv/ii ‘get dressed’. Arm z-
genum ‘get dressed’ (Greek and Armenian < %es-n(e)u -),
Hit wess- ‘be dressed’, Luv wass(a)- ‘be dressed’, Av vaste
‘wear’, Olnd vaste ‘wear’, TochAB was- ‘be dressed’ (cf. TochB
infinitive wastsi ‘clothes’); [2] ON verja ‘dress’, OE werian
‘dress’ (> NE wear), OHG werian ‘dress’, Goth wasjan ‘dress’,
Alb vesh ‘dress’, Hit wassezzi ‘dresses’. Cf. the denominative
Lat vestid ‘dress’. There are a number of nominal derivatives
meaning ‘clothes’: *yesmn- in Grk (Lesbian) (f)eppa ‘clothes’,
Av vanhansm ‘clothes’, Olnd vasman- ‘covering’; *uestis in
Lat vestis ‘clothes’, Goth wasti ‘garment, dress’, Grk
(Hesychius) (f)eGTia ‘clothing’, Arm z-gest ‘garment,
clothing’; or *uestr- in MHG wester ‘baptismal gown’, Grk
(f)eoTpG ‘clothes’, Hit westra ‘clothes’, Av vastra- ‘clothes’.
Cf. alsoMyc we-a2~no(= wehanos ) ‘kilt’. If *hieu- was actually
vowel-initial, i.e., *eu~, then *ues- may be an old extension
of it, i.e. , *u-es~. In any case *yes- is the most basic and general
clothing word reconstructible for PIE, being attested in almost
every stock and geographical area, including Anatolian and
Tocharian. It is noteworthy that in Mycenaean Greek the
derivative wehanos, literally ‘[that] which is worn’, is the word
for ‘kilt’, the clothing par excellence, at least for men, which
was worn in Greece and Anatolia although it would be too
much to project it back into greater antiquity for all the IE
peoples given the wide variety of clothes that we encounter
when we first recover their apparel, e g., trousers among the
steppe populations, long tunics in the Bronze Age of the
Germanic world. It may be possible that *ues- is further related
to Greek ecriG ‘hearth’ (cf. Hestia, the goddess of hearth and
home). If so, it may be that its still earlier meaning was ‘that
which warms/protects’.
See also Clothing; Cover; Textile; Textile Preparation.
[D.Q.A., E.J.WB ]
CLOTHING
*jjospo/eh a - ‘garment’. [IEW 1172 (*yes-)]. Lat vespa ~
vespula ~ vespillo ‘undertaker; one who steals clothes from
the dead’, Hit was(sa)pa- ‘garment, shroud’, Luv waspant-
(< *uospo- ) ‘wearing funeral shrouds’. From *yes- ‘be dressed;
dress’. The derivative formant *-po- is productive in neither
Italic nor Anatolian, so it is very likely that *ijospo- is of PIE
age.
*bhjv- (bolt of) cloth’. [IEW 137-138 ( *bhpj-)\ BK 7
(*bar-/*bdr-)\ . Lith burva ‘piece of cloth’, Latv burves ‘small
sail’, Myc pa-we-a2 (pi ) (= parweha ) ‘pieces of cloth’, Grk
(papog ‘(bolt of) cloth’ (i.e., the cloth directly as it comes from
the loom, usable as is as a cloak, blanket, or woman’s peplos).
Cf. also Lith bure ‘sail’, Grk (Hesychius) qxxpai ‘to weave, to
plait’, (poppog ‘mat; seaman’s cloak of coarse plaited fabric’.
Though attested in only two traditions, the exact semantic
match is a strong argument that we have reflexes of a (late)
word in the center of the IE world. Only in Grk (papal is the
underlying verb attested (PIE *bher- ‘weave, twine’).
*drap- ~ *drop- ‘± clothes, cloak’. [7EW2 1 1 ( *drep-)\ Buck
6.12]. Gallo-Roman drappus ‘clothes’, ON trpf ( pi.) ‘fringe’,
Lith drapanos (pi.) ‘clothes’, Latv drana (< drapna) ‘clothes’,
Olnd drapl- ‘cloak’. Perhaps from *drep- ‘split (off)’. Perhaps
also here Av drafsa - ‘flag’, Olnd drapsa- ‘banner’ but as likely
is a connection with *dreb- ‘tremble’. This is one of the very
few words for clothing that has an eastern IE cognate. Despite
the uncertainty of the phonological shape of this word
(perhaps to be accounted for by some post-PlE borrowing
back and forth from one branch of IE to another), this looks
to be a likely candidate for (late) PIE status.
*bait 6 h 2 - ‘cloak’. [IEW 92-93 ( *baita ~ *paita), GI 53],
109 —
CLOTHING
OE pad ‘coat’, OHG pfeit ‘garment’, Goth paida ‘tunic, shirt’,
Grkpcrivri ‘shepherd’s or peasant’s coat of skins; tent of skins’.
Alb petk ‘clothes, garment’ may belong here as well but, with
its initial p-, it is probably ultimately a borrowing from some
Germanic (Gothic?) source. This word is usually taken to be
a borrowing by both Germanic and Greek from some non-IE
source. It certainly may be, but there seems to be no reason it
has to be, save that *b was of very rare occurrence in PIE.
Certainly a cloak of wool or animal skin must have been part
of the Proto-Indo-Europeans’ store of clothing.
*kintr/n~ ‘± patch, patched garment’. [IEW 567
( *kenth(o)-)\ Wat 29 ( *kentho -)]. Lat cento ‘patchwork
clothes’, OHG hadara (< *kotreh a - ) ‘patches’, Grk i <evTpcov
‘patched clothes’. Arm k'ot'anak ‘clothes’. Cf. also OInd kantha
‘rag, patched garment’. All but the Indie words would appear
to be reflexes of a widespread and ancient r/n- stem. The lack
of an -n- in the first syllable of the Germanic and Armenian
words is plausibly explained by the dissimilatory loss in forms
like *kentn~. The Old Indie word would be an independent
derivative of *kent-. It is perhaps worthy of note that Otzi,
the ‘Iceman of Tyrol’ (of c 3300 BC), had as his principal
garment a cloak neatly composed of deer, ibex, and chamois
skins patched together. Perhaps related to Grk kevtecq ‘prick’
(in the meaning * ‘stitch’?), though the latter would appear to
have been descended from a PIE *kent- (cf. Latv sits ‘hunting
spear’).
*ldp- ‘± strip of cloth, bast or hide used for clothing’. [ IEW
678 ( */ep-); Wat 36 ( *lep-)\ . OE lof ‘headband’, Lith lopas
‘patch’, lopyti ‘mend, repair’, Latv laps ‘patch’, lapit ‘mend,
repair’ (the Baltic words appear to reflect an earlier *lap- rather
than *lop-), Rus lapotl ‘bast-shoe’, lapitl ‘mend, repair’,
lapotdk ‘rags’, Grk X&nog ~ Xcotvt) ‘clothes made from skins’,
(Hesychius) A (by/ ‘short cloak (worn by horsemen)’. From
*lep- ‘strip (off)’. At least a word of the west and center of the
IE world.
*ruk-l ‘over-garment’. [IEW 874 ( *ruk(k)-)\ Wat 55
( *ruk-)\ . OIr rucht (< *ruktu -) ‘tunic’, MWels ruch(en)
(< *roukka ) ‘cloak’, OE rocc ‘over-garment, rochet’, OHG
rocko ‘distaff’, Goth *rukka (borrowed into Italian rocca
‘distaff’) (< Gmc *rukkdn). An isogloss of the western
periphery of the IE world.
See also Cover; Headband; Shoe; Textile;
Textile Preparation. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1969) A Latin-Hittite etymology. Language 45, 235-
242.
CLOUD
*n6bhes- ~ *nebh-el- ‘mist, cloud; sky. [IEW 315
( *nebhos-)\ Wat 44 ( *nebh-)\ GI 575-576 (*neb^-); Buck
1.73]. OIr nem (s-stem) ‘heaven’, Weis nef (Celtic with
problematic -m-) ‘heaven’, Lat nebula ‘mist, fog’, ON niflheimr
‘darkness’, njol ‘mist, night’, OE nifoV dark’, OHG nebuV mist’,
Lith debesis (with secondary d) ‘cloud’, Latv debess ‘sky,
cloud’, OCS nebo ~ nebes- ‘sky’, Rus nebo ‘sky’ (borrowed
from OCS), nebo ‘roof of mouth’, Grk vetpog, vecpeXrj ‘cloud’,
Hit nepis ‘sky’, Av nabah- ‘sky’, OInd nabhas- ‘mist, cloud;
sky; air, space’. The PIE word for ‘mist’ or ‘cloud’ with
secondary development of ‘heaven’ in a number of stocks.
*sneudh-~ *snoudh- ‘mist, cloud’. [IEW 978 (*sneudh-)\
Wat 62 ( *sneudh~) ] . Weis nudd ‘mist’, Lat nubes ‘cloud, mist’,
Av snaoda- ‘cloud’, Baluchi nod ‘cloud’. All forms may have
either -eu- or -ou-. Lat nubes is also explained differently.
Thinly but widely attested enough to insure PIE status.
*h 3 meigh- ~ *h 3 mighleh a - drizzle, mist’. [IEW 712
( *meigh-)\ Wat 40 ( *meigh-)\ Buck 1.74], OIr nel (if from
*migIo- with n- from *nebhos ) ‘cloud’, ON mistr(< *mixstaz)
‘dark weather’, OE mist ‘mist’ (> NE mist), NDutch mist ‘mist’,
miggelen ‘drizzle’, Lith migla ‘mist’, Latv migla ‘mist’, OCS
migla ‘mist’, Rus mgla ‘mist, darkness’, mzitl ‘drizzle’, Grk
opix^rj ‘cloud’, Av maeya- ‘cloud’, OInd megha- ‘cloud’, mih -
‘mist’. Arm meg ‘mist’ is an Iranian loan. It is doubtful whether
this root derives from *meigh- ‘flicker’ while *h3meigh- ‘to
urinate’ is semantically very close to ‘drizzle’ and as both had
*h 3 - (cf. Grk opeixco ‘urinate’ and ogt^Arj ‘cloud’), the roots
will be the same except for the palatalized velar. Distribution
indicates PIE status.
The fact that *nebhos filled out the semantic fields of both
‘cloud’ and ‘sky’ led to an inconsequential attempt by both F
Specht and W. Brandenstein to reconstruct the weather
conditions of the IE homeland. It was believed that the earliest
Indo-Europeans had uniformly designated the heavens with
*dieus ‘bright sky’ which suggested fair weather conditions
in the homeland. The movement into the cloudy regions of
the Balts and Slavs, for example, had prompted them to
abandon their etymologically transparent word for ‘sky’ and
expand the meaning ‘cloud’ to include ‘the heavens, the sky’
as a more appropriate term for their cloudy new homes. Specht
incongruously argued for a homeland in northern Europe
while Brandenstein proposed that the clear sky of the
Eurasiatic steppe was the original referent. He also observed
that the entire argument was likely to be specious since the
secondary meaning ‘heaven’ for *nebhos was by no means
confined to Baltic and Slavic. More recently, Gamkrelidze and
Ivanov have suggested that the association of ‘cloud’ and ‘sky’
indicates that the Proto-Indo-Europeans lived in a
mountainous environment where the ‘sky’ might well lie in
the clouds. Such a hypothesis is obviously no more creditable
than the others.
See also God; Rain. [R.S.PB.j
Further Readings
Brandenstein, W (1952) Bemerkungen zum Sinnbezirk des Klimas.
Studien zur indo-germanischen Grundsprache , 23-25.
Specht, F (1948) Der indoge rmanische Himmelsgott im Baltisch-
Slavischen. KZ 69, 115-123
CLUB
*bak- ‘club’. [7EW93 ( *bak-)\ Wat 4 (*bak-)}. OIr bacc
‘staff (if not from Latin)’, Weis bach ‘corner’, Lat baculum
— 110 —
CLUB
CLUB
‘staff’, MDutch pegge ‘pin, peg’ (borrowed > NE peg), Grk
fidicipov ‘staff’. By its phonology (possessing both *b and
*a) probably a popular word of the west and center of the IE
world.
?*Vedhego/eh a - ‘club’. [1EW 1115 ( *uedh-)\ cf. Wat 73
( *wedh-)-, BK 478 (*wad-/*wdd-)]. OPrus wedigo ‘ax’, Lith
vedega ‘ax’, Latv vpdga ‘ice-pick’, Av va Sayan- (name of a
demon, the ‘striker’?). From *uedh- ‘push, strike’. Only if the
Avestan word is related is there any evidence that this is a PIE
word rather than a specifically Baltic one. Since the original
meaning of the Avestan word is only an etymological guess,
the PIE status is dubious. Certainly this verbal root shows a
good many other derivatives with precisely the meaning ‘club’:
OIr fodb ‘ax’, Av vadar- ‘weapon’, Olnd vadha- ‘weapon’,
TochB yatwe ‘whip’, but they are all independent formations.
?*y£Jros ‘cudgel’, [cf. IEW 1 1 17-1 118]. Grk MeXeaypoq
‘Meleager’ (< *mele-wagros ‘caring for cudgel’), Av vazra-
‘mace, cudgel’ (whence Finnish vasara ‘hammer’), Olnd vajra -
‘thunderbolt; cudgel’ (whence TochAB wasir ‘thunderbolt’).
A word of the southeast of the IE world. If the Germanic
name Odoacer(< Gothic), OE Eadwacer(< Proto-Gmc *Auda-
wakraz) meant ‘± rich in weapons’, then we would have
evidence for an originally wider IE distribution. From *uag-
‘split, strike, bite’.
?*lorgeh a - club’. [IEW 69 1-692 (*lorga-~ *Iorgi-)]. Olr
lorg ‘club, pestle’, MWels Uory ‘club’, ON lurkr ‘cudgel, club’.
Possibly a word of the far west of the IE world. The possibility
of borrowing between Celtic and Old Norse cannot be
excluded.
In the mythologies of the IE peoples, the god of war or a
similar deity charged with aggressive behavior, e.g., storm
god, wields a club, mace, ax or hammer. In Old Indie tradition
the weapon is the vajra- which is primarily employed by Indra.
In Vedic contexts this vajra- is wielded either by throwing or
striking and a part of it, at least, is made of copper as the
instrument is described as ‘red-brown’, the color designation
for copper. The texts also reveal that the vajra- is likened to
an arrow in that it possesses a point with four to eight edges,
barbs and a shaft. The shaft or handle was thinner than the
head. According to Wilhelm Rau, the instrument as described
in Old Indie literature finds by far its best parallel in the
“harpoons” of the Copper Hoard culture. On the other hand,
Harry Falk has more recently suggested that only the so-called
“bar celts” from the same culture provide a solid candidate
for the vajra-.
Clubs existed probably long before the emergence of
anatomically modem humans in Eurasia between 100,000
and 40,000 years ago. There is evidence for stone clubs in
the Mesolithic over broad areas of Europe where their purpose
has been variously described as serving for bludgeoning large
fish, seals, or pounding in stakes for fish weirs. In the Neolithic
and early Bronze Age one encounters more frequently some
evidence for a macehead, either attached by a perforation or
simply shaped and lashed to a wooden handle. These are
found from the Atlantic to the Urals and are generally
interpreted as symbols of power and authority ; they are found
generally in mortuary contexts with presumably important
individuals. From the early Bronze Age Poltavka culture in
the Volga region comes a burial accompanied uniquely by a
large copper club. It seems likely that some form of club or
mace-head would have been known to the earliest IE speakers.
See also Ayr, Copper Hoard Culture; Tool. (D.Q.A., J.PM ]
Further Readings
Falk, H. (1994) Copper Hoard weapons and the Vedic vajra, in South
Asian Archaeology I, eds. A. Parpola and P Koskikallio, Helsinki,
Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 193-206.
Rau, W. (1973) Metalle und Metallgerate lm vedischen Indien.
Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz,
1973,8.
COAL see CHARCOAL
COCK
There are no cognate sets between the various stocks for
the rooster, and the individual terms tend to be ultimately
onomatopoeic, stemming from roots with meanings such as
‘call’, ‘sing’, or, in the case of Greek, ‘ward off’. Thus we have
OIr cailech and Weis ceiliog [< *kel- ‘call’; IEW 548-550
(*kel-)} ‘cock’, Lat gallus (< *gal- ‘call’) ‘cock’, Goth hana (<
*kan- ‘sing’) ‘rooster’ (but ON hoena ‘hen’, OE henn ‘hen’ [>
NE hen], OHG huon ‘chicken’), OPers kahrkatat (< *ker-
‘call of bird’) ‘cock’, and the obviously onomatopoeic Olnd
kukkutd- (< *ko ko) ‘cock’. Grk aXeKtpvcov ‘cock’ derives
from *h a elek- ‘ward off’, cf. the Avesta where the crowing of
the cock drives away demons. The Lith gaidys ‘cock’ and OCS
kuru ‘cock’ are without etymology.
See also Birds; Hen. [J.A.C.G.]
Further Reading
Schlerath, B. (1953) Ueber den Hahn. KZ 71, 28-32.
COLD
*Kelto- ‘cold’. [IEW 551 {*kel-)\ Wat 28 (*keb-)]. Weis
clyd ‘sheltered, warm, dry, snug’, Lat calidus' warm, hot’, Lith
saltas ‘ cold’ , Latv sa/ts‘cold, naked’, Av sarota- ‘cold’; perhaps
the reduplicated forms ON hela (< *hehIon) ‘frost’, Olnd
slsira- ‘the cool season’ and less likely OCS slana ‘hoar frost’.
As Celtic and Latin indicate, the root *kel-/*kol- is also
connected with words meaning ‘warm, hot’, cf. also Lat caleo
‘to be hot’, suggesting that the root semantics may have
concerned intensity rather than specifically temperature.
While several connections may be questionable, the
geographical spread still supports a PIE form.
*k w rusten ‘(freezing) cold’. [IEW 621-622 ( *kreus - ~
*krus-)\ GI 589; VW 236] . Grk Kpvoraivopai ‘am congealed
with cold, freeze’ (cf. also KpvardXXoq ‘ice; numbness;
crystal’, Kpvpoq ‘icy cold, frost’ (< *krusmo-), Kpvoq ‘icy cold,
frost’ (< *kruses-\ all the Greek forms show a delabialization
of original *k w - to k- in the neighborhood of -u-), TochA
— 112 —
COLOR
k u ras (acc. sg. krossam ) ‘cold’, TochB krosce ‘cold’. Other
derivatives are to be seen in Lat crusta ‘crust’, OHG hroso
‘ice, crust’, Latv kruvesis ‘frozen mud’. The distribution
suggests that this word was widespread and old in IE.
*/i 3 eug-‘cold’. [/EW783 ( *oug -)J. OIr uacht (noun) ‘cold’,
Weis oer ‘cold’, Lith austi ‘to become cold’, Latv auksts ‘cold’,
Arm oyc ‘cold’. Although best attested in the northwest, the
Armenian cognate does support deeper IE status.
*gel - ‘cold, to freeze’. [IEW 365-366 (*ge/(o»; Wat 19
( *gel-)\ Buck 15.86; BK287 ( *k , uP'-/*k’ol y -)} . Lat gelu ‘cold,
frost’, ON kala ‘to get cold’, OE calan ‘to get cold’, ceald ‘cold’
(> NE cold), OEIG kali ‘cold’, Goth kalds ‘cold’ (< Proto-Gmc
*kaldaz). The earlier suggested Grk (Gallo-Roman)
ye^avSpov ‘cold’ is now widely discredited, restricting this
item to northwest IE.
*srtges~ ‘cold, frost’. \IEW 1004 ( *sng-)\ Wat 64 ( *sng -);
GI 589 (*srik’-)\. Lat fngus ‘cold, frost’, Grk piyoq ‘frost, cold’.
Geographical spread only supports late, perhaps dialectical
status.
?*haelgh- ‘be cold’. [IEW 32 (*algh-)\. Lat algor ‘frost’,
algere 1 be cold’, ON (gen. sg.) elgjar ‘snow’, Nice e/gur ‘snow-
drift’. Doubtful cognates and even if the words share the same
root this is relevant only if it reflected a substantive ‘cold, ice’;
Lat algor is better derived from algere.
A wide variety of direct semantic oppositions among
homophones occur in IE, often in the religious vocabulary,
but extending well beyond it. This pattern has been taken by
Michael York to represent a “possible IE tendency toward
polarized perception”, including a “basic positive-negative
duality”.
U-C.S. , R.S.PB1
Further Reading
York, M. (1993) Toward a PIE vocabulary of the sacred. Word 44,
235-254.
COLOR
No Indo-European term for the noun ‘color’ is
reconstructible, but this fact does not mean that the Indo-
Europeans failed to recognize different colors. Among many
peoples, e.g., the Navajo, a complex set of specific color terms
may coexist with the absence of an abstract general term for
color. Within individual languages, terms for color often derive
from terms for the ‘surface’, e.g., Lat color (akin to celare
‘cover, conceal, cf. OInd varna- ‘color’ from a root var- ‘cover’)
or Grk xp&poi (akin to ‘ pelt, hide’) or are derived from
a specialization of individual color terms, e.g., Celtic *llwo-
(Olr li ‘beauty, appearance, glory, color’, Welsh lliw ‘form,
countenance, color’) akin to Lat llvor ‘dark blue’ or OE hlw
‘appearance, form, color’ which is related to Lith syvas ‘gray’.
The most interesting of these terms appear to relate to
markings rather than color perse. A root *perk- is applied to
a variety of variegated beings, e.g. , Lat porcus ‘perch or piglet’,
OIr ere ‘perch, salmon’. It is further seen in Grk nepKvoc,
which designates ‘freckled’ or ‘red’ as does its Indie cognate
prsni-, while a Greek term, npooevov is glossed as ‘black’.
However, the most interesting derivative of *perk - , *pork-
uos, occurs in Germanic, Proto-Gmc *far(g)wa-, the ante-
cedent of NHG farbe ‘color’. This root is normally translated
as ‘speckled’, but ‘striped’ or ‘stippled’ may be more accurate
in light of the lineated speckles on the fish and animals named.
Other color words derive from ‘spotted’, PIE *poik-. As a
verb OInd pimsati , TochAB pik- and Rus pisatl mean ‘paint’
and later ‘write’. The zero-grade *piko- appears in OCS as
pisO ‘dog’, Rus pes ‘dog’, i.e., ‘spot’ but the o-grade, *poiko- >
gives Av paesa -, OInd pesa- ‘form, color’ and OE fah ‘color’
but also [£ge ‘fated, doomed to die’, perhaps from < *poikio -
‘marked’. Finally Grk pe^co and OInd rajyati both reflect PIE
*(s)reg- ‘dye’. The same root occurs with lengthening via
Winter’s Law in Lith sruoga ‘skein’ < *(s)rogeh a -.
The Proto-Indo-European Color System
Color-terms refer to a complex of optical properties: hue
(the discrimination of frequency in light waves), saturation
(the amount of admixture among different hues) and intensity.
Non-scientific systems of nomenclature often do not
distinguish these properties and result in complex overlapping
terms. In Berlin and Kay’s famous study, Basic Color Terms, a
hierarchy of seven color systems employing up to eleven
primary terms was proposed. The primary colors, here marked
in small capitals, are: white, black, red, green, yellow, blue,
brown, purple, pink, orange, and gray. The term primary as
used here should not be confused with primary spectral colors
(red, blue and yellow) which refer to the physical nature of
color blending. A primary term is monolexemic; its meaning
is not deducible by analyzing the meaning of its parts, e.g.,
‘lemon-colored’ or ‘reddish’ are not primary color terms. It is
also primary because it cannot be subsumed under another
color category, e.g., orange is a primary term because speakers
of English regard it as a color between yellow and red, while
crimson is regarded as ‘a kind of red’, that is it can be defined
as a variety of a more inclusive term. Secondary color terms,
those employed only for restricted objects, e.g., roan or bay
(for animals) or brunette (for hair), and those defined in terms
of other colors, e.g., scarlet (= a kind of red) or those derived
from natural objects as a sub-shade, e.g., turquoise (a kind of
blue) are all excluded as primary. However, colors have been
known to shift classes, thus ‘orange’ was originally a shade of
yellow derived from the fruit, but is now widely regarded as
a distinct color. In the absence of native intuition, it is often
unclear whether a given term is a primary one or not. Consider
Lat canus ‘white’ or ‘gray’ and OE hasu ‘gray’, both
reconstructible to PIE *kas -, but OHG haso, OInd sasa- ‘hare’
may indicate that this term originally referred to an animal,
not a primary color. However, it is also possible that the word
for ‘hare’ was ‘the gray one’, and thus the color meaning was
primary.
In their original study, Berlin and Kay tested speakers of
twenty different languages (drawn from different language
— 113
COLOR
families) with Munsell Color charts which display 320 color
chips. The speakers were asked to identify the focus of each
of their primary color terms. They revealed recurrent patterns
that suggested certain universal of color categorization. To
this sample of contemporary languages was then added
historical evidence taking the number of languages considered
to ninety-eight in which it was revealed that there were seven
‘stages’ of color systems and that each subsequent stage
required the incorporation of the distinctions made in the
previous stage. Berlin and Kay outlined their seven stages as
follows.
Stage I black, white (two terms)
Stage II black, white, red (three terms)
Stage Ilia black, white, red, green (extending into the blues)
(four terms)
Stage Illb black, white, red, yellow (four terms)
Stage IV black, white, red, green, yellow (five terms)
Stage V black, white, red, green, yellow, blue (six terms)
Stage VI black, white, red, green, yellow, blue, brown
(seven terms)
Stage VII black, white, red, green, yellow, blue, brown,
purple, pink, orange, gray (eight to eleven terms)
It was later realized that this system contained a number
of inaccuracies and could be greatly improved by taking into
consideration both the physical properties of light perception
in humans and a more precise and consistent definition of
the various color categories (e.g., the distinction between biack
and white in Stage 1 was not the same as in Stage II).
Lexicalization of color terms appeared to be dependent on
three factors. Six primary colors received a basic response as
color categories, i.e. black, white, red, yellow, green and blue.
To this had to be added a series involving the “fuzzy union”
of different primaries, e.g., black or green or blue yielded a
“dark-cool” perceptual and linguistic response while a union
of green and blue (named here grue) provided a “cool”
response, red or yellow produced a “warm response” and
white or red or yellow yielded a “light- warm” response. Finally,
there were five semantic categories that were based on “fuzzy
intersections” of colors, i.e. black + yellow = brown, red +
blue = purple, red + white = pink, red + yellow = orange and
white + black = gray. The evolutionary sequence originally
defined was reinterpreted as a “successive differentiation of
previously existing color categories”, e.g. , composite categories
(such as Grue) between Stages 11 and V were decomposed
into their constituent primaries (green and blue).
The definition of the stages has remained similar to the
original study but is now generally elaborated as follows.
Stage 1 white and black
Stage II white, row [red and yellow], black
Stage III white, red, yellow, biack or
white, row, grue, black
Stage IV white, red, yellow, grue, black
Stage V white, red, yellow, green, blue, black
Stage VI WHITE, RED, yellow, green, blue, black, brown
Stage VII WHITE, RED, yellow, green, blue, biack, brown,
PINK, PURPLE, ORANGE, GRAY
Berlin and Kay’s categories were evolutionary in the sense
that each higher stage comprehended an earlier stage. They
found some social correlation in that languages of cultures of
small groups of hunter-gatherers tended to fall into the first
three stages while modem industrialized (including European)
languages employed Stage VII systems. They argued a Stage
III system for Homeric Greek (more recent analysis suggests
a Stage II) and a Stage IV system for Old and Middle Irish.
Russian and (New World) Spanish, two of the languages
examined, indicated a Stage VII.
It would be incorrect, however, to equate directly the
number of terms with the level of civilization. Classical Latin,
for example, had no primary term for brown which was
supplied in the Romance languages from (Barbarian)
Germanic. Moreover, some languages do not fit easily into
their schema. The presence of two separate term for blue’ in
Russian (si'nij ‘dark blue’, goluboj ‘light blue’) has often been
pointed out.
A more significant problem concerning the classification
of the PIE system is the presence in Indo-European of various
‘grayish’ terms which should imply a Stage VII development,
although other Stage VII terms, e.g., purple, pink and orange
are missing. Lemer suggested that Old English and Homeric
Greek employed bipartite systems in which hue and intensity
existed side by side. Such a theory would account for the
troublesome Russian (and Hungarian) data in which blues
and reds of different intensity are distinguished. Lemer s
evidence suggests that earlier systems were far more consistent
in this distinction, and we propose that the various ‘grays’ of
PIE may have been the non-intense counterparts of a less
developed system.
The lexical evidence for IE color terms suggests that we
can reconstruct with confidence a Stage III system and possibly
a Stage IV system which distinguished the following five
colors:
black *mel-n- (~ *Keir-)
white *h 2 fg-(~ *h^elbhos , *bholhios, *kijeitos)
red *hireudh-(~ *hielu- )
yellow *ghel-
green *kiehi-
As the best reconstructed color term in PIE is ‘red’, a Stage
II system is assured. That we have at least one word for ‘yellow’
or ‘green’ is also fairly certain. Reconstructing both primary
green and yellow is more problematic and the existence of a
grow (green + yellow) has been observed for other language
groups. It has also been argued that the system employed by
Homeric Greek was only Stage II (transition to Stage III) and
to assign a “higher” stage to PIE is unlikely since, in general,
-114 —
COMPANION
Some Basic Indo-European Color Systems
Color
Greek
Old Irish
Russian
Spanish
white
Xevkoc,
ban
belyj
bianco
BLACK
peXdg
dub
cemyj
negro
RED
epvOpog [row)
derg
krasnyj
rojo
YELLOW
yXcopoq
buide
zeltyj
amarillo
GREEN
glas [grue]
zelenyj
verde
BLUE
slnij
azul
BROWN
koricnevyj
cafe
PURPLE
purpurovyj
morado
PINK
rozovyj
rose
ORANGE
kirpicnyj
anaranjado
GRAY
seryj
gris
color systems do not descend to a lower stage over time. On
the other hand, it might also be argued that the semantic
“mixing” where PIE *ghel- ‘yellow’ also provided a base for
words meaning ‘green’ was an artifact of time, the original
meaning be primary yellow and that new formations
indicating green did not come into existence until after grue
had separated into green and blue. Moreover, there is a case
to be made for regarding *kieh\- as filling out the semantic
slot for green in which case all five terms for a Stage IV system
might be proposed.
Words for color-terms found in other stages are not solidly
reconstructible as primary color terms in PIE. For example,
terms that might yield a meaning ‘blue’ tend to relate to specific
objects, e.g., *slih x u- ‘plum colored’, and are geographically
restricted; similarly, the word for ‘brown’ ( *bher - ) is difficult
to reconstruct as a primary color as so many of its referents in
various stocks are either to animal names or at least the specific
colors of an animal. Of modern languages. Stage IV systems
include Japanese, Korean, Cantonese and Mayan.
See also Black; Brown; Dark; Gold; Gray; Green; Honey;
Light 1 ; Paint; Red; Speckled; Textile Preparation;
White, Yellow. [M.E.H., J.PM.)
Further Readings
Berlin, B. and P Kay (1969) Basic Color Terms. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, University of California Press.
Kay, P and C. McDaniel (1978) The linguistic significance of the
meanings of basic color terms. Language 54, 610-646.
Lazar-Meyn, H. (1994) Colour terms in Tain Bo Cuailnge, in Ulidia:
Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Ulster
Cycle of Tales, ed. J. Mallory and G. Stockman, Belfast, December,
201-205.
Lerner, L. (1951) Colour Words in Anglo-Saxon. Modem Language
Review 46, 246-249.
Moonwomon, B. (1994) Color categorization in early Greek. JIES
22, 37-65.
Tischler, J. (1989) Bemerkungen zum ‘Raum-Zeit-Modell’, in
Indogermanica Europaea, eds. K. Heller, O. Panagl and J. Tischler,
Graz, Grazer Linguistische Monographien 4, 407-429.
COME
*g w em- ‘come’ (pres. *g w ipsKe/o- ~ *g w ipie/o-) I/EW464
( *g?em-)\ Wat 24 {*g w em-)\ GI 75; Buck 10.471. Lat venid
‘come’, ON koma ‘come’, OE cuman ‘come’ (> NE come),
OHG queman ~ koman ‘come’, Goth qtman ‘come’, OPrus
gemton ‘bear’, Lith gimu ‘come into the world, be born’, Latv
dzimt ‘come into the world, be born’, Grk fiaivo) ~ fiaGKco
‘come’, Av jamaiti ~ jasaiti ‘goes’, OInd gacchati ‘goes’, TochA
kumnas- ‘come’, TochB kanmask- ‘come’. Cf. *g w rpti-
‘motion’: Lat con-ventio ‘coming together’, ON samkund
‘meeting’, OHG kumft ~ chumft ‘motion’, Goth gaqumps
‘meeting’, Grk fSccmg ‘step’, Av gati- ‘motion’, OInd gati-
‘motion’. Widespread and old in IE. The basic intransitive
verb of motion toward the speaker.
*g w eh a - ‘come’ (pres. *(g w i)g w eh a ti) [ IFW 463 (*g^a-);
Wat 24 ( *g w a-)-. Buck 10.47) . Olr baid (< *ba-a-ti ) ‘dies’, Lith
(dial.) goju ‘go’, Latv gaju ‘go’, Grk (Laconian) fdifdavzi ‘they
stride’, Arm kam ‘stand’, OInd jlgati ‘goes’. Ancient variant of
the preceding (like *drem- and *dreh a - ‘run’). Cf. also
*g w eh a men- : Grk pqpa ‘step’, OInd gaman- ‘step’.
See also ; Attain; Go ID.Q.A ]
COMPANION
*sdk w ~h2'di (gen. *sek w -h2-ids) ‘follower, companion’.
[ IFW 896-897 ( *so/c y ;os) ; Wat 57 {*sok w -yo-)\ Buck 19.51,
19.53J. Lat socius ‘partner, companion’, ON seggr ‘follower’,
OE secg ‘follower’, Grk ctoooeca ‘help’, Av haxa- ‘friend,
companion’, OInd sakha- ‘friend, companion’. The Germanic
forms (Proto-Gmc *sagwja- < a thematic *sok w h 2 ios as in
Latin) apply in particular to those who follow the leader in
combat, i.e. , warriors, and this must be close to its original
meaning, given its derivation from *sek w - ‘follow’. The
distribution indicates PIE status.
*dhrough 6 s ‘companion, comrade’. [IFW 254-255
( *dhereugh-)\ GI 658 (*d h reu^ 1 -)\. OE ge-dreag ‘troop’, Lith
draugas ‘friend’, OCS drugu ‘friend, companion’ (also druzina
‘companions in arms’). The underlying verb exists in ON
drygja ‘carry out’, OE dreogan ‘lead a (certain) life, do, work,
take part in, perform’ (> NE dree, Idrudge), Goth driugan
— 115
COMPANION
‘wage, carry on (a military campaign)’. A derivative *dhrughti-
is seen in ON drott ‘troop’, OSax druht-folc ‘army’, MHG
truht ‘troop’, Goth ga-drauhts ‘soldier’, and a further
*dhrughti-no- in ON drottinn ‘lord’, OE dryhten ‘chief, lord’,
OHG truhtln ‘chief, lord’ (< * ‘troop-leader’). A word of the
northwest of the IE world whose origins appear to lie in the
vocabulary of the military band. The military emphasis is par-
ticularly striking in Germanic where it has given rise to the
usual word for ‘lord’. It is sometimes thought that this word
is ultimately the same as *dhreugh- ‘deceive’ but the semantic
distance is very great and they should probably be kept apart.
*h](€pis ‘± confederate’. [IEW 325 (*epi-)\. Grk pniog
‘gentle, kind, soothing, friendly’, OInd apt- ‘ally, friend,
acquaintance’, apitvam ‘friendship, confederation’, Spyam
‘confederation, alliance, friendship’. This word has been taken
as a nominalization of *hjepi ‘upon, near’ (cf. Grk em, Olnd
api), thus ‘one nearby, neighbor’ or, much more likely given
the meaning we find in Old Indie, from *h 2 ep- ‘fasten, join’
seen in Hit happ - ‘join, attach’, Lat *apere ‘attach, tie to’, copula
(< *co-apula ) ‘bond’. In the latter case the (late) PIE form
would be *h 2 epis and would provide further evidence that
laryngeals did not color adjacent long vowels. In any case an
isogloss in Greek and lndo-Aryan.
*haegmen- troop’. [IEW 5 (*agmn)\ Wat 1 (*ag-men-)[.
Lat agmen ‘troop, train’, OInd ajman- ‘train’. A banal formation
from *h a eg- ‘drive’.
See also Army; Follow; Warfare; War God; Warriors.
[E.C.P]
COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY
As with the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European
linguistic forms, there is no direct evidence of the mythic
constructs of the PIE community. Only the specific mythic
statements of the different IE-speaking stocks are available,
presuming that such myth has in fact survived in each
tradition, which often is not the case. The “approaches to
myth” taken within the community of Indo-Europeanists have
evolved over a century and half of research. In the mid-
nineteenth century, the major approach to comparative
mythology was underpinned by the assumption that the key
to interpreting myth lay with natural phenomena, especially
the sun, thunder and lightning. By the early twentieth century
the interpretive emphasis had shifted to what would later be
termed the ritualist school where myths were seen as
expressions of ritual beliefs primarily concerned with the
manipulation of the universe, particularly as it concerned the
rejuvenation of the world. Although a number of other schools
developed that emphasized the psychological foundations of
myth, e.g., Freud and Jung, these were largely ignored by
researchers in Indo-European comparative myth. Rather, the
cornerstone of the predominant approach to the mythology
of the Indo-Europeans today has grown out of the functionalist
school that concerned itself with how mythology served as a
charter of societal behavior. This was developed most fully
by Georges Dumezil, who is credited with founding the “new
comparative mythology”. This approach may be generally
characterized as catholic or inclusive, rational-sociological,
meso-structural, and transdisciplinary. That is, in its investi-
gation of mythology it is prepared to accept data, themes,
and resemblances taken not only from myth in the strict sense,
but also from epic and even from quasi-historical sources and
so accepts a rather broad definition of what “myth” is, and
where remnants or reflections of myth may be located. Under
the functionalist assumption that myths do provide a social
charter, the investigation of IE myths is then aimed at
describing or recreating an IE society or social structure, at
least as an ideological model if not as a provable, historical
reality or proto-reality. The meso-structural label detaches this
approach to myth from such grander macro-structural
attempts as those erected in the last century by the naturist
school and in this century by the structuralists: the
investigative focus on a single linguistic family, however widely
dispersed and various the cultures within this family, reduces
the focal ambition somewhat. Finally, this approach to
mythology is conducted along transdisciplinary lines, bringing
into play techniques derived from philology and linguistics,
comparative religion, sociology and anthropology (including
hints taken from structural anthropology), literary myth-
analysis and other disciplinary varieties and tendencies; it is
accepted that sometimes the use of one approach may
contradict the rules or findings of another.
The Naturist School
The primary school of comparative mythology of the mid
nineteenth century argued that the underlying content of IE
mythology was an allegory of natural phenomena, particularly
that associated with the sun but also including the other
elements. The leading exponent of this approach, Friedrich
Max Muller (1823-1900), led the school of “solar mythology”
which sought to interpret IE myth, both linguistically and
structurally, in terms of oppositions in nature. Muller argued
that the early Indo-Europeans were incapable of abstraction
and hence the observable events most central to them, those
relating to natural phenomena, were described through mythic
circumlocutions, e.g., the Dawn disappears in the fiery
embrace of the Sun = the passing from dawn to day. After the
dispersion of the Indo-Europeans and the rise of the individual
language stocks, the myths were forgotten and new ones
created to remedy the “disease of language” which had
disassociated the original mythic metaphors. The purpose of
comparative mythology was to examine both the etymological
basis of the names of deities and compare the structural
elements of various myths to recover the original PIE myths
which were invariably connected with natural phenomena.
Hence, the career of a mythic hero, for example, with his rise
and ultimate demise, might be regarded as a mythic metaphor
for the course of the sun through the passage of the day while
combats between a hero and a monster were metaphors for
the battle between night and day.
The naturist or solar school of mythology was ultimately
— 116
COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY
defeated by its own excesses (one critic reduced Mullers own
life to a solar metaphor) and has been generally abandoned
as the primary interpretive key to IE mythology. On the other
hand, that some IE mythology must relate to natural
phenomena cannot be denied, especially as the few names of
deities which are sufficiently widespread among the different
IE stocks to posit a PIE linguistic form relate to natural
phenomena such as the Sun, the Dawn, and the Sky Attention
to primarily natural phenomena in IE myth is particularly to
be seen in the more recent works of Jean Haudry who has
suggested that a central cosmological concept of the Indo-
Europeans was that the universe was divided into three skies
(a diurnal, dawn/twilight, and nocturnal) which served to
organize other fundamental themes, e.g., divinities (celestial
gods, bridging gods, and night spirits or spirits of the dead),
colors (white diurnal sky, red dawn or twilight sky, and dark
night sky), social functions (the celestial colors have a social
valence), and about which mythic narratives were developed,
e.g., the archetypal hero such as Herakles (proposedly related
to Hera [< *iereh a - ‘year’]) conquers the ‘year’, i.e., gains
immortality and avoids the cyclic nature of existence.
(Although frequently proposed, the etymological basis for this
entire argument is by no means secure and Hera may well be
from *ieh\- ‘make, be active’ hence ‘physical ability, strength’
[cf. Spartan eipr\y = Aren/) (< *ihir-en -) ‘teenager’ (= ‘one
possessed of youthful strength’)] . Hera would then be like
her Roman counterpart Juno, a derivative of ‘young’, or Olnd
£akti, also a derivative of ‘strength’. Herakles would then be
‘famed for strength’ which would make much better sense as
a given name than ‘famed for the year’ or ‘famed for Hera’.)
The naturist school was very much dependent on
etymological connections and this approach has also been
recently extended in Garrett Olmsted’s attempt to reconstruct
PIE myth by assembling the assorted bynames (aliases,
epithets, epiphanies, etc.) of various Celtic deities and
extending comparison to the mythological traditions of other
IE stocks. A single Gaulish god, for example, is regarded as
underlying Gaulish Vellaunos and Esus (in the Roman
interpretation. Mars and Mercury) and his characteristics can
be assembled by analysis of the various bynames, e.g.,
Vemostonos ‘wound with thunder’ (i.e., has control of the
lightning bolt), Ocelos ‘eye’ or ‘seer’ (i.e., similar to the Norse
Odinn), Medocios ‘who renders judgement’ (i.e., similar to
Old Indie Varuna), from which one ultimately reconstructs a
PIE sky god who wields a thunderbolt, rescues clouds from a
serpent, and produces rain and fertility. Not entirely dissimilar
to Max Muller’s “disease of language” we have here a
multiplicity of epithets for the various IE deities that may be
projected back into the period of PIE “unity” which helps
account for the apparent abundance of names for various
divinities.
The Ritualist School
The ritualist school, championed by such scholars as Sir
James Frazer (1854-1941) in his Golden Bough , emphasized
the close relationship between myth and ritual. Its central
focus was the belief that rituals were undertaken to
manipulate, largely rejuvenate, the universe and that myth
was merely the narrative accompaniment to such rituals. In
Frazer’s work great attention was focussed on the king as the
embodiment of fertility who mated annually with a female
spirit to promote the growth of vegetation and whose own
health mirrored that of his society. Illness or disfigurement
resulted in his incapacity to promote fertility; he had to be
deposed or put to death by a successor or periodically die
and be rejuvenated himself. The empirical basis of Frazer’s
study was world-wide reports of customs, folk-practice and
belief, as well as myths. Comparative mythology might then
uncover in ancient myths the various themes concerning the
maintenance of fertility and, in some instances, possibly also
the traces of ritual behavior designed to manipulate the
elements.
As with the naturist approach, it would be impossible to
ignore certain elements emphasized by the ritualist school
that are to be found in the mythologies of the Indo-European
stocks, e.g., the frequent theme emphasizing the ritual mating
of the king with either a mare or a female figure who
represented the (fertility of the) land. Moreover, other
members of this school such as Lord Raglan have had a major
impact on the study of comparative mythology. His The Hero
(1930) investigated the recurrent structural patterns in the
life of the hero, based both upon clearly mythic and also quasi-
historical literature, where a recurrent sequence of events
could be discerned, e.g., unusual conception of hero of noble
birth, his exile and return. The underlying ritual behavior
suggested by some IE myth has also been emphasized by Bruce
Lincoln who has examined the nature of IE sacrifice within
the general scheme of IE cosmogonic myth where the world
is renewed, or better, “recycled” through the sacrifice of
animals which restore to the macrocosm of existence that
which was originally created. In some instances, specific rituals
in IE traditions, e.g., the burial of hair to promote fertility,
following the homology between hair and plants, help to
augment reconstructions of IE myth. But, naturally, as an
interpretive key to all IE mythology, a purely ritualist approach
would either be required to ignore much of what appears
most essential or force the mythic elements into a procrustean
bed of interpretation.
Functionalist School
The functionalist school regards mythology as an
expression of the social collective whose purpose is to reinforce
or integrate social behavior. That myths do reflect the
respective (often archaic) social structures can be argued on
a tightly empirical base, for example, where one may
encounter the palace-centered pantheon of the ancient Greeks
where the various deities fill out both the occupations (e g.,
warrior, smith, cup-bearer, messenger) and social behavior
(e.g., constant intrigues, infidelities) of a Bronze Age or Iron
Age palace society. In contrast, the pantheon of the Norse
— 117
COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY
with its emphasis on the drinking hall, dead warriors, and
more limited social complexity reflects better the social
realities of early Germanic society. On a more abstract level,
myths may serve to express the underlying charter for societal
behavior and its construction. This approach was particularly
emphasized by Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) who regarded
religion as “society personified” and the various deities or
sets of deities might be seen as collective representations of
the various social classes of society. The relationships between
deities might then serve to reinforce the expected relationships
that operate within societies or illuminate areas of structural
conflicts. For example, the inferior social position of the lower
orders in society is frequently “justified” in the mythic
traditions of various IE stocks that relate how in some primeval
contest the lower social orders were incorporated into society
of the higher or in the simple order of births, three brothers
assumed the three major roles in society (priest, warrior,
herder-cultivator). As the school that most greatly influenced
the works of Georges Dumezil, functionalism still plays an
active part in the development of current approaches to IE
mythology.
Structuralist School
The structuralist approach to mythology is primarily
concerned with analyzing myths in terms of binary
oppositions which the content of the myths seek to resolve.
It assumes for all human beings there is a deeply embedded
mental structure that sets up opposing patterns to achieve a
resolution of conflicting elements. These oppositions might
include the distinctions between the natural world and that
constructed from culture (or the “raw and the cooked”), the
male versus the female, left versus right, active versus
inanimate, visible versus invisible, gods versus giants, aspects
of color (black and white), direction (up and down, north
and south, etc.) or anything else that might be reduced to a
binary opposition. As an interpretive principle, such an
approach can be turned on almost any mythic text. In terms
of IE comparative myth, such an approach provides the basis
of the reconstruction found in T. Gamkrelidze and V Ivanovs
study of IE culture, where they seek a binary opposition in
the IE world view and social behavior rooted in the nature of
IE marriage which, for them at least, was founded in the
practice of women marrying across consanguineally related
halves of society. Hence they seek reflexes of this dualism in
dual kingship, cult of the Divine Twins, right and left
dichotomy, etc. Structuralist opposition has been widely
employed as both one of the alternative approaches to the
functionalist in Indo-European comparative mythology and
also as a complementary approach that can be integrated with
others.
Tripartition
The most widespread approach to IE myth today was first
laid out by Georges Dumezil (1898-1986) in the 1930s and
1940s. It seeks to tie together different evidence, or sources
of data, by identifying the dominant and common IE pattern-
producing mode, first and specifically tripartition, the urge
to divide mythic structures into three. Tripartition is regarded
as basic and central to an IE system or “ideology”, an ideology
thus shaped with a strong segmentary — to use an
anthropological term — impulse or bias. Myth, either intact
or reflected (or disassembled) is brought forward as an
illustration or illumination of this ideology. The systematic
association of three fonctions or Functions — accepted as
Sovereignty (FI), Guardianship or the Warrior Function (F2)
and the Function of Fertility (health, sexuality, etc.) (F3) — is
sought out in terms of statements of or concerning founding
myth, religious structure and belief, in socio-political
organization (regarded as primary, but sometimes
reconstructible only indirectly or by inference), even in the
relict characters and themes of legend and folklore. The
implicit assumption is that an IE or PIE mythic code or matrix
(and primarily the tripartitive impulse) has usually left behind
it traces of itself. Another assumption is that of the persistence
over time of this pattern, so that even when the “functional”
aspects of pagan religion (with the pantheon of divinities
seemingly divided according to the three major functions they
reflected or served) disappeared with the advent of
Christianity, the tripartite code might emerge, much later, in
quite another area. For example, Western medieval civilization
was ideally divided into the clearly identifiable trifunctional
job-titles of oratores, bellatores, laboratores — those who
prayed, those who fought, those who worked, a revivification
of the putative PIE societal structure. Or in another IE familial
situation investigated by Dumezil, trifunctional and other
patterns, encased in pagan myth and legend, survived the
Christianization of Scandinavia, and clearly re-emerged in the
evidence of the Eddas and the epic-heroic sagas as these were
written down three centuries or more after the first wave of
conversion and baptism. The persistence of the IE tripartite
model thus establishes a diachronic-historical, and not merely
a synchronic-structural, pattern and in this way differs
fundamentally from the structuralist approach to mythology.
Dumezils IE tripartite theory was supported early on by
the work of scholars such as Emile Benveniste and Stig
Wikander. Benveniste helped ground Dumezils theories in
the ancient and important Iranian area, while Wikander
investigated Indie epic and other Iranian possibilities as well.
Tripartitism since then has revealed its “echoes" resonating in
a number of specific, contextually IE mythic or paramythic
situations or dramas and has been employed to determine
the probable existence of an IE base, root, or influence in a
particular cultural context. Thematic instances of tripartition
include, but are by no means limited to (a) the three “crimes”
of the king (connected to the theme of the king or sovereign
necessarily operating in all three functions) and the calamities
that proceed from these delicts; (b) the three sins of the
warrior, the theme of a type of death as fitted to each function,
again usually referent to the figure of the sovereign and how
he, engrossing all functions himself, may have to die a “three-
— 118 —
COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY
Examples of Tripartition in Various Indo-European Traditions
India
Mitanni deities
RV
Mahabharata
Indie classes
Manu 8.113
1: sovereign
Mi-it-ra
Aru-na
Mitra
Varuna
Yudhisthira
Pandu
brahman
swears by truth
II: warfare
In-da-ra
Indra
Arjuna
ksatriya
swears by chariot and weapons
III: fertility
Na-sa-at-tiya
Nasatya
Dasra
Nakula
Sahadeva
vaisya
swears by cattle, grain and gold
Iran
A vest a
Iranian social classes
Sacred fires initiated by
early Iranian kings ( Shanameh )
Prayer to Ahura Mazdah to ward off
1: sovereign
Asa Vasista
Vohu Mana
athravan ‘fire priest’
Atur Fambag ‘priests’
demonic evil and heresy
II: warfare
XsaGra Vairya
rathaestar ‘chariot warrior’
Atur Gushnasp ‘warriors’
military conquest
III: fertility
Amjtat
Haurvatat
vastryo fsuyant - ‘herdsmen’
Atur Bazzen Mihr
bad year of harvest
Greece
Judgment of Paris
Athenian social groups
Lycurgus’s reforms
I: sovereign
Hera promises kingship
ieponoioi ‘priests’
establish senate
II: warfare
Athene promises
military victory
(pvXcxKeg ‘guards’
established military messes
III: fertility
Aphrodite promises love
of most beautiful woman
yeropyoi ‘farmers’
redistributed land
Rome
Deities
Major Roman priests
History
I. sovereign
Jupiter
Dius Fidius
Flamen Dialis (Jupiter)
Romulus
Numa
II: warfare
Mars
Flamen Martialis (Mars)
Tullius Hostilius
III: fertility
Quirinus
Flamen Quirinalis (Quirinus)
Ancus Martius
Scandinavia
Deities
Heimskringla
I: sovereign
Odinn
Tyr
on Winter’s Day a blood sacrifice for
a good year
II: warfare
Forr
on a Summer’s Day, a sacrifice ‘for victory in battle’
III: fertility
Njordr
Freyr
Freyja
in the middle of Winter, a sacrifice ‘for a good crop’.
119 —
COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY
A Scheme for Dividing Indo-European Tripartition
Function ’Marker’
Left Hand
Interstitial
Right Hand
FI: TIME
Varunaic King
Magical King
Mitraic king
Time: uncontrolled
Controlled
Delimited
F2: ACT
Odinn-warrior
“Doubled” warrior
t'orr-warnor
Act: uncontrolled
Controlled
Delimited
F3: SPACE
Merchant
Herdsman
Farmer
space: uncontrolled
Controlled
Delimited
fold death”; (c) the three major categories of diseases or
ailments and the three types of remedies that might be applied.
All of these themes are dealt with elsewhere in this volume.
Tripartition has also been located in images of division or the
parts of the human body (head = FI, mid-body and arms =
F2, and lower body and legs = F3), in such symbolic usages
as functionally ordered colors (generally white and gold =
FI, red = F2, green/blue = F3), and even in spatial or
geographical divisions. The best known spatial reference
would identify the sky as a FI zone, the earth as F2, and the
subterranean (or sometimes submarine) zone as F3. As the
place of vegetal fertility and potential life, such a division
comes into play when defining the place of topos of particular
gods — or with funerary customs (cremation or the body given
to the sky, placement of the body on the earth, interment
within the earth).
Interfunctional Relations
“Echoes” in the mythic stratum also help to fill out the full
image of each function in terms of both its positive and
negative valences, and they also demonstrate the systematic,
and not always cooperative, relationships between the
functions. In terms of the latter, the most prominent and
dramatic theme has been what Dumezil called the War of the
Foundation (or Interfunctional War). As this theme works
itself out, there is a secondary division initially established
between the first two functions (priests and warriors) on the
one hand, and the F3 zone and potency of herder-cultivators
on the other. This division cannot be healed, and a complete
tripartite unity achieved, until the third function is either
defeated or otherwise manipulated and convinced to join the
totality Dumezil’s original evidence came from the Norse myth
of the war between the ^Esir and Vanir and from Roman
historicized myth (rape of the Sabines), but there may be
additional evidence for the drama of reconstitution to be found
in various places in the Greek sources, even including the
Iliad with the Trojans occupying F3. It may be said that the
subordinate or anomalous situation of the F3 area regularly
recurs in the evidence that is available to us, where the hero-
warrior of the second function displays his disdain or
unconcern with the potencies or impotencies of the common
agricultural population (F3), especially as their mass or
numbers contrast to his heroic singularity Some have seen in
this mythic theme evidence for real hostility among the
functions, and the theoretical construction of a PIE society
where agriculture (and perhaps the city, though not the activity
of the herdsman) lay outside of or exotic to the PIE socio-
economic system (cf. the clear bias among Hebrew pastoralists
in Genesis where the sacrificial offerings of Abel, the
herdsman, were favorable to God while the agricultural fruits
of Cain, the settled farmer, were unfavorably received).
Other tensions between the functions also can be found,
as when the ideology or true “sovereignty” is seized by or
allocated to a purely priestly or spiritual power (as in Vedic
India and the brahman priestly caste, or in the medieval West)
and the secular-military aspect of kingship is isolated and
forced “downward” into the warrior function, or when the
triumphant F2 zone of force and war, in a reversing man-
oeuvre, actively seeks to denature or even to remove most of
the powers of the sovereign function, with the intent of drastic-
ally limiting or even demolishing kingship itself (e g., Greek
aristocracies dominating the polis , Roman republican rule).
Duality or Bifurcation
The second important direction in which IE specialists have
turned or focussed their recovered mythic evidence is toward
the discovery of dual or binary aspects in each function.
DumeziPs initial suggestion and research involved the
bifurcation of sovereignty into two subsets of powers, Varunaic
and Mitraic. Very briefly described, the Mitraic aspect of
sovereignty shows forth the overt powers of the ruler, the
areas of justice, enforcing social order, and the exercise of the
sword-power, all powers operative in the open. Varunaic
potencies are always darker, more mysterious, magical and
even irrational and, in fact, are often difficult to define
precisely A simple demonstrative formula would put the king’s
justice (effect follows on cause) on the Mitraic side, his mercy
(random, uncaused, unpredictable) on the other; the orienting
terms of left hand for the Varunaic, right hand for the Mitraic
may have been used.
Dumezil’s second exploration was into the bifurcated nature
of the warrior (F2) function; he located, using especially the
legendary and myth-epical materials and sources of the
Germamc-Scandinavian North, a figure he termed a “warrior
l
*
!*
— 120
COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY
!
of Odinn” presented or contrasted against a “warrior of Forr”.
The two types make a contrast specifically in their allegiance
to one or another key aspect of the second function: one aspect
is controlled, pro-social, open, honorable (the Forr- warrior),
the other in contrast is uncontrolled, destmctive, mysterious
and threatening (the warrior of Odinn). Evidence for this
divided warriorhood may be found elsewhere in IE contexts;
it is suggested, at least, in a sequential arrangement when the
Athenian ephebos , the uncontrolled guerilla-fighter and
“black-hunter” graduates to full and disciplined social service
in the ranks of the hoplite army. It might be noted that an
alternative explanation for the “duality” of the IE warrior func-
tion has been proposed by Kim McCone who has suggested
that the so-called “warrior of Odinn” actually reflects an IE
age set of young warrior while the “warrior of Forr” reflects
the older age set of married and landed or at least propertied
warriors who are part of the IE *teuteh a - ‘tribe’ under a *h 3 rigs
‘king’. The final age set, according to McCone’s system, would
be that of the elders, the non-combatants who were respected
for their wisdom and advice and who therefore filled out what
Dumezil has otherwise termed his “First Function”.
The Third Function already has an important mythic
marker in terms of the twinned gods that can reside in or
represent it (the Indie Asvins, for example, or the Greek
Dioskouroi); this gemination seems to reinforce the idea,
primary to this Third Function, of multiplicity or plenty, but
see below for other explanations and complications.
On the other hand, the F3 twins, and the phenomenon of
duality, may reflect or be related to an ancient IE cosmogonic
drama, one that was described and decoded in separate
investigations by both Jaan Puhvel and Bruce Lincoln: the
origins of society (or at least of religion and the sacral) are
assigned to a primeval act in which “Man” kills “Twin” in
order for the act of cosmogony or foundation to proceed.
The sources here are Indic-Vedic, Iranian and Germanic, and
the theme is reflected at last in the Roman “legend” of Romulus
and Remus and the founding of Rome.
These attempts to divide the inner structure of the functions
have most recently been associated with a general reworking
of the original tripartite system, and especially a remapping
of the functions so as to produce a scheme in which each
function is divided not just into left and right modalities, but
also shown to contain an intermediating force or figure, one
self-crafted to operate according to the basic plot of the
function itself. That is to say, if we take the Forr-warrior/Odinn-
warrior division, we find at the center, between them, a
“doubled” warrior who may operate in either zone, and the
same intermediating (“self-controlling”) figure may be located
for the First or Sovereign Function. Again, the Third Function
gives considerable difficulty, but what can theoretically be
produced takes the shape of the accompanying diagram.
A significant step beyond this two dimensional enneagram
has been taken by William Sayers, who has subjected the
three functional areas to a reformulation that actually allows
a tri-dimensional diagram to be designed: each functional
Comparative Mythology William Sayer’s three-dimensional
representation oflndo- European trifunctionality. It is organized
into the three functions (1 . sacred-juridical; 2. martial activity;
3. fertility) where each function (also expressed in terms of
Thought, Will and Sense) is scaled horizontally according to
the size of its representation within society. This model also
incorporates a series of dichotomies widely recognized in
mythological analysis. For example, the dichotomy between
the human-centered world and nature is recognized in
orientation (C = culture, N = nature). Similarly, the distinction
between the mediated (M), the normative view of culture, is
contrasted in modality with the unmediated (U), the
unpredictable world of tricksters, outlaws, criminals and
craftsmen. In this way a character in Indo-European mythology
may be located within a three-dimensional construct and his
career can be plotted dynamically through the model.
zone may react not to one but to two situating elements, that
is, controlled/uncontrolled and nature/culture. Sayers’
spheroid figure has the additional advantage of showing the
relative proportion of the three functions in terms of the
totality, where the size of the function is inversely related to
its “ideological” importance: more signifies less.
A Fourth Function?
Finally, some investigators in the IE area have recalculated
myth and the mythic evidence to question and to re-examine,
or at least to modify, the very tripartite urge that seems to
dominate so much of the way IE-speaking cultures have
structured or reinvented their particular imaginative cosmos.
Dumezil knew early on of evidence suggesting that in some
IE cultural sources the dominant shape or “ideology” was not
ternary but quaternary; the Indie caste system, for example,
defined the caste hierarchy as composed of brahman , ksatriya ,
vaisya and sudra, e;ach with its attached cluster of powers
and responsibilities. The last group, the sudra , might be
ignored because it was outcast, or situated outside the integral
system, but there is IE evidence elsewhere that also suggests
— 121 —
COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY
or even demands a quadripartite functional division. The
Reeses found the ancient Irish provincial plan to provide four
foci for four “energies” or functions, plus the commanding or
central Fifth; the ancient Indie evidence also speaks of five
‘tribes’ or divisions. In Ireland, according to the Reeses, a
divided Sovereignty is present or resident in two “directions”
(center and west, Meath and Connacht), war and warrior take
the north (Ulster), prosperity is in the east or the province of
Leinster, while the remaining direction and province (south,
Munster) mixes its signals and is more than a little exotypic,
even sinister. They also found Irish (and other IE) evidence
for an additional social division, containing a variety of
craftsmen, entertainers, and marginal characters and occu-
pations, but including the smith, an important or even primary
artisan often connected, as a weapons-maker (and, in the
myth-epical evidence, as a fosterer), to the Warrior Function.
In terms of this quaternary theme and the explanation of
its mythic echoes, we can now look to two theoretical
suggestions, those of Nicholas Allen and of Emily Lyle. The
first finds the likelihood of a Fourth Function reinforced
because of parallels with other societies that project a
segmentary “ideology”, but finds support as well in terms of
the plausibility of a “closing” function, one standing for what
is alien, threatening, ambiguous, “beyond” or “outside” the
normative IE tripartite system; this function then is less
substantive than it is defined relationally. The second theory
uses mythic sources often mined for their reflection of IE
structures, such as the Greek, the Vedic and the Irish, to posit
that a complete IE system would have three “male”-orientated
functions and an overarching or all-inclusive “female”
function, standing, among other things, for truthfulness or,
possibly, for that earth upon which all the other functions
must act or exist; Lyle also adduces calendrical or seasonal
and other diagrammatic cyclical-circular plans to reinforce
her arguments, and she is sensitive to such quaternary divi-
sions as the four directions, seasons, elements, of even the
four humors controlling the human body. Lyles theory at least
integrates an aspect of the feminine into an IE structure.
Generally IE specialists have dealt with the feminine aspects
of power in a gingerly fashion: feminine deities can be found
associated with the F3 area, as would be expected given the
powers encased in that area, and it is possible that the Varunaic
modality of sovereignty contains a symbolic femininity, or
that the feminine is integrated into the king-sovereign’s
responsibility to be a harmonizer or even a “vessel of piety”.
It may be noted that of all the IE functions, it is the F2 zone
where the equality of the sexes is best recognized in myth-
epical terms, in the widely-encountered image of the Amazon
or woman- warrior.
Summation
Clearly the approach to myth taken by investigators into
the IE ideology has by no means been closed off or declared
a final or concluded matter. In terms of the “ideology”
controlling IE religion, decoding the functional setting or
action of particular divinities (Norse, Gaulish-Celtic, and
especially Greek) has not been at all easy. The Fourth Function
is still an attractive object for investigation and theory. The IE
ternary urge or patterning impulse, on the other hand, still
exists as an attribute which cannot ever be absolutely limited
to IE-speaking cultures (any more than dual or bifurcate
sovereignty can be) but tripartition does appear to be more
likely to be found in and characteristic of an IE context, and
often in exotic or out-of-the-way sources. The ternary mark
or marking, however derived, seems ever available; its imaging
always near the surface. Thus when William of Tyre, the
twelfth century historian of the Crusades, referred to Saladin,
nemesis of Outremer, he called him “wise, brave, and
generous”, that is, he attached to the Moslem general the
canonical, in fact the mythic, excellences of the good or true
IE sovereign. Yet the mere collection of tripartite cases and
citations can be of little or trifling utility; IE “comparative
mythology” demands strict attention to the ramifications of
theory, and specifically of the theoretical structure broadly
conceived by Dumezil. No criticism of this scholar has been
able to finally and absolutely shatter and replace the complex
image of the IE “ideology” he established.
See also Cosmogony; Cosmology; Divine Twins;
Eschatology; Goddesses; Priest, Sacrifice;
War of the Foundation; Warriors. [D.A.M., J.PM.]
Further Readings
Allen, N. J. (1987) The ideology of the Indo-Europeans: Dumezil’s
theory and the idea of a Fourth Function. International Journal
of Moral and Social Studies 2/1 , 23-39.
Baldick, J. (1994) Homer and the Indo-Europeans : Comparing
Mythologies. London and New York, I. B. Tauris.
Benveniste, E. (1938) Traditions indo-iraniennes sur les classes
sociales. Journal Asiatique 230, 529-549.
Dumezil, G. (1973) Gods of the Ancient Northmen. Berkeley and
Los Angeles, University of California.
Dumezil, G. (1988) Mitra-Varuna. An Essay on Two Indo-European
Representations of Sovereignty. New York, Zone.
Haudry, J. (1987) Le religion cosmique des Indo-Europeens. Milan
and Paris, Arche.
Littleton, C. S. (1982). The New Comparative Mythology. 3rd ed.
Los Angeles, University of California.
Lincoln, Bruce (1986) Myth, Cosmos and Society: Indo-European
Themes of Creation and Destruction. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard
University Press.
Lyle, E. (1990) Archaic Cosmos. Polarity, Space and Time
Edinburgh, Polygon.
McCone, K. (1987) Hund, Wolf und Krieger bei den Indogermanen,
in Studien zum Indogermanischen Wortschatz , ed. W Meid,
Innsbruck, 101-153.
Miller, D. A. (1992) Trisecting trifunctionality: Multiplying and
dividing Dumezil, Shadow 9, 13-22.
Olmsted, G. (1994) The Gods of the Celts and the Indo-Europeans.
Budapest, Archaeolingua.
— 122 —
CONQUER
Puhvel,J. (1987) Comparative Mythology. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
University.
Rees, Alwin and Brinley (1961) Celtic Heritage. Ancient Tradition
in Ireland and Wales. London, Thames and Hudson.
COMPENSATION
*k w oineh a - ‘compensation’. [1EW 637 ( *k v oi-na)\ Wat 33
( *k w oi-na)\ GI 709 ( *k ho e/oi-(na-))\ Buck 16.76; BK 318
(*k w [ h ]ay-/*k w [ h ]9y-)\. Mir cin ‘guilt, crime, payment due’,
OPrus er-kinint Treed from the devil’, Lith kaina ‘price’, OCS
cena ‘price’, Grk noivr\ ‘compensation for a crime; blood price’,
Av kaena - ‘vengeance, hatred’, kay- ‘pay, compensate’, Olnd
cayate ‘pays, punishes’. Distribution indicates PIE status. Cf.
the related *h iepok w itis ‘compensation’. [JEW 637 ( *k u i-ti-)\
Wat 33 ( *k w ei-)\ . Grk cbroTicrigTecompense’, Olnd apa-citi-
‘recompense’. With a different morphological formation is
Proto-Anatolian *k w idhlom seen in Lycian tllaxnta ‘payment,
tribute’, Milyan kille ‘payment, tribute’.
Both forms are built on *k w ei- ‘fine, punish’ which also
underlies Grk rivco 1 make someone pay (a debt, ransom, fine)’
> ‘take vengeance, chastise’ (cf. Grk ziaig ‘payment, punish-
ment, vengeance’). The notion here is very much one of
exacting punishment for a crime such as murder or violation
of an oath. This sense can also be found in early Irish texts,
e.g., i cintaib ‘in revenge’. An extended development of the
underlying concept would then naturally be ‘hate’ as seen in
the Avestan form. Although sometimes compared here, forms
such as Grk tico ‘honor, praise’, Olnd cayati ‘has regard, respect
for’ were seen by Emile Benveniste as semantically distant
and a result of contamination between two homophonous
stems ( *k w ei -), one indicating ‘punishment’ and the other
‘honor’. On the other hand, the early Irish cin not only
designates ‘guilt, crime, payment’ but may also mean ‘respect,
esteem’ and the relationship between the estimation of one’s
honor and the price of maintaining it may not have been so
distant.
*serk- ‘make restitution’. [IEW 912 ( *serk-)\ Wat 58
( *serk -)]. Lat sarcid ‘make restitution; make whole (i.e.,
repair)’, Hit samikzi ‘makes restitution’. The meaning ‘make
restitution (for damage done)’ is a specialization, of PIE age,
of *serk- ‘make a circle, complete’ (cf. TochB serke ‘circle,
cycle, complete set’) and is a lexical manifestation of the notion
that in a society founded on exchange and reciprocity, an
offense, whether to gods or to men, requires restitution or
recompense to complete the circle of social obligation.
*dhlgh-'debT [7EW271 ( *dhjgh-)\ GI 708], OIr dligid ‘is
entitled to, is owed’, Weis dlyed ‘duty’, Goth dulgs ‘debt’,
OCS dlugti ‘debt’. A word confined to the IE northwest. It
has been suggested (and denied) that the Gothic word is
borrowed from Celtic; it has also been suggested (and denied),
independently of the previous proposal, that the OCS word
was borrowed from Gothic. Both borrowing hypotheses are
possible; neither is compelling. It has also been suggested
that the word is originally non-IE.
See also Blame; Circle; Crime; Honor. [E.C.P, D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami, 334-345.
Watkins, C. (1970) Studies in Indo-European legal language,
institutions, and mythology, in Indo-European and Indo-
Europeans , eds. G. Cardona, H. M. Hoenigswald, and A. Senn,
Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, 328-334.
COMPLAIN
?*leh a - ‘complain, cry out’. [ IEW 650 (*/a-); Wat 34
( *la~) ] . OIr Hid ‘complains’, Weis edliw(io) 1 blame’, Lat lamenta
‘lamentation’, Grk (Hesychius) A ai'co ‘± make a sound’, Arm
lam ‘cry, weep’. Latin and Armenian clearly presuppose an
earlier *leh a - while Celtic would seem to reflect *lehi~. The
discrepancy is unexplained. Of possible but by no means
certain PIE antiquity. Possibly related to *leh a - ‘bark’.
See also Bark 2 ; Grieve. [D.Q.A.]
CONCUBINE
?*parikeh a - ‘± concubine; wanton woman’. [IEW 789
(*parlka) ]. Mir airech ‘(type oD concubine’, Av pairtka
‘demonic courtesan’. Phonologically, the two forms are
comparable although the semantic relationship is somewhat
distant. The Mir airech was a woman whose position (honor-
price) in society was half that of a prim-ben ‘wife of the first
class’ but was regarded higher than that of a carthach ‘lover’
or dormaine ‘whore’. Unlike the carthach, the services of the
airech were not for free. The Avestan pairika has cognates in
Parthian Parik, NPers Peri. The term referred to a group of
beautiful temptresses who exercised special powers over earth,
water, fire, livestock and the plant world. In the service of the
evil force, Ahriman, they work their sorcery on the stars to
prevent rain.
Many societies have tolerated some form of polygamy or
concubinage but such relations in PIE society were probably
the exception rather than the rule, as is the case in most
societies which tolerate polygamy. Nevertheless, the use of
specialized terms to designate legitimate children indicates
that such unions were not unheard of although it might be
emphasized that one of the distinguishing characteristics of
early Irish legal institutions is that they recognized illegitimate
children as heirs as well as legitimate (a practice that
scandalized the English). Although very poorly attested, the
Celtic-lranian correspondence may suggest IE antiquity.
See a/so Wife. [M.E.H., J.RM ]
CONIFER see PINE
CONQUER
*segh- ‘hold fast, conquer’. [IEW 888-889 ( *segh -); Wat
56 ( *segh-) ; GI 134 (*seg b -): Buck 20.41; BK 185 ( *sag -/
*s9g-)]. OIr seg ( DIE sed) ‘strong’, MWels haer (< *sagro-)
‘stubborn’, Weis by ‘clever’, ON stgr ‘victory’, OE sigor ~ sige
‘victory’, OHG sigu ~ sigi ‘victory’, Goth sigis ‘victory’ (<
*seghes-, perhaps conflated with *seghug cf. the derived
— 123 —
CONQUER
Germanic verb in: ON sigra, OE sigorian, OHG sigiron, all
‘conquer’, OHG ubar-sigirdt ‘triumphant’), Grk eyo) ‘hold’,
Ttjxco (< *si-sghe/o ) ‘hold’, Av haz- ‘gain’, hazah ‘outrage’, OInd
sahate ‘overcomes’, sahas- ‘victory’, TochAB sak- ‘hold oneself
back’. One should also note the derived *seghup in Grk i%vpog
‘firm, strong’, Hit sakkuriya- ‘overcome’ (though the -kk-
rather than the expected -k- is unexplained), OInd sahuri-
‘victorious’. Widespread and old in IE, used of ‘strength’ both
physical and mental (as shown by the Celtic cognates). Both
Celtic, e.g., Gaul Sego-marus , Sego-dunum and Germanic,
e.g., ON Sigurdr, OE Sigeweard , OHG Sigwart, frequently
employed this word in personal and place names; it possibly
also underlies the name of the Trojan hero " Ektcjp ‘Hektor’.
See also Army; Booty, Fight; Warfare. [E.C.P.l
CONSORT GODDESS
Various IE groups evidence a goddess in the role of royal
consort. In addition, associated themes include protectress
of marriage, fertility, and the bestowal of the gift of prophecy.
These functions are much too generic to support the
supposition of a distinct PIE “consort goddess” and many of
the “consorts” probably represent assimilations of earlier
goddesses who may have had nothing to do with marriage.
Greek Hera (Roman Juno) was a consort goddess, similar
to the Germanic Frigg, and the Indie concept of the ‘Great’-
goddess Dev! as Sakti ‘power’, the power which an Indie
consort gave to her husband. Hera was sister and wife of the
king of the gods, Zeus. She was already connected with Zeus
to some extent in Mycenaean texts of c 1200 BC (e.g., PY
172). Hera is not necessarily the ‘beloved wife’, but the
‘betrayed wife’. Zeus has a multitude of affairs (only thus can
he be the father of all the deities and heroes) by different
mistresses, and Hera always wreaks vengeance not upon her
omnipotent husband but upon the young maidens whom
Zeus seduces or rapes. The Scholia on Theocritus (15.64)
states that initially, Zeus was unsuccessful in his courting of
Hera. He therefore turned himself into a cuckoo which
perched, shivering, on Hera’s knee. Hera took pity on the
cuckoo and warmed it at her breast, whereupon the cuckoo
re-metamorphosed into Zeus, who seized Hera. She agreed
to marry him, if he would not rape her. Their wedding night,
on the Isle of Samos, lasted three hundred years. Because she
was the consort par excellence , Hera was the goddess of
marriage. Her children by Zeus were the war-god Ares, the
goddess of youth, Hebe, and the smith-god Hephaistos; she
was said to have given birth to the latter parthenogenetically.
She was also said to have given parthenogenetic birth to the
monstrous serpent Typhon, whom the father-god Zeus slew.
She was associated with the serpent in her iconography as
well as her mythology: in her sanctuaries were found votive
offerings which included terracotta snakes. Hera was the ‘cow-
eyed’ (cf. Homer, Iliad 1.551); she thus has affinities with
bovine goddesses such as the Egyptian goddess Hathor. Hera,
like the Germanic consort- goddess Frigg, was able to bestow
the gift of prophecy (cf. the Scholia on Homer, Iliad 19.407),
and she gave wise advice to Zeus ( Homeric Hymn 3.345-
346). Hera had three surnames, which reflected three stages
of life: she was called ‘Child’; ‘The Completed One’ (that is,
matron); and ‘Widow’ (or, the divorced or abstinent woman)
(cf. Pausanias, Description of Greece 8.22.2). These life stages
were not linear but cyclical; each year she renewed her
virginity by bathing in the river Kanathus (Pausanias,
Description of Greece 2.38.2-3).
Roman Juno (Greek Hera) had much the same mythology
as Hera, as sister and wife of Jupiter (Greek Zeus). She too is
the consort-goddess, and as wife of Jupiter she is invoked as
both regina, ‘queen’, and mater, ‘mother’. Although Ares was
considered the son of both Hera and Zeus, Mars, the Roman
counterpart of Ares, was described as the parthenogenetic
offspring of Juno alone (Ovid, Fasti 5.231-232). Juno was a
transfunctional goddess, Juno S.M.R.: seispes ‘unblemished’
or ‘savior’, mater ‘mother’, regina ‘queen’. In her ritual grove
in Lanuvium, which was guarded by a serpent, the dictator
of Lanuvium made sacrifice to Juno Seispes alone, rather than
as consort of King Jupiter. On allotted days, young women
enter the grove bearing barley cakes. If the woman is a virgin,
the serpent will eat the cake, otherwise, the cake is rejected
and the maiden is duly punished. As a goddess of childbirth,
Juno was invoked by women in labor, and she assisted at
childbirth. In a ritual for Juno Luclna, in a grove under the
Esquiline Mount, young girls offered their backs, and were
struck with thongs; by this means, they believed that they
could achieve an easy conception. Juno was also worshipped
in the woodland grove of Aricia, where there were bloody
rites to determine the successorship of priests. Juno was
invoked for religious and political unity, along with the two
other deities of the Capitoline triad, Jupiter and Minerva (cf.
the Iranian invocations, found in many inscriptions, to the
triad Ahura Mazdah, Anahita and Mi0ra).
Frigg, the ‘loved one’ (cf. Av fryo ‘dear’, OInd priya ‘wife,
daughter’), was the Germanic wife of Odinn and protectress
of marriage. She represented marital chastity, similar to the
Greek Hera and the Romanjuno. She could foresee the future:
she ‘knows the whole of fate, even though she says nothing’
(Poetic Edda, ‘Lokasenna' 29).
In Tantric philosophy, the Indie goddess Sakti was the
principle of activating female energy. In singular form, Sakti
is manifested particularly as the consort of the god Siva, who
in turn represents static energy (cf. Saundaryalahan 1). Sakti
is one aspect of the ‘Great’-goddess, Dev!. As activating energy,
Sakti is personified as a plural deity as well as a singular one.
Each Sakti is the consort of a male deity. Sakti was the matron
goddess, the wife par excellence, similar to the Germanic Frigg
and the Greco-Roman Hera/Juno.
See also Goddesses; Love Goddess; Transfunctional
Goddess. (M.R.D.]
CONTEND
*h 3 enh 2 - ‘contend, quarrel’. \IEW 779 (*ono-); Puhvel
3:77-84]. Mir on ‘shame, disgrace, dishonor’, Grk ovopai
— 124 —
COPPER HOARD CULTURE
‘impugn, quarrel with’, Hit hann(a)- ‘contend (against),
contest, take legal action (against), sue’. Though only sparsely
attested, the geographical distribution of the attestations
strongly suggests PIE status for this word.
*mel- ‘argue, contend’, [cf. VW 302], ON mal ‘speech,
legal dispute’, OE m%l ‘speech, quarrel’, Grk proXsco (Cretan
pcoXico) ‘contend, bring an action in a suit’, p&Xoq ‘toil of
war, struggle’, avnpcoXoq ‘adversary in a suit’, TochB mal-
‘argue, contest’, moliye (< *mdluhien - or *moluhien-) ‘±
dispute’. Whether this word is further related to Lat moles
‘shapeless mass, bulk, pile’, molestus ‘troublesome, irksome,
grievous’ is unclear. With or without the Latin we have good
evidence for PIE antiquity for this word.
*reus- ‘± contend with, be angry at’, [cf: Mayrhofer II, 4711 .
MHG rusen ‘make a noise, uproar; rage, rave, bluster’, OInd
rosati ‘displeases, takes offense at’, rosayati 'angers, irritates’,
TochB ras- ‘± criticize, accuse, object to’. Sufficiently
widespread probably to guarantee its PIE status.
*h^erg w - ‘argue, assert’. [Puhvel 1:150; cf. Wat 3 (*arg-)].
Lat argud ‘assert, prove, accuse’, Hit arkuwai- (< *h^erg w -
eh a -ie/o - ) ‘plead, argue, make excuses’. Again, though found
only in two stocks, the geographical distribution would appear
to guarantee PIE status.
See also Anger; Speak; Threaten. [D.Q.A.]
COOK
*bhdg- ‘bake, roast’. [IEW 1 13 ( *bhdg-)\ Wat 6 ( *bhd-g-)\
Buck 5.24] . ON baka ‘to bake roast’, OE bacan ‘to bake, roast’
(> NE bake), OHG bahhan ‘to bake, roast’, Grk (p(oy(o ~ (p(p£co
(< *bhdg(i)e/o- with lengthened grade of an original iterative-
intensive verb) ‘roast, toast, parch’. Though not widely attested
the substantial agreement between Germanic and Greek is
certainly suggestive of this word’s antiquity, at least in the
west and center of the IE world.
*bhrg- ‘roast’. [IEW 137 ( *bher-)\ Wat 7 (6/ier-); GI 604
( *b h rek’-/*b h ruk ’-)]. Lat frigo ‘roast, bake, fry’, Grk cppUyco
‘roast’, MPers barstan ‘to roast, bake’, OInd bhyjjati ‘roasts’.
This cognate set exhibits numerous phonological difficulties.
The Old Indie and Middle Persian forms point to *bh[g- with
a palatal velar. The Latin and Greek forms are non-committal
with respect to the quality of the velar but differ in the quality
of the long vowel they each exhibit. It is probably safest to
reconstruct a root *bher- ‘roast’ which is attested in the various
languages, with several similar but different extensions.
*pek w - ‘cook, bake’. [IEW 798 (*pek y -); Wat 48
( *pek w -)\ GI 604 (*p h ek ho -): Buck 5.21). Weis pobiaf (<
*k w ek w - ) ‘bake’, Lat coquo (< *k w ek w -) ‘cook’, Lith kepu
‘bake’, La tv cepu ‘bake’ (Baltic with metathesis of p and k w ),
OCS pekp ‘bake, roast’, Alb pjek ‘bake’, Grk kegoco (< *pek-
i 0 -) ‘make ripen, cook’, Av pacaiti ‘cooks’, OInd pacati ‘cooks’,
TochA pak- ‘becomes ready for eating’, TochB pak- ‘becomes
ready for eating’. Distribution clearly indicates that this root
can be reconstructed to PIE. This is also the case for the
nominal derivative *pek w tis (noun) ‘(act of) cooking’: Lat
coctid ‘cooking’, OPrus pectis ‘fire shovel’, OCS pesti ‘cooking’,
Grk KE\fnq ‘act of cooking, ripening’, OInd pakti- ‘cooking,
cooked food’, which seems secure enough although all the
forms could conceivably be the result of parallel develop-
ments. Far less certain is the derivative *pek w ter- ‘cook (as
an agent)’ seen in Lat cocfor'cook’, Grk neKTpia ‘female baker’,
OInd pakrar- ‘cook’. The Greek form here cannot unproblem-
atically be connected with the Latin and Old Indie forms and
all three may well represent parallel formations so the case
for reconstructing the agent noun, a PIE ‘cook’, is weak.
*yer- ‘boil, cook’. [IEW 1166 (*uer-) ; Buck 5.21, 5.22;
BK 491 (*wur-/*wor-)\. Lith verdu ‘cook, boil’, Latv v^rdu
‘cook, boil’, OCS vfrjQ ‘cook, boil’. Hit war- ‘burn’, TochA
wratk- ‘cook’. It is possible that the Germanic adjective
*uarma- seen in ON varmr , OE wearm (> NE warm), OHG
warm ‘warm’ belongs with this set; it is likely, however, that
the Germanic form is a conflation of *yer- with the PIE root
*g w hermos~ *g w hormos seen in Lat form us ‘warm’, Alb zjarm
‘fire’, Grk Oeppoq ‘warm’. Arm jerm ‘warm’, Av gamma- ‘hot’,
OInd gharma- ‘glow, heat’. Although attested in relatively few
stocks, those that do are distributed across a wide geographic
range and hence the root can be reconstructed to PIE with a
fair degree of confidence.
See also Bon; Burn; Fire, Food; Hearth; Heat. [M.N.J
COOT
*bhel- ‘coot’. [IEW 119 (*bhel-)\. Lat fulica ‘coot’, OHG
belihha ~ pelihha ‘coot’, Grk (paXqpiq ‘coot’. This is the only
cognate set for the ‘coot’ and it clearly derives from a PIE
*bhel- but it cannot be derived from the root of that form
that means ‘bright, shiny’ since the coot is gray and quite
lackluster. Arm p‘a/ ~ p'alarik ‘coot’ is a loan from Greek.
There is also some similarity between Latv papis ‘coot’ and
Arm p‘arp‘ar ‘coot’ which may suggest onomatopoeia. The
coot is an odd water bird, favoring swamps and densely
vegetated marshes; its flesh is not particularly tasty and it
would require a fairly desperate eater to employ it for food. It
is known throughout the IE-speaking area.
See also Birds. U-A.C.G ]
COPPER see METAL
COPPER HOARD CULTURE
The Copper Hoard culture is primarily localized to the
middle Ganges region, and dates very approximately to the
period c 2000-1500 BC. Evidence for the culture is based
largely on the discovery of hoards of copper artifacts, primarily
consisting of harpoons, anthropomorphic figures (possible
weapons), swords with antenna hilts, several different types
of axes and a variety of ornaments. There is evidence that the
copper hoards were also associated with the so-called Ochre
Coloured Pottery (OCP).
The Copper Hoard culture has been variously attributed
to Harappan refugees and to Indo-Aryan invaders. The latter
theory, particularly promoted in the works of Robert Heine-
Geldern, was based on the stylistic similarity between certain
— 125 —
COPPER HOARD CULTURE
Copper Hoard a. Distribution of the Copper Hoard culture.
items in the Copper Hoards with more distant parallels west
of the Indus and as far away as Russia. This theory has
generally been abandoned although outside links are still
proposed, for example, with the BMAC, another candidate
for Proto-Indo-Aryan speakers. A major, and obvious, problem
with associating the Copper Hoard culture with the earliest
Indo-Aryans is that the culture was situated east of the region
generally attributed to the geographical world of the Vedic
Aryans. Harry Falk has suggested that it is more obviously
correlated with the Middle Vedic culture, in particular the
territory assigned to the Kuru-Pancalas. The weapons, with
the exception of the antenna-hilted swords, appear to be as
much psychological as functional, i.e., large multi-barbed
metal harpoons, anthropomorphic figures with hooked arms
that may have been launched with a rope, and large bar celts
which Falk identifies as the archaeological reality behind the
vajra , the special weapon assigned to the Old Indie god of
war, Indra. Falk has suggested that such weapons were intend-
ed to impress and terrify the indigenous populations of the
Ganges during the eastern expansion of the Indo-Aryans.
Further Readings
Falk, H. (1994) Copper hoard weapons and the Vedic vajra, in South
Asian Archaeology 1993, ed. A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio, I,
Helsinki, 193-206.
Copper Hoard b. Anthropomorph, which, along with the har-
poons and bar celts, has been identified with the vajra of Indra;
c. Barbed harpoons; d. Bar celts; e. Antenna sword.
— 126 —
CORDED WARE CULTURE
Heine-Geldem, R. (1936) Archaeological traces of the Vedic Aryans.
Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art 4, 87-1 15.
CORDED WARE CULTURE
The Corded Ware culture is the major north and central
European cultural grouping of the Copper Age during the
period c 3200-2300 BC. The culture, reflected primarily by
its burials, is known from the Netherlands and Switzerland
in the west, across southern Scandinavia and central Europe
as far east as the upper Volga (Fatyanovo-Balanovo culture)
in Russia and the middle Dnieper (Middle Dnieper culture)
in the Ukraine. The burials are typified by flexed inhumation
under a tumulus. Sexual distinctions are strongly marked with
males on their right side, accompanied by stone battle-axes,
beakers, arrowheads, and boar tooth pendants; females were
on their left side and provided with canine-tooth pendants,
and copper ornaments; both males and females were
accompanied by cord-decorated amphorae. The faces of the
deceased were directed to the south.
The Corded Ware culture(s) have long been regarded as
typically Indo-European because of the lack of settlements
which suggested a mobile pastoral economy (as was frequently
assumed for the earliest Indo-Europeans); their wide area of
distribution indicated rapid expansion at the appropriate time
for IE dispersals; they were seen to be intrusive in many areas
of Europe; the battle-axes were regarded as expressive of the
warlike propensities frequently attributed to the IE-speaking
peoples; their possession of both the horse and wheeled
vehicles correlated well with some of the more diagnostic
items of the reconstructed IE lexicon; their area of distribution
coincided with various IE stocks such as Germanic, Baltic
and Slavic; and no further significant cultural intrusion was
admitted into their region that might have subsequently
explained the emergence of IE stocks. For this reason, the
Corded Ware culture was originally supposed to represent
the PIE culture in theories that derived the Indo-Europeans
from the north European plain. Today, this theory has little
currency although the Corded Ware culture is still commonly
seen as ancestral to those IE peoples whose immediate origins
are sought across northern, central and parts of eastern
Europe, i.e., the Celts, Germans, Balts and Slavs. Some of the
other past generalizations must also be modified; for example,
there is clear evidence that the Corded Ware cultures did
engage in some agriculture. A Corded Ware pit from the site
of Bronicice in southeast Poland yielded traces of emmer
( Triticum dicoccum ) and bread ( Tritium aestivum ) wheat,
barley ( Hordeum vulgare), lentils (Lens esculenta), and pea
( Pisum sativum ) and the discovery of domestic pig on Corded
— 127 —
CORDED WARE CULTURE
Ware sites indicates that they could not have been (fully)
nomadic pastoralists.
Considerable controversy exists over the origins of the
Corded Ware culture and its associations with other cultural
groups. The distribution of the Neolithic TRB culture
coincides considerably with the later range of Corded Ware
sites and the physical type of Corded Ware burials tends to
reflect that of earlier populations of the same region. There is
little doubt that, at least in some regions, the earlier TRB
culture should be associated with the origins of the Corded
Ware horizon, e.g., in the Netherlands a Corded Ware house
has been discovered which parallels the form of earlier TRB
structures. In other areas, however, the appearance of Corded
Ware burials does appear to herald a new culture and physical
type, e.g., in Lithuania, although even here the numbers seem
to have been few and did not significantly alter the genetic
pool of the native population. A case study from southeast
Poland suggests that Corded Ware populations may have
taken advantage of local environmental and agricultural
collapse to occupy previously depopulated regions.
Supporters of the Kurgan theory have argued that the
immigrants from the steppe lands were a prime stimulus in
the development of the Corded Ware culture. They argue that
the Black Sea-Caspian region sees the earlier development of
tumulus burial, cord decorated pottery, a mobile pastoral
economy, domestication of the horse, use of wheeled vehicles,
and the supposedly warlike society suggested by the presence
of battle-axes. Opponents of such interpretations emphasize
that such similarities are not genetic, e g, tumuli and cord
decoration are widely found through the world and do not
require a uniquely Kurgan origin; the specific burial rile,
including posture and sexual dimorphism, are not found in
the Pontic-Caspian but can be found among late Neolithic
cultures in central Europe, e.g., the Tiszapolgar culture; local
environmental change can explain the shift towards more
mobile economies; the wild horse was regularly hunted in
the TRB culture; and wheeled vehicles also appear in the TRB
culture and do not require a Ukrainian or Russian origin.
From a purely archaeological standpoint, the origins and
dispersal of the Corded Ware culture is one of the pivotal
(and still unresolved) issues of the IE homeland problem.
See also Fatyanovo-Balanovo Culture; Indo-European
Homeland; Kurgan Tradition; Middle Dnieper Culture;
TRB Culture. (J.PM.l
Further Readings
Buchvaldek, M. (1980) Corded Pottery complex in Central Europe.
J1ES 8, 393-406.
Kristiansen, K. (1989) Prehistoric migrations — the case of the Single
Grave and Corded Ware cultures. Journal of Danish Archaeology
6, 211-225.
Milisauskas, S. and J. Kruk (1989) Economy, migration, settlement
organization, and warfare during the late Neolithic in southeastern
Poland. Germania 67, 77-96.
128 —
COSMOGONY
COSMOGONY
Although there is a variety of creation myths among the
various IE-speaking peoples, there are also a sufficient number
of common elements to suggest the existence of an underlying
PIE myth or myths whose general structure can be at least
partially recovered. The creation myths may be divided into
two broad elements — a cosmogonic myth that explains the
origins of both the physical and social worlds, and a
“foundation” myth that is more directly associated with the
origins of mankind (anthropogonic) or the establishment of
specific peoples.
Cosmogonic Myth
The cosmogonic myth is centered on the dismemberment
of a divine being — either anthropomorphic or bovine — and
the creation of the universe out of its various elements. In the
Old Norse Grlmnismal (40-41), the giant Ymir is dissected
so that the mountains are formed from his bones, heaven
from his skull, the trees from his hair, etc. (cf. also the Old
Irish Tain which climaxes with the dismemberment of a
mythic bull into the various features of the Irish landscape).
This pattern of cosmogonic dissection is also seen in the Old
Russian Stic o golubinoj knig (‘Poem of the Dove King’) where
the Christian god’s face yields the sun, his breast the moon,
his eyes, the dawn, etc. The Christianization of the myth is
not limited to the Slavs but is also found in Celtic (BM MS
4783, folio 7a) and Germanic (Frisian Code of Emsig) sources
where Adam’s body is derived from elements of the physical
universe. Greco-Roman traditions offer us Ovid’s account of
Atlas in the Metamorphoses (4.655-662) which relates how
the giant’s beard and hair become forests, his bones become
stone, his hands the ridges of mountains, etc. The Middle
Persian Skend Gumanlg Wizar{ 16.8-20) of the ninth century
AD describes how the physical world derives from the body
of the evil demon Kunl, whose skin yields the sky, his flesh
the earth, his bones provide the mountains, and his hair
becomes the plants. The Old Indie Purusasukta (c 900 BC)
from the Rgveda describes how Purusa, the (primeval) ‘man’,
was divided so that his eye became the sun, his mouth the
fire, his breath became the wind, his feet the earth, etc. Such
evidence presents a relatively consistent set of alloforms
between the anatomy of the host source and that of the
physical world (or vice-versa). The most frequent correlations,
or better, derivations, are the following: Flesh = Earth, Bone
= Stone, Hair = Plants, Blood = Water (the sea, etc.), Eyes =
Sun, Mind = Moon, Brain = Cloud, Head = Heaven, Breath =
Wind.
The underlying structure of the cosmogonical myth is
reversible, i.e., it also yields an anthropogonic myth where
the various sources speak of the constitution of the human
body as its various parts are made from the elements cited
above, e.g., wind becomes breath, plants become hair. This
“atomization” of the human body, which is particularly evident
in Greek biological tradition, also underlies IE approaches to
medicine and related behavior, e.g., the cure for baldness often
involves the application of the alloform of hair, i.e., plants,
while there are widespread traditions that shorn hair should
be planted in the ground (e.g., burial of the hair of the Roman
Flamen Dialis, the Avestan injunction to bury hair and nails
in the ground, the Old Indie Cudakarman where the child’s
first tonsure is planted with a kusa root, the Slavic folk custom
of burying shorn hair).
This anatomical cosmology is also seen to extend into the
social world since the divisions of the primeval man not only
account for the physical world but also for the social divisions
of society. The class divisions derive vertically from the
anatomy of the initial victim. The head is the source of the
priesthood and is the seat of thought, perception and speech
while the warrior class, logically enough, is derived from the
upper torso, in particular the arms, which provide strength,
and the breast is the seat of courage. As the lower class of
commoners is essentially defined by subsistence pursuits
where fertility will be the overriding factor, it is the lower
torso with both its sexual organs or its euphemistic symbols
of the same, e.g., the knee, that provides this social division.
In addition, just as the legs support the body, the herding-
cultivating class is seen to support the higher social divisions
of their own society.
It has been occasionally claimed that one can discern
iconographic representation of the Indo-European creation
myth in the stone stelae of the early Bronze Age in the Alpine
region. Here there is a long tradition of expressing mythic
concepts in stone at sites such as Val Camonica and some of
the stelae, which depict a possible sunburst at the head and
repeated elements such as weapons, have been interpreted,
on grounds far more obvious to the proposer than others, as
clear reflections of the original cosmogonic or Purusa figure.
Foundation Myth
Clearly related in structure is the other IE creation myth
that comprises a primeval sacrifice of 'Twin’ by his brother
‘Man’. The myth is seen in Indo-Iranian, Germanic and Roman
tradition. In the Indie sources the figures are Yama ‘twin’ and
Manu ‘man’. Yama is the first mortal to die and he establishes
the otherworid; Manu is the ancestor of mankind, first king,
originator of sacrifice and legendary composer of the Manu-
smfti , the Tradition or Law of Manu. Yama is seen as the
sacrificial victim of his ‘brother’ Manu which sets creation in
motion. The Iranian equivalent of Yama was Yama Xsaeta who,
after sinning, is deprived of his royal halo ( xvaronah ) which
is then dispersed to the patrons of the three social classes and
who is cut in half by his brother. The Germanic myth,
preserved best in Tacitus’s Germania (2) records the origin of
the Germans from a primeval Tuisto (from the root ‘two’ and
often taken to mean ‘twin’ or perhaps ‘bisexual’) and his son
Mannus ‘man’ (and cognate with OInd Manu ) who generate
the three social classes of the Germans (as was also the case
in Iran). The Ymir (< Gmc *Yumiyaz ) of the Norse creation
myth noted above as an example of the cosmogonic myth
also means ‘twin’ and is cognate, some would argue, with the
129 —
COSMOGONY
Cosmogony North Italian stela from Bagnolo which has been
interpreted as a purusa- stela, e.g., the sun is placed in the
highest registrar and is seen as an alloform for the “eye”, the
weapons have been claimed to represent the multi-armed
nature of the primeval giant.
OInd Yama. The familiar foundation legend of Rome also
preserves elements of the same mythological structure. The
city of Rome is established by two brothers Romulus and
Remus, the latter of whom is despatched by his brother for
violating a taboo and jumping the encircling ditch of the city
or Romulus himself was dismembered by the senate as a
tyrant. The sacrifice of a twin brother at the act of creation,
although heavily “historicized” in Roman legend, may even
retain a linguistic resonance since the very name of Remus
may derive from a Proto-Latin *Yemos or *Yemonos ‘twin’
(and from the same root as OInd Yama and ON Ymir) whose
initial was altered in association with the ‘R’ of Romulus.
Finally, and with very little of the mythic structure intact, the
medieval Irish explained the foundation of the capital of the
province of Ulster, Emain Macha, with reference to a story
concerning the birth of twins, OIr emon (and cognate with
the Proto-Latin *Yemonos). Although elements of this
“foundation” myth may be found separate from the
cosmogonic myth, there is sufficient evidence for positing a
single PIE creation myth involving the sacrifice of a PIE *‘Twin’
and his subsequent dismemberment to bring about the world.
Cosmogony and Sacrifice
In both the cosmogonic myth and the foundation element
of it, one of the central aspects is the notion of sacrifice (of a
brother, giant, bovine, etc.). The relationship between sacrifice
and cosmogony was not solely that of a primordial event but
the entire act of sacrifice among the Indo-Europeans might
be seen as a re-creation of the universe where elements were
being continuously recycled. The continuity of the creative
aspects of sacrifice is, for example, recorded by Tacitus
( Germania 39) who describes how the ancient Semnones
sacrificed a man on a fixed occasion where representatives of
all their peoples had assembled in recollection or perhaps
better, re-enactment, of the origins of their race. Similar
practices may be found among other IE traditions where the
victim sacrificed, e.g., the cow in ancient Rome or among the
Persians, the horse in ancient India, would be anatomically
dispersed in a pattern that reflected the prevailing models of
cosmic or social partitioning of the universe. Sacrifice thus
represents a creative re-enactment of the initial cosmic
dismemberment of a victim and it helps restore the material
stuff to the world
See also Ancestor God; Comparative Mythology;
Cosmology; Creator; Divine Twins; Eschatology, Horse;
Sacrifice; Stelae; War of the Foundation. [J.RM.]
Further Readings
Lincoln, Bruce (1986) Myth, Cosmos and Society: Indo-European
Themes of Creation and Destruction. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard
University Press.
Puhvel, Jaan (1975) Remus et Frater. History of Religions 15, 146-
157.
COSMOLOGY
Cosmology is the world view of a people, a system by which
the constituent elements of their universe are related with
one another. It is to be contrasted with cosmogony which
concerns the origin of the universe itself or eschatology which
describes the end of a universe. A clearly reconstructible
cosmology of Proto-Indo-European eludes us although there
are certain major widespread patterns that suggest elements,
possibly conflicting, of early IE cosmological systems.
Polarity and Direction
The vocabulary of the various IE stocks relating to direction
clearly suggests that the early Indo-Europeans (as well as their
later successors) participated in the widespread partitioning
of the universe into right and left. For the early Indo-
Europeans, the right hand and right side ( *deKsi-nos/ -uos/ -
teros ; *hjregtos ) was associated with concepts of male,
strength, health, straight, and other “positive” aspects. The
associations are persistent both in PIE and in the later
evolution of the various IE stocks, e.g., Lat dexter ‘right; handy,
dexterous, skilful; of good omen, favorable, propitious' or
the semantic range of NE right. Even more recent formations
would attract similar semantic bundles, e.g , OE swift ‘strong.
i
— 130 —
COSMOLOGY
mighty’ but comparative swidre ‘right (hand)’. Conversely,
the left ( *laiuos\ *seuios\ *skaiuos) was regarded as female,
weaker, unhealthy, crooked, and an assortment of “negative”
qualities, e.g., Olr c/e ‘left; malign, inauspicious, sinister, bad’,
Weis chwith ‘left; strange; sad’, Lat sinister ‘left; wrong,
perverse’. This dichotomy was not only lexical but also
behavioral where the right side of a tent, house, table, etc.,
may be assigned to the male or the honored guests and the
left side is regarded as inferior. Archaeologically, a number of
Neolithic and later cultures of Europe and Asia (e.g., the
Corded Ware and Bishkent cultures) mark the sex of the
deceased by burying males on their right side and- females on
their left.
The reason for the dichotomization according to side is
probably based on the anatomical universal which favors right-
handedness. This system, however, has also crossed with the
method of reckoning the cardinal directions among the early
Indo-Europeans. The lexical evidence makes it clear that in
IE culture one quite literally “oriented” oneself by facing the
sun. In so doing one faced the rising sun in the east and hence
the north would be on one’s left side while the propitious
right side faced south. This can be seen, for example, in Celtic
(Olr dess ‘right; south’, Weis dehau ‘right; south’) and OInd
daksina- ‘right; south’. Terms for north, however, are built on
words for ‘left’, e.g., Olr focla ‘north’ from c/e ‘left; sinister,
unpropitious’, Weis gogledd ‘north’ from cledd ‘left’; the
Germanic words for ‘north’ (ON nordr , OE norp , OHG nord-
an ) but Umb nertru ‘left’.
Other systems of binary opposition are proposed in the
cosmological schemes of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov who posit
a system of contrasting categories. For example, they argue
that all living things were classed as animate (animals) and
inanimate (plants). The former was then divided into wild
and “not-wild” animals; the “not-wild” were divided into those
that spoke and were rational and those who weren’t; the
rational ones were divided into those that were terrestrial/
mortal and those that were celestial/immortal, etc. An
underlying binary system was, they argue, based on the IE
social practice involving cross-cousin marriage where women
were exchanged between two moieties. The actual evidence
for such a marriage system, much less support for the explicit
system of oppositions that they propose for PIE, is hardly
conclusive.
Three Worlds
Another recurrent pattern observed in the early religious
literature of a number of IE stocks, Greece and India in
particular, suggests a physical tripartition of the universe. The
basic pattern, according to Jean Haudry, is a universe
consisting of three rotating skies, each marked by its own
deities, its own color and social associations. Each realm marks
out a specific sphere of influence which cannot be infringed
upon by a different realm, e.g., in the Iliad Zeus, the Greek
reflection of the PIE god of the diurnal sky, cannot extend his
powers into the night. According to Haudry, one may posit
an original system where the diurnal sky is the home of the
PIE sky god (e.g. , Lat Jupiter, Grk Zeus, OInd Dyaus) and the
associated color is white or, at least, bright. The night sky is
the home of deities such as Grk Ouranos and the associated
color is dark or black. The dawn and twilight provide the
realm of the Lat Saturnus, Grk Kronos, OInd Savitp and the
color here is red. The skies rotate around a common pole
(axis mundi) whose reflection as a post, pillar or enormous
tree is found across the various IE stocks. In their own treat-
ment of IE cosmology, T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov propose
that all living things were grouped into three main zones about
the “world tree”, i.e., upper, middle and lower world.
The three skies and their deities, according to Haudry, are
replicated in the generational myths of the Indo-Europeans,
e.g., the “kingship in heaven” theme, which exhibit a succes-
sion of divinities ruling until the present generation (e.g.,
Greek Ouranos > Kronos > Zeus), the various schemes for
the “ages of the world” found, in particular, in Greek (Hesiod
where the cycle begins with the black night of Ouranos,
followed by the red [Golden] age of Kronos, then the white
[Silver] age of Zeus) and Indie tradition, the color-codes of
the social classes in various IE societies, e.g., Germanic
( Rlgspula ) where Jarl (noble) is of a white complexion, Karl
(free farmer) is red and Praell (slave) is black, Indo-Iranian
(white = priest, red = warrior, dark = herder-cultivator).
Haudry has also argued that the diurnal cycle of day-
twilight-night provided the early Indo-Europeans with a
homology on which was also based their view of the time in
general, e.g., the year was similarly conceived of in terms of a
diurnal part, a twilight and a night, and this was extended to
eschatology where all existence confronts a twilight and a
night.
Three Functions
The most widely accepted cosmology of the Indo-
Europeans is the “social” cosmology as elaborated by Georges
Dumezil and his followers. Like Haudry’s tripartite cosmic
system, the central element of Dumezil’s system is a tripartite
division of the world, here seen as primanly social rather than
physical. According to this system the earliest Indo-Europeans
and their successors have inherited a mental template that
naturally divides their social world into three basic spheres
of activity: judicial-religious, defensive, and procreative, or,
in terms of social roles, that of priests, warriors, and herder-
cultivators. The system is expressed and elaborated from the
level of high myth to folk-tale where the totality of society is
invariably expressed as a union of these three social elements.
The tripartition of the Dumezilian school is ideological and
not necessarily practical, i.e., it does not require one to imagine
a PIE society with well defined social classes or castes but
rather it attributes to the speakers of the proto-language only
a mental map of their universe.
See also Comparative Mythology; Cosmogony;
Eschatology ; Left ; Right . (] . R M . ]
COSMOLOGY I
Cotofeni b. Fortified settlement at Castrele Triane; c. Handled cup; d. Amphora; e. Shaft-hole ax; f. Bronze dagger.
Further Readings
Gamkrelidze, T. and V Ivanov (1995) Indo-European and the Indo-
Europeans. 2 vols. Berlin and New York, Mouton.
Haudry, J. (1987) La religion cosmique des Indo-Europeens. Milan
and Paris, Arche.
Meid, W (1987) Zur Vorstellungswelt der Indogermanen anhand
des Wortschatzes, in Studien zum Indogermanischen Wortschatz,
ed. W Meid, Innsbruck, 155-166.
Littleton, C. S. (1982) The New Comparative Mythology. Berkeley
and Los Angeles, University of California.
0 km 500
COTOFENI CULTURE
Cotofeni is an early Bronze Age culture (c 3300-2500 BC)
of western Romania and adjacent parts of Serbia and Bulgaria.
Sites are primarily to be found in the upland regions, the
lower areas given over to other cultures. Variations in the
amount of settlement debris and the presence of Cotofeni
material in upland caves suggest that there was a mobile
component to the society as well as a stable element that
resided in hilltop sites, promontories, or settlements defended
by concentric ditches. Dwellings range from small pit-
dwellings to surface structures up to 8 m long. Rudimentary
metallurgy existed with the production of arsenical bronzes
(awls, daggers and ornaments) while tools continued to be
fashioned of stone (axes) and flint, bone and antler. Marked
similarities with the neighboring Usatovo culture have been
observed in the production of metalwork, especially daggers,
which also have parallels in the Aegean. There are some clay
On
Cotofeni a. Distribution of the Cotofeni culture.
— 132 —
COUSIN
figurines, both anthropomorphic and zoomorphic (oxen). The
ceramics belong to the horizon of Balkan-Danubian wares
which now see the proliferation of drinking vessels, both
beakers and especially single-handled drinking cups. Painted
and other decorated pottery also continued in the Co^ofeni
culture. Burials are infrequently encountered and may involve
both inhumations and cremations and there is some evidence
for the use of barrows over graves.
The origins of the Cotofeni culture have been sought in
both local late Neolithic cultures and new elements
(Cernavoda 111) which in themselves are derived from the
Pontic-steppe cultures. In the Kurgan model of IE expansions,
the Co^ofeni culture is seen to be an amalgam of native non-
IE Balkan population with elements of the intrusive steppe
cultures (barrows, some ceramics, arsenical bronzes). The
culture is then seen to develop broader links with other
Balkan-Danubian cultures, in particular Baden and Ezero, and
more distantly with Troy.
See also Baden Culture; Cernavoda Culture;
Ezero Culture; Kurgan Tradition. [J.PM.]
Further Reading
Roman, P (1977) The Late Copper Age Colofeni Culture of South-
East Europe.Oxiord, BAR Supplementary Series 32.
COUGH
*k w ehaS- ‘cough’. [1EW 649 (*k y as-); Buck 4.53], Mir
cosachtach ‘act of coughing’ (presupposing a *casacht ~
*cosacht ‘cough’), Weis pesychaf ‘cough’, ON hdsti ‘cough’,
hosta ‘cough’ (vb.), OE hwosta ‘cough’, hwdsan ‘cough’ (vb.),
OHG huosta ‘cough’, Lith kosulys ‘cough’, kosiu ‘cough’ (vb.),
Latv kaseju ‘cough’ (vb.), OCS kasill ‘cough’, Alb kolle (<
*k w ehasleh a -) ‘cough’, OInd kasate ‘coughs’ (vb.), TochB kosi
‘cough’. Though not found in Hittite, almost pan-IE in
distribution. Certainly the PIE word for ‘cough’.
?*pster- ‘sneeze’. [IEW 846-847 ( *pster-)\ Wat 53
( *pster-)\ Buck 4.54] . OIr sreod ‘sneeze’, Weis ystrew ‘sneeze’,
Lat stemud ‘sneeze’, Grk Kxdpvvfiai ‘sneeze’, Arm p'rngam
‘sneeze’. These words may be independent onomatopoeic
creations. PIE status doubtful.
?*skeu- (or *kseu - ) ‘sneeze’. \IEW 953 (*skdu-); Buck
4.54], Lith skiaudziu ‘sneeze’, Latv sjcau/u ‘sneeze’, OInd
ksauti ‘sneezes’. Again there is a strong possibility of
onomatopoeia here. PIE status doubtful.
[D.Q.A.]
COUNT see NUMBER
COUNTRY
*plth 2 -u-ih a - ‘country, land (< the broad one)’. [IEW 833
(*plld-uf)\ cf. Wat 51-52 ( *plat-)\ G1 684 (*pMH-); Buck
12.71, 1.21], MIr Letha (Brittany), Weis Llydaw (Brittany),
OE folde ‘land’, Lith plat-us ‘wide’, Grk TlXdxaia (place
name). Arm hoi ‘earth, country’, Av paroOwi ‘surface’, OInd
pfthivf ‘earth’. With a different formation but similar meaning
is OIr lathar ‘place’. From *pleth 2 - ‘broad and flat’.
Distribution clearly suggests PIE status. In both OInd Pj-thivf
and Celtic, e g., Gaul Litavi(s), the word for the land has been
turned into that of a female goddess and suggests either a
parallel development or reflection of an earlier IE concept of
divinized land.
In most IE languages, the terms for ‘country’ are generally
derived from such notions as ‘place’, e g., Grk ytopG ‘space,
place, country’ or productive concepts such as ‘land, earth,
ground, soil’ when used to express the surface on which one
lives, e.g., Lat terra ‘land’, Lith zeme ‘land’. At times a ‘tract of
land’ is also employed, e g., Lat pagus or a circumscribed
. area, e g., Lat fines ‘boundary’, OInd desa- ‘region’ or janapada-
{<jana- L race’ + pada- ‘place’). More distantly related are OCS
polje ‘field’ and Arm hoi ‘earth, country’. Other creations are
‘one’s own country’ which may be formed from compounds
involving kinship terms such as Bret mamvro (< mamm
‘mother’ + bro ‘country’) or Grk 7tarp(g, Lat patria, OE
faederedel, OHG fathervodil , Lith tevyne, Latv tevija ~ tevzeme
‘fatherland’.
See also Flat. [A.D.V.]
COUSIN
No exclusive term can be reconstructed for PIE for any of
the four different types of cousin (‘mother’s sister’s child’,
‘father’s brother’s child’, ‘father’s sister’s child’ and ‘mother’s
brother’s child’), nor to any subclass such as parallel- (in which
the linking parents are of the same sex, i.e. , two brothers or
two sisters) or cross-cousins (the children of brothers and
sisters) or patrilateral or matrilateral. If our inability to make
such a reconstruction indicates a genuine absence of special
terms, then we can probably exclude the Eskimo, Sudanese
and Iroquois systems. This would suggest that PIE labelled
these kin types with extensions of pre-existing terms and that
it was most likely to have been of the Hawaiian, Crow or
Omaha type, i.e., where ‘brother’, ‘sister’, ‘son’ or ‘daughter’
or some other term may have been “extended” to denote the
cousins. There is some evidence that as the IE stocks develop-
ed, they did distinguish between parallel cousins but not
between cross cousins. Evidence for this can be seen in Old
Norse where brcedrungr designated the ‘father’s brother’s son’
but systrungr designated the ‘son of mother’s sister’ , both cross-
cousins (father’s sister’s son, mother’s brother’s son) were
designated by the same term, systkinabam. Similarly in Latin
the ‘father’s brother’s son’ was frater patruelis , the ‘mother’s
sister’s son’ was frater consobrinus while both cross-cousins
could be labelled amitinus.
An older situation, also seen in Latin, was to extend the
words for ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ to cousins, certainly to the
children of the father’s brother and possibly to other cousins
as well. Thus ‘father’s brother’s son’ might be frater patruelis ,
patruelis or simply frater. In Greek the inherited word for
‘brother’ was almost everywhere replaced by ddeAtpeoq but
remained as ‘member of a phratry, kinsman’ (< *‘cousin’).
Likewise the inherited word for sister ( eop ) is found once in
133 —
COUSIN
Hesychius and glossed as ‘daughter of a cousin’. Other
evidence that words for ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ were more widely
applied than just to siblings is provided by such replacements
for the inherited words as Grk d8eX(pe6g ‘brother’, dSeX(p(e)ri
‘sister’ (< *srp-g w elbhes-o/eh a - ‘having the same womb’), Lat
([rater) germanus ‘own brother’, (soror) germana ‘own sister’
(> Spanish hermano ‘brother’, hermana ‘sister’), Olr
derbrathair ‘brother’ (< *‘true brother’), derbsiur ‘sister’ (<
*‘true sister’), Alb moter(< *motre < *meh a tr-eh a - ) ‘sister’ (<
*‘matemal, i.e., uterine [sister)]’). The presence of the Old
Persian adjectives hamapitar- ‘having the same father’ and
hamatar- ‘having the same mother’ point in the same direction.
As already noted, this extension of ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ to
‘father’s brother’s son’ and ‘father’s brother’s daughter’
respectively is certain in many IE stocks. As most of the
historical data from which we derive our knowledge of Latin,
Old Persian, etc., kinship terminologies were most interested
in specifying paternal relatives, the lack of good examples of
a similar extension to maternal cousins (or even to ‘father’s
sister’s son or daughter’) may simply reflect accidental gaps
in the record. Certainly those kinship types which do typically
show extensions of ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ to cousins (Omaha,
Crow, Iroquois) almost always include the children of the
mother’s sister along with the father’s brother’s (i.e., all parallel-
cousins) in that extension. One might also note that the lack
of clear evidence for separate cousin terms in PIE is one of
the negative lines of argument against the proposition that
PIE society practiced cross-cousin marriage.
See also Kinship; Marriage. [M.E.H., D.Q.A.]
COVER
*R el- ‘conceal, cover’. [IEW 553-554 (*Rel-)\ Wat 28
( *kel-)\ Buck 12.26]. Olr ceilid ‘conceals, dissembles’, Lat
celo (with lengthened vocalism) ‘conceal’, occulo(< *ob-kelo )
‘cover, hide’, ON hylja (zero-grade) ‘to cover’, OE helan ‘to
conceal’, OHG helan ‘to conceal’, Goth huljan (zero-grade)
‘to cover’, Grk KaXvnTG) (zero-grade vocalism with labial
extension, perhaps influenced by KpvjtTCo ‘hide’) ‘cover’.
Semantically, this set poses little difficulty and is recon-
structible at least to the west and center of the IE world.
*kem- ‘cover’. [IEW 556-557 (*/cem-);BK 353 (*q[ h ]am-/
*q[ h ]9m-)}. Late Lat camlsia ‘linen-shirt, nightgown’ (< Gaul?),
ON hamr ‘skin, slough’, hams ‘snake’s slough; husk’, OE hama
‘dress, covering’, ham ‘undergarment’, hemed ‘shirt’, OInd
samula- ‘thick woolen shirt’, sami- ‘pod, legume’. The
distribution of attestations would seem to assure PIE status.
*(s)keu(hx)~ cover, wrap’. [/£W95 1-953 ( *(s)keu-)\ Wat
60 ( *(s)keu -)] . As a verbal form this is only attested in Olnd
skunati ‘covers’ where the meaning ‘cover’ may well be late
and its earlier meanings: ‘poke around, hunt around, tear’
suggest that its status as a cognate is doubtful. There are,
however, numerous nominal formations which are readily
reconstructible to the proto-language suggesting that the
underlying verbal root must be older. For example, OE sceo
(< *skeuhxO- ) ‘± cloud’, scuwa (< *skuhxOn-) ‘shade, darkness;
protection’, OHG scuwo ‘shadow’, Arm c‘iw(< *skeu(h x )o-)
‘roof, cover’; Lat ob-scurus (< *kuh x -r-) ‘dark, obscure’
(< ‘covered’); *kuhx-l- ‘cover; covered area’: Olr cu/‘hind part,
nape of neck’, Weis cil ‘corner, hind part’, Lat cuius ‘bottom,
buttocks’, ON skjol ‘shelter, refuge’, Lith kevalas ‘skin, cover’,
Latv caula ‘skin, cover’, Grk cncvXoq ‘pelt, skin’; *(s)keu-t-
‘skin, hide’: Weis cwd ‘scrotum’, Lat cuf/s'hide’, ON hud ‘hide’,
OE hyd 1 hide’ (> NE hide), OHG hut ‘hide’, Lith kutys ‘purse,
money-belt’, kiautas'case, cover’, Grk cnd}TO£‘hide, leather’.
*(s)teg - ‘cover’. [IEW 1013-1014 {*(s)teg-)\ Wat 65
( *(s)teg-) ; GI 49 (*(s)t h ek’-)\ Buck 12.26; BK 135 ( *t’aq V
*t’9q’-)]. Lat tego ‘cover’, ON pekja ‘to cover, clothe’, OE
peccan ‘ to cover’ (> NE thatch ), OHG decchen ‘to cover’, Lith
stiegiu ‘put on a thatch roof’, Grk ctzeyco ‘cover, protect’, OInd
sthagayatV covers, hides’. The -th- in Old Indie is problematic
and may point to a non-IE origin. Aside from this form, the
cognate set is unproblematic and may be reconstructed to at
least western and central IE with reasonable certainty
*yer- ‘surround, cover, contain’. [IEW 1160-1162
{*uer-)\ Wat 77 (*wer-); GI 645 (*uer-); Buck 12.26], Olr
ferenn (< *u.er-eno-) ‘girdle, belt’, Lat aperio (< *ap-uer-io-)
‘open, uncover’, ON verja ‘hinder, forbid’, OE werian ‘guard,
hinder, forbid’, OHG wer(r)en ~ werien ‘hinder, forbid’, Goth
warjan ‘hinder, forbid’, Alb varr ‘grave’, Grk epvpai
(< *ueru-) ‘protect’, Hit warrai- ‘come to aid’, Av aiwi-
vdrmvaiti ‘conceals’, OInd vpioti ‘covers, surrounds’. The
Greek form is problematic because of the absence of the
expected initial digamma and an original prothetic vowel has
been suggested, i.e., e-(f)epv-. In Germanic the meaning
‘surround, cover’ has shifted to ‘hinder’. The Albanian meaning
‘grave’ may have developed from the raised mound of earth
which normally covers a grave (cf. ON urd ‘heap of stones,
rubble’).
See also Back 1 ; Clothing; Roof; Shadow; Skin. [M.N.]
COW
*g w 6us (gen. *g w 6us) ‘cow’ (in both the English senses:
‘adult female bovine’ and ‘bovine of any age or sex’) ( Bos
taurus). [/EW 482-483 ( *g?ou-)\ Wat 26 ( *g w ou-)\ GI 482-
483 (*/c°u-); Buck 3.20, 3.22, 3.23; BK 346 ( *k’ w uw -/
*k’ w ow-)[ . Olr bo ‘cow’, MWels buch ‘cow’, Umb (acc.) bum
‘cow’, Lat bos ‘cow’ (though the initial b- rather than the
expected *v- may reflect the influence of some other Italic
dialect), ON kyr ‘cow’, OE cu ‘cow’ (> NE cow), OHG chuo
‘cow’, Latv guovs ‘cow’, OCS gov^zdl ‘of cattle’, go-muno
‘threshing floor’, perhaps Alb ka ‘cow’ (pi. qe) which would
be regular from *g w ous, pi. *g w oues, except for unexpected
k- rather than *g- (influenced by the PIE word for ‘horn’?),
Myc qo-u- ‘cow’, Grk fiovg ‘cow’. Arm kov, HierLuv wawa-
‘cow’, Av gaus ‘cow’, OPers gav ‘cow’, Oss qug ~ yog ‘cow’,
OInd gau- ‘cow’, TochA ko ‘cow’, TochB keu ‘cow’; cf. the
widespread derivative *g w ouios in Grk Tcooapdfioiog ‘worth
four cows’, Arm kogi ‘butter’, Av gavya- ‘pertaining to cows’,
OInd gavya — gavya- ‘pertaining to cows’, TochB kewiye
‘butter’. Also of interest is the equation of Grk eKavoppr]
134 —
cow
‘sacrifice’ (cf. OPers Oatagu- place name), OInd satagvin-
‘consisting of a hundred cows’, both reflecting a PIE
*krpto(m)-g w u-o- and with elements reversed in Grk
Bovicariog name of a month in Boeotia, Delphi, Aetolia, etc.,
Olnd gosatam ‘pertaining to a hundred cattle’. Widespread
and old in IE. This word has variously been connected with
Sumerian gui ~ gud ‘bull’ and/or Ancient Egyptian gw ‘bull’
under the assumption that the PIE word might be borrowed
from some Near Eastern source or with Old Chinese *i?9U
‘cow’ with the possibility that the Chinese word might be
borrowed from some IE source. Either suggestion is a possibi-
lity but neither is necessary and an onomatopoeic origin for
this word in the various families cannot be entirely ruled out.
*hiegh- ‘cow’. [/£W7 ( *agh -); Buck 3.23; BK 365 ( *ag -/
*3g-)\. OIr ag{< *aghes-) ‘cow’, ag allaid 1 stag’ (< *‘wild ox’),
al ‘brood, litter’, Weis ael ‘brood, litter’, eilion ~ eilion ‘fallow
deer; horses’, Arm ezn ‘cow’, Av azi- ‘giving milk’, OInd ahl-
‘cow’. This word is usually reconstructed as *h a egh- but such
a reconstruction makes it impossible to include Arm ezn ‘cow’.
The Indo-Iranian forms are ambiguous as to whether the initial
vowel was *hie- or *h a eg only the Celtic seems to require
*h a e-. However, there is some precedent for an initial *e-
appearing as a- in Celtic, cf. OIr aig ‘ice’ from *iegi~. As the
word is attested at the margins of the IE world this strongly
suggests PIE status.
*yoJcdh ir ‘cow’. [IEW 1 1 1 1 ( *uaka)\ Wat 73 ( *wak-)\ Buck
3.231. Lat vacca (with expressive gemination) ‘cow’, OInd
vasi ‘cow’. Another word whose attestations on the margins
of the IE world would seem to guarantee PIE status. What, if
any, was the exact semantic difference between this word and
the previous two is impossible to recover. Though purely
speculative, one might suggest ‘heifer’.
*ukf w ^sen- ‘ox’. [IEW 1118 (*uk v sen-)\ Wat 74 ( *uk w s -
en-)\ GI 483 ( *uk ho s-en-)\ Buck 3.22]. OIr os(s) ‘stag, cow’
(transferred from the domesticated animal to the
“corresponding” wild one), Weis ych ‘ox’, ON oxi ‘ox’, OE
oxa ‘ox’ (> NE ox), OHG oxa ‘ox’, Goth auhsa ‘bull’, Av ux$an-
‘bull’, OInd uksan- ‘bull’, TochB okso ‘draft-ox’. Widespread
and old in IE.
*tauros ‘aurochs; bull’ (in its first meaning = Bos
primigenius). [IEW 1083 ( *t9uro-s)\ Wat 69 ( *tauro -); GI
439 ( *t h auro-)\ Buck 3.21], OIr tarb ‘bull’, Weis tarw ‘bull’,
Gaul tarvos ‘bull’ (Celtic < metathesized * tamos), Lat taurus
‘bull’, Umb (acc. pi.) tumf ‘bulls’, ON pjorr ‘bull’ (as if <
*teuro- , the vowel has been influenced by the Germanic
descendants of *steuro- ‘large [domestic] animal’), OPrus
tauris ‘bison’, Lith tauras ‘aurochs; bull’ (borrowed from Baltic
is Estonian tarvas ‘aurochs’), OCS turn ‘aurochs; bull’, Rus
tur ‘aurochs; mountain goat’, Alb tarok ~ tarog ‘bull’, Grk
rcri)po£ ‘bull’ , Khot ttura - ‘mountain goat’. Widespread and
old in IE. Only those stocks whose speakers remained in areas
where Bos primigenius was to be found have retained the
earlier meaning ‘aurochs; bull’. One might note the similar
concatenation of meanings in NE boar ‘wild swine; adult male
(domesticated) pig’. These words have often been taken to be
related in some fashion to Arabic twr , Hebrew sor, Akkadian
suru, all ‘steer’, whether because the PIE words were borrowed
from Semitic, the Semitic words were borrowed from PIE,
both languages borrowed from a third source, or the similarity
is evidence of the ultimate genetic relationship of PIE and
Semitic.
?*usr- ‘aurochs’. Lat urus ‘aurochs’ (borrowed from Ger-
manic according to Caesar, from Celtic according to Macro-
bius), ON urr (gen. urar) ‘aurochs’, Swed (dial.) ure ‘ferocious
bull’, OE ur ‘aurochs, bison’, OHG uro ~ urochso ‘aurochs’,
Goth uraz (name of a rune) (all < Proto-Gmc *uru - , possibly
from earlier *uzru-). Possibly borrowed from Germanic is
Finnish uros ‘male of an animal’. The Germanic (and perhaps
also the Celtic) may be connected with Pashto us (< Proto-
Tndo-Iranian *usra-l ) ‘camel’, OInd usra- ‘bull, ox’, usra- ‘cow’.
Not everyone agrees that the Germanic and Old Indie words
belong together. The phonological match is good, but the
morphological match is imperfect and the semantic match is
likewise imperfect. (The Old Indie words are otherwise taken
to be ultimately the same as usra- ‘bright, of the dawn’ and
usra-lusra- ‘adult bovine of either sex’ was originally ‘red cow’.)
If we do take the Germanic and Indie words as evidence for a
PIE *usro-/*usru- then it is worth noting that the early
Germanic speakers, who knew both aurochs and cattle,
restricted this word to the aurochs which might be an
indication that they were closer to the PIE state of affairs in
their assignment of meaning than the Old Indie speakers (and
modern Swedish speakers) who were familiar only with
domestic cattle. Generally this set is taken to be from *u es-
‘damp, moist’ [IEW 1171-11 72] and to have originally meant
the ‘inseminator’. But if the original reference was to the
aurochs we might also think of *ues - ‘stab, cut’ [IEW 1172]
and the meaning ‘the gorer’ or the like.
However, the meaning of the Pashto cognate, if it belongs
here, suggests the inclusion of another set of Indo-lranian
words: Av ustra - ‘camel’, OPers usa-bara- ‘camel-borne’ (the
OPers usa - may reflect either Proto-Iranian *usa- or [probably
also] *ustra-), OInd ustar- ‘bull hitched to the plow’, ustra-
‘bull’ (only in Vedic; in later Indie ‘camel’). The shift in meaning
in Iranian and later in Indie may have been dictated by the
need to name the ‘camel’ (coupled with the loss of the aurochs
from their new environments) or the shift may been influenced
by other Near Eastern languages with similar sounding words,
e.g., Akkadian utm ‘dromedary’, Urartian u/fu ‘camel’ (if these
words are not ultimately borrowed from Iranian). However,
the totality of the Indo-Iranian data suggests rather a meaning
‘± useful one’ for *ustar~, *ustra- and a relationship with OHG
ustri ‘industry’, ustinon ‘to function’. If so, it is extremely
unlikely that the Germanic words for ‘aurochs’ are related
with this latter set at all.
Finally, if the long vowel in Proto-Germanic *uru- is
secondary, for which there are some parallels, it is possible
that it is related to Myc wi-ri-no ‘ox-hide’, Grk (f)pTvog
‘(ox-)hide; shield’. If so, the chances are good that Germanic
has preserved the original meaning and that the derivative in
— 135
cow
Greek was semantically transferred to cattle. One might also
include Olnd ula- ~ ula-, the designation for some wild animal.
In the absence of any more definite meaning for the Indie
words their possible inclusion must remain unsettled.
With regard to the possible semantic shift from ‘aurochs’
or ‘cattle’ to ‘camel’ in Iranian, it is very difficult to distinguish
wild from domestic camel bones since there was very little if
any selective breeding of the domestic variety. The camels
referred to in Iranian are most likely some variety of the
Bactrian camel ( Camelus bactrianus). The earliest evidence
for its domestication so far is camel dung from a settlement
in central Iran (where it is presumed the animal was kept on
site rather than hunted off-site) dating to the mid third
millennium BC. Early IE populations passing through Iran
would no doubt have encountered the camel and the animal
is later found in significant numbers on sites of the Eurasiatic
steppe. Camels are in northern Kazakhstan by about 1700-
1200 BC and in the Ukraine by the tenth century BC.
??*\fis- and/or *g(h)ombhros bison ( Bison bonasus)'. [IEW
1134 ( *ueis-)\ Wat 75 ( *weis-)\ cf. GI 440], For *uis-\ ON
visundr ‘bison’, OE we(o)send ‘bison’, OHG wisant ~ wisunt
~ wirunt ‘bison’ (> NE wisent, Germanic apparently <
*uisonts , gen. uisptos ; from Germanic comes Lat bison),
OPrus wis-sambris ‘bison’. The Germanic words appear to
reflect an old participle meaning ‘stinking’ (from *yeis- ‘give
off an unpleasant odor’; see also ‘weasel’) that presumably
reflects the strong musky odor given off by adult males during
the rutting season. The Old Prussian word is a compound
with *wis- as its first member and as its second member -
sambris that reflects a pre-OPrus *zambra~, matching Rus
zubr ‘bison’ and similar words in other Slavic languages.
(Lithuanian has stumbras ‘bison’ while Latvian has stumbrs
~ sumbrs ~ subrs\ both the initial consonant, whether s- or
st-, and the vowel -u- seem secondary though their exact
explanation is uncertain.) The Old Prussian and Slavic would
reflect a PIE *g(h)ombhros with no known root connections.
This word may be the best candidate for the original (late?)
IE designation for the ‘bison’, the Germanic word being a
later word, originally a descriptive adjective, that replaced
the earlier *g(h)ombhros.
?*domhdos o ne to be tamed; young bull’. [ IEW 199-200
(*domio-s)\ Gl 491 (*t’emH-)\. Alb dem ‘bull, steer’, Olnd
damya- ‘(young bull) to be tamed’. Quite probably indepen-
dent creations in Albanian and Indie. Cf. OIr dam ‘bull’, dam
allaid ‘deer’ (= ‘wild cow’), Grk BapdXriq ‘young steer’.
?*loh a po-/*leh a peh a - ‘cow’, [cf. IEW 667]. Latv luops
‘cattle, livestock’, Alb lope ‘cow’. Possible evidence for a dialect
word of the center of the IE world. Although sometimes set
here, Olr ldeg~ laeg- /oig ‘calf’ is more likely from *loigos ‘±
springer’ and does not belong with the other words.
Wild Bovids
The primary form of wild cattle, the aurochs ( Bos primi-
genius), is the ancestor of the world’s domestic cattle and was
known from Britain to the Pacific and south into Africa. The
Pleistocene aurochs was very large and stood some 1.8 m tall
at the shoulders. After the Ice Age, the beast became smaller
but was still markedly different in appearance and disposition
from Neolithic domestic cattle and on numerous sites dating
to the Neolithic, aurochs remains are found alongside those
of domestic cattle. Given its distribution, there is almost no
place in Eurasia (the aurochs was well known in the region
north of the Black Sea, the Balkans and in Anatolia where we
find abundant evidence for the cultic significance of the
aurochs at sites such as Qatal Huyuk) where early IE-speakers
might have been situated where they did not know the aurochs
and so there is no archaeological difficulty in reconstructing
a PIE term for the animal ( *tauros).
Shifts in the meaning of the word from ‘aurochs’ to ‘bull’
could be motivated by the great size of the animal. Even in
the Holocene the withers height of the aurochs bull was 1.7
m and that of the females was 1.5 m while the earliest domestic
cows in Europe only measured c 1 .25-1 .3 m in height, hence
the replacement of a word for an exceedingly large wild bovid
by domestic bull could be easily motivated and could have
occurred quite early in some regions. Although Irish preserves
the word, there is no evidence for the aurochs in Ireland since
the time of its initial human colonization and so it may have
already meant ‘bull’ in Common Celtic if not earlier. Neverthe-
less, a reason to preserve the name of the animal elsewhere
would have been easily motivated since it was widely hunted
in the prehistoric period and continued to exist in many
regions well into the historic period. There is, for example, a
depiction of an aurochs hunt in a Hittite settlement on the
upper Khabur river while a gold statuette of an aurochs is
known from the Bronze Age Maykop burial north of the
Caucasus. Much later the aurochs is referred to in the various
Germanic law codes and the name of the aurochs occurs in
nearly three hundred place names in Germany. The last
European aurochsen were killed in the Middle Ages where,
despite royal protection, they became extinct in France and
Hungary by the thirteenth century, east Prussia by the fifteenth
and the last recorded living aurochs (a female) was killed in
Poland-Lithuania in 1617. The absence of a word for aurochs
or its shift to either the domestic cow or another animal in
India is predictable in that the corresponding Indie wild cattle,
the Bos namadicus, does not appear to have survived much
more recently than the earliest Neolithic (it is known from
Baluchistan at about 6000 BC); it is widely regarded as the
ancestor of the zebu or humped-back cattle ( Bos indicus) of
India.
The other wild bovid, the European bison or wisent ( Bison
bonasus), still exists although the Caucasian or mountain
wisent has recently become extinct. The animal was easily
distinguished from early domesticated cattle; it stood some
2.0 to 1.8 m high at the shoulder and could weigh up to
1000 kg. Its range would appear to have extended from
western and southern Europe across to Russia and the north
Caucasus. Since its distribution was confined largely to those
areas where the Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, and Iranian (in the
— 136
cow
form of Osselic in the northern Caucasus) languages are
spoken, it is not surprising that no other tradition has a word
for the bison. A Celtic cognate would not be impossible since
although the animal was unknown in Ireland it did not
become extinct in Britain until the twelfth century and in
France until the eleventh century; however, we have no
evidence for the word. The bison was hunted to extinction in
Germany in 1755 (it is mentioned in the Nibelungenlied and
recorded in some sixty-two place names in Germany) and in
Hungary in 1790 and survives naturally only in Poland as
the north Caucasian herds were killed off in the 1920s. The
name for the ‘bison’ in Ossetic, in any case a relatively recent
language immigrant into the Caucasus, has no relationship
with either *uis- or *g(h)ombhros. There is no evidence in
the past that the European bison was domesticated and hence
it is less likely that its name would have “crossed” with that
of a domestic animal (as with the aurochs). Today, European
bisons number in the several thousands and are kept in more
than two hundred breeding centers over the world. There is
also, of course, an Indian buffalo ( Bubalus bubalus ) which
was native to the subcontinent and was domesticated,
reputedly as early as the sixth millennium BC. This animal,
which only spread westwards in the Middle Ages, is
understandably without linguistic cognates in IE.
Although of no demonstrable IE antiquity, mention should
also be made of the water buffalo, specifically of the Indian
wild buffalo ( Bubalus amee ), whose native range extended
from at least India westwards to Mesopotamia and thus
included later IE-speaking territories of India, Afghanistan
and Iran. The animal was domesticated by the third millen-
nium BC and is often depicted on the seals of both the Harap-
pan culture (Indus Valley Civilization) and of Mesopotamia.
It spread north into Russia but it was generally not until the
Middle Ages that it was imported through southern Europe.
Domestic Bovids
Domestication of cattle began during the transition to the
Neolithic economy, appearing earliest in Anatolia and Greece
in the seventh millennium BC and subsequently throughout
the rest of Europe, reaching northern and western Europe in
the centuries before 4000 BC. Domestic cattle are also found
by the sixth millennium BC north of the Caucasus as they
spread through the steppe and forest-steppe regions or were
there locally domesticated from the native aurochs. Domestic
cattle appear at a similar date in Central Asia. The domestic
zebu or hump-backed cattle ( Bos Indicus ) appears in
Baluchistan by the fourth millennium BC and its bones and
its depictions on seals are regularly recovered from sites of
the Harappan culture.
Cattle were certainly exploited for meat (hides, and their
bones and horns for tools) and by the end of the Neolithic
they also served as traction animals for pulling plows and
wheeled vehicles. Castration is argued to have begun at least
by the middle Neolithic, e.g., some 20 to 25% of the male
cattle recovered from a TRB site (c 3900-3100 BC) appear to
have been castrated.
Whether cattle were also exploited for their milk in the
early Neolithic is hotly debated. Some suggest that the age-
slaughter pattern of Neolithic cattle coupled with the existence
of clay objects that may have served as strainers for dairy
products indicate an early Neolithic date for a dairy economy.
Others believe that cattle dairying (as opposed to milking
goats or ewes) was not introduced until the end of the Neo r
lithic, or possibly later, and dispute conclusions drawn from
the age-slaughter patterns that indicate high calf mortality.
Cattle and Milk in Indo-European Belief
Irrespective of whether the cow was associated with milk
during the PIE period, a number of IE traditions place great
emphasis on a mythical cow that provides enormous
quantities of milk. In Old Indie tradition it is the Kamadhenu
(or Surabhi), the wish-fulfilling cow who has been compared
to Audumla, the cosmic cow of Old Norse tradition whose
udders provide rivers of milk and the Welsh Fuwch Gyfeilioru
which also produced vast quantities of milk which had healing
powers. Such comparisons may well be generic but the
importance of cattle among the IE-speaking peoples is
emphasized not only by those lexical items related directly to
the animal, but also terms for the stomachs of ruminants
( *uenVstr - ‘(ab)omasum’, *reumn- ‘rumen’).
Cattle Sacrifice
Cattle were also employed in sacrifices among many Indo-
European peoples and there is some lexical residue of this in
*Kijito(m)-g w ijo- ‘hundred-cattle (sacrifice)’: Grk eKctTOgfif)
‘sacrifice (of a hundred cows)’, OPers Oatagu- place name,
OInd satagvln- ‘consisting of a hundred cows’, and transposed
as *g w ou-krpto- ‘cattle-hundred (sacrifice)’: Grk BovKanog
‘name of month (associated with cattle sacrifice)’, Olnd
gosatam ‘of a hundred cattle’. This compound is confined to
Greek and Indo-Iranian and is best considered a later,
dialectally restricted word. The terms indicate specifically a
sacrifice only in Greek and even by the time of Homer the
hecatomb had lost its etymological force, e g., in the Odyssey
(3.6-8), only eighty-one bulls are sacrificed and in the Iliad
(23.146) the hecatomb consists entirely of fifty rams.
While the sacrifice of cattle is so widespread as to be almost
universal wherever domesticated cattle might be found in
antiquity, there are a number of parallel rituals among different
IE stocks that suggest the possibility of earlier inherited
behavior. Both the Romans and the early Indians, for example,
maintained the sacrifice of a pregnant cow. The Roman
Fordicidia involved the sacrifice of a forda bove ‘pregnant
cow’ to Tellus, the goddess of the earth. Here the two were
killed and the embryo removed to be burnt separately from
the cow which would provide the main sacrifice. Similarly, in
ancient India the priests sacrificed the astapadV the cow with
eight feet’, i.e., a pregnant cow, and similarly, the embryo was
removed, here offered in a supplementary rite to the Maruts
while the main sacrifice of the cow was presented to the Earth.
— 137 —
cow
Rome, Greece and India also all present evidence of triple
sacrifices which involve a cow or bull, evidence which is
generally interpreted within the approach of Georges Dumezil
as a trifunctional sacrifice. Hence in the Roman suovetaurilia
(pig-sheep-bull) sacrifice, the bull was offered to Mars. In the
Greek TpiTzvq, the sacrifice involves a ram (xanpoq), a bull
(ravpog) and a boar ( KpTog ). In the Old Indie sautramani ,
the sacrifice comprised a ram, bull and a he-goat, the bull
being offered to Indra, the god of war. Cross comparisons
suggest that the bull (along with the horse) were the animals
most appropriately sacrificed to or on behalf of the warrior
function in IE society while the female cow is more obviously
to be associated with the concept of fecundity.
One obvious context for the sacrifice of cattle is in
association with burials. In the Yamna culture and more
frequently in the Catacomb culture of the east European
steppe, remains of cattle are found associated with burials
(though far less frequently than sheep remains). One of the
recurrent practices is the deposition of the skull and forelegs
(head and hooves) of an individual which may have either
represented remains of a funeral feast or have been mounted
in an upright position, the bovine equivalent of the “golden
fleece”. Cattle burials are also encountered in northern Europe
where the burial of a pair of oxen has often been interpreted
as evidence for a draught team of a plow or wagon.
Another aspect of cattle sacrifice is associated with the IE
creation myth. It has been suggested that the primeval myth
of the PIE community involved the sacrifice of both a human,
specifically a ‘twin’, and a bovine (ox or cow), out of which
both the material world and the social edifice of IE society
were formed. In the Rgveda (10.90), the sacrifice is made of
Purusa, whose name is explained as a compound of OInd
pu- ‘man’ and vjsa- ‘bull’, the two combined into a single
name, while in the later Satapatha Brahmana{\. 1 .4), Manavi
and a bull are sacrificed together. Although the story is not to
be be found in detail in the Avesta due to Zara0ustra’s excision
of cattle sacrifice from his religion, it does emerge in the
Greater Bundahisn where Gayomart and an ox are the
sacrificial victims. In European traditions, the role of the ox
is supplemental rather than critical to the story, e.g., the Old
Norse myth of creation where the first bovine Audumla
nourishes the giant Ymir before he is sacrificed and his body
rendered into the parts of the physical world. More tenuously,
Bruce Lincoln suggests that the nourishing by a wolf of
Romulus and Remus, the latter being the ‘twin’ who is
sacrificed in the foundation story of Rome, is a transposition
of the earlier IE version involving a cow which lacked the
necessary valence for early Romans. Finally, he also suggests
that the final battle of bulls which concludes the early Irish
Tain is a reflex of the earlier myth: here the Connacht and
Ulster bulls fight and Bricriu is killed along with the Connacht
bull whose body-parts are strewn cosmogonically across
Ireland.
Cattle Raid
Many of the IE stocks preserve traditions of cattle raiding.
In some cases, these are almost central to their epic literature,
e.g., in early Ireland the tana ‘cattle raids’ were a recognized
narrative category and in a society where wealth was reckoned
in cattle, cattle-rustling was regarded as the most appropriate
activity for young male warriors. That the practice of cattle-
raiding might be earlier and postulated for PIE itself rests on
several bodies of evidence. There are a number of
correspondences among the various IE stocks for cattle-
stealing that are built on the verb ‘to drive’: OIr tain (< *to-
ag-no -) bo ‘cattle raid’, Lat boves agere ‘to drive or raid for
cattle’, Av gpm varatpm az- ‘drive off cattle (as) booty’.
Another source of information concerning cattle stealing
derives from the structure of what is generally described as
the IE dragon-slaying myth which Bruce Lincoln has suggested
was also the myth of the first IE cattle-raid. This myth is best
reflected in Indo-Iranian tradition but as elements have been
discerned in the traditions of other IE stocks, it has been
projected back into the PIE past. The underlying structure
describes how a warrior-hero by the name of Third’ ( *Tritos )
sets out with the assistance of the warrior god to recover cattle
that had been stolen from the Aryan people by a foreigner. In
order to recover the cattle, *Tritos must fight and kill a three-
headed serpent, after which he returns with the cattle. In the
Rgveda (10.8) the hero is Trita who, with the assistance of
the war god Indra, kills the three-headed ( tri-sirsanam )
opponent Visvarupa who is described as a serpent ( ahi ). The
Avestan (Yast 15) version involves ©raetaona, the ‘son of the
Third’, who with the help of the storm god Vayu defeats the
three-headed (6ri-kamaradam) serpent opponent (Azi
Dahaka). Here the spoils of his raid are described as women
rather than cattle. But in Greek mythology, the raid of Herakles
(according to Hesiod) is against the enemy Geryon who has
carried off cattle and who is described as three-headed (rpi-
K£(paXoq ) and, being descended from the Medusa whose hair
was formed of writhing snakes, might also be associated with
a serpent. Bruce Lincoln suggests that vestiges of the myth
are also retained in Germanic tradition, e.g., where the hero
Hymir, with the aid of the war god Torr employs an ox head
to capture the Midgard-serpent, and less clearly traces are
discerned also in Hittite myth.
The cattle-raid myth is seen as a charter for the behavior
of the warrior, justifying cattle-raiding in general where the
raid is not simply to amass more cattle (or wealth) but to
“recover” what the Aryan (or earlier IE) community was
unjustly deprived of. In the idealized world view of the early
Indo-Iranians, according to Lincoln, the purpose of the cattle-
raid was for the warrior class to recover cattle which were to
be given to the priest who would sacrifice the cattle (a re-
enactment of the cosmogonical first sacrifice) to celestial gods
who awarded cattle to the Aryan people. Comparable mythic
structures concerning both the creation of the world from
cattle and the raiding for cattle Can also be found among
certain African tribes and Lincoln suggests that their
— 138 —
CRAFT GOD
similarities may be explained by the common cultural ecology
of cattle-raising people.
See also Abdomen; Barren; Castrate; Cosmogony; Male;
Mammals; Milk; Sacrifice; Three-headed Monster;
Wagon; War God; Yoke. [D.Q.A., J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Clutton-Brock, J. (1987) A Natural History of Domesticated
Mammals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, B. (1981) Priests, Warriors, and Cattle: A Study in the
Ecology of Religions. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of
California Press.
Mason, I. L. (1984) Evolution of Domesticated Animals London
and New York, Longman.
Zeuner, E E. (1963) A History of Domesticated Animals. London,
Hutchinson.
Zimmer, S. (1981) Idg *ukson-. KZ 95, 84-92.
CRAB see SHELLFISH
CRAFT, CRAFTSMAN
*dhabhros ‘craftsman’. \1EW 233-234 (*dhabh-ro-s)', Wat
12-13 {*dhabh-ro-)\ Buck 9.42; BK 71 ( *dab-/*ddb -)]. Lat
faber ‘workman, artificer, smith’. Arm darbin ‘smith’. From
*dhabh- ‘put together’, cf. OE ge-daefte ‘mild, gentle’ (<
* ‘fitting, becoming’) (> NE daft). Though attested in only two
stocks the geographical distribution of those attestations
strongly suggests PIE status.
*kerdos ‘craft’. [IEW 579 (*kerd-); Wat 30 (*kerd-); BK
210 (*d[ h }ar y -at’-/*ti[ h ]dry-at'-)\. Olr cerd ‘craftsman, artisan
(usually gold- and silversmith)’, Weis cerdd' song, poem; craft,
art’, Grk Kepdoq ‘gain, profit’, (pi.) ‘cunning arts, craft’
(borrowed > Lat cerdd ‘workman of the lowest class’). A
putative PIE *kerdeh a - ‘craftsman’ is known only from Old
Irish and thus has no particular claim on PIE antiquity.
However, the intersection of ‘craft’, ‘poetry’, and ‘profit’ in
the form of *kerdos is clearly of PIE age.
*teKs-(t)or/n- ‘one who fabricates (cloth, wood, etc.)’. [IEW
1058-1059 {*tekp-tor-)\ GI 611 ( *t h ek h s-)\ Wat 69 (*teks-)\
Buck 6.33; BK91 (*t[ ll ]ak[ h ]-/*t[ h ]9k[^I)\. Lat textor ‘weaver’,
Grk t£kto)v (rebuilt from *tekson ) ‘carpenter, artisan’, Av
tasan- ‘creator’, OInd taksan- ‘carpenter’. Sufficiently
widespread to be strongly suggestive of PIE status. From *teks-
‘fabricate’.
One of the characteristics of agricultural or Neolithic
societies is the emergence of craft specialists. These are people
who engage in various degrees in the production of some
commodity which can be exchanged for goods, particularly
subsistence goods, since a certain amount of time expended
by the craft specialist will remove him or her from the
subsistence economy. Evidence for craft specialists before the
emergence of written records such as the Linear B tablets
which list the names of a variety of craft workers is largely
circumstantial. The traditional areas where archaeologists posit
the existence of some specialist is in the manufacture of
pottery, especially technically demanding ceramics such as
kiln-fired painted wares as known from southeast Europe and
central Asia where there is also evidence of potters’ workshops
in settlements. Other workshops include those for manu-
facturing stone and bone tools. With the emergence of
metallurgy, both the extraction of copper by miners (attested
in the Neolithic in the Balkans and across Eurasia by the early
Bronze Age) and the casting of copper and early bronze
implements also required specialists and their presence
appears to be indicated in metal-working tools, for example,
those which accompany burials in cultures such as the
Catacomb culture of the Pontic steppe. By the fourth
millennium BC we have good reason to posit the wheelwright
or wagon-builder as a specialized craftsman.
The underlying concept behind the several reconstructible
words for ‘craftsman’ in IE seems to vary. Since *dhabhros
derives from a meaning ‘put together’, it seems more likely
that this described a carpenter or, in the British sense ‘joiner’,
than a ‘smith’ although that meaning is found in the cognates
of some of the IE stocks. The combination of ‘smith’ and ‘poet’
seen in the Celtic reflexes of *kerdeh a - may be explained by
the frequent metaphor of the poet as one who ‘torges’ words
together into verse. PIE *teks-(t)or/n- combines the notion of
‘weaver’ with that of ‘builder’ which may be explained by the
widespread use of wattling m the construction of houses.
Despite the evidence for potters in the archaeological record,
there does not seem to be a reconstructible term for this craft
although the third word is also associated with *teks-t-eh a -
‘plate, bowl’, here perhaps originally one carved out of wood.
See also Build; Craft God; Tool. [D.Q A., J.PM ]
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1995) How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European
Poetics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CRAFT GOD
Deities specifically concerned with particular craft
specializations may be expected in any ideological system
whose people have achieved an appropriate level of social
complexity. Among many peoples of the world, for example,
a smith deity or divine beings particularly associated with
the crafts of metalworking, are to be expected and such
divinities are predictably found among the various IE stocks
(e.g., the Irish Goibniu, Welsh Gofann, Latin Vulcan, Greek
Hephaistos). In some stocks, Celtic, for example, the
prominence of the craftsmen was very high where the aes
dano , itinerant craftsmen, were protected by law, and Irish
tales emphasize the craftsmanship abilities ot their heroes.
Similarly, in Indie mythology the deities concerned with the
fashioning of special weapons, e.g., Tvastf and also Visvakar-
man ‘all accomplishing’, are regarded as primeval creators
(cf. Grk Hephaistos and the mortal Germanic Weland).
Nevertheless, despite our ability to reconstruct several terms
for metals to PIE, there is no widespread lexical correspon-
dence upon which one might posit the existence of a specific
craft deity among the speakers of the proto-language.
— 139 —
CRAFT GOD
In the absence oflexical evidence for craft deities, it might
be suggested that there existed structural evidence for such
deities in PIE. The Dumezilian reconstruction of IE ideology
envisages a mental template which divides the social world
into three “functions”: judicial-religious, defensive, and
procreative, which may be translated into three social roles:
priests, warriors, and herder-cultivators. In the establishment
of this system it was observed that various IE traditions
exhibited such a social tripartition only if one excluded
evidence for a fourth class. In Varro’s De Lingua Latina , the IE
social classes of officials, priesthood, military, and agricultural-
ists are all reckoned but alongside them are also the artisans.
According to Strabo, the Athenians were divided by Ion into
ieponoioi ‘priests’, (pvXafceg ‘guards’, and yecopyof ‘farmers’
with a fourth class of Sripiovpyoi ‘artisans’, a system also
embraced by Plato in his Republic. In ancient Iran, the
“canonical IE” classes ( aQarman ‘fire priest’, raOaestar ‘chariot-
fighter’ and vastryo-fsuyant ‘shepherd-cattle-man’) were
followed by the huitis ‘artisan’.
In general, the occasional presence of a fourth class of
artisans has been regarded as a later extension to the original
three social divisions reconstructed to PIE among later IE
groups whose social and economic complexity would
naturally have demanded such divisions. Already by the
Bronze Age, for example, the Greeks had developed a palace
economy in which a wide variety of artisans (potters, metal
workers, chariot-builders, ship-builders, weavers, etc.) were
an integral pan of the Greek economy, a situation well attested
in the Linear B tablets. From an archaeological perspective,
the earliest appearance of craft specialization may have been
considerably earlier. During the Neolithic, for example,
specialized areas for the manufacture of pottery, figurines,
bone objects, and other products are encountered in
southeastern Europe as well as the mining and processing of
copper. In the early Bronze Age there is evidence for the
materials associated with the production of metal artifacts
recovered from burials that suggests specialized bronze-
smiths. It is in fact far easier to postulate the existence of
artisans from the archaeological record than it is to propose
the existence of priests. Nevertheless, the evidence for social,
or at least, ideological segmentation of society is far stronger
for the traditional tripartite than some quadrapartite system.
Nick Allen, however, has suggested the existence of a
“Fourth Function” both because such structures can be found
in other “segmentary” ideological systems and also because
there would be a need to devise some form of category that
would comprise all those “functions” that otherwise lay
outside the three canonical functions of society. Although he
does not explicitly assign craft specialists to such a “function”,
their very existence in the social world of the early Indo-
Europeans might argue for some resonance in the ideological
constructs of the various IE stocks if not PIE itself.
See also Comparative Mythology; Creator; Smith God.
U-PM.1
Further Reading
Allen, N. J. (1987) The ideology of the Indo-Europeans: Dumezils
theory and the idea of a Fourth Function. International Journal
of Moral and Social Studies 2/1 , 23-39.
CRANE
*ger- ‘crane’. [IEW 383-384 (*ger-)\ Wat 20 (*gen-)\ Gl
457 ( *k’er-)\ BK 290 ( *k’ur-/*k'or-)\ . Weis garan ‘crane’, Gaul
tri-garanos ‘three-cranes’, Lat grus ‘crane’, OE cran ‘crane’ (>
NE crane), OHG kranuh ‘crane’, OPrus gerwe ‘crane’, Lith
gerve ‘crane’, Latv dzerve ‘crane’, Rus zeravll ‘crane, goose’,
Grk yepavog ‘crane’, Arm krunk ‘crane’ (also gre ‘crane’ which
may be a loan from a neighboring language), Oss zymaeg
‘crane’. No term of IE origin exists in Old Indie where the
terms hurara- and puskara- are commonly employed although
the root *ger- does appear in OInd jarate ‘shout hoarsely’.
The root *ger- is clearly the PIE term for this bird with
attestation in six to eight stocks, a situation matched only by
the cognates for ‘goose’.
The crane is a large-bodied bird, up to a meter and a half
tall; it is attracted to bogs and wooded areas. Cranes are
frequently confused with storks and herons, and ancient
literature reveals these errors which are still made today.
Cranes were considered gregarious, affectionate with their
young, but are also known to be contentious. The crane is
widely distributed all over the world.
The crane is also the subject of an IE narrative complex
involving a battle between cranes and a (non- Aryan?) people.
The tale is reflected in the traditions of five stocks (Latin,
Greek, Armenian, Iranian, Indie) although it has been clearly
borrowed among some of them. The basic motif in the west
is found in Greek tradition where Homer (Iliad 3.6) relates
how cranes slaughtered pygmies, a motif that was subsequent-
ly picked up and elaborated on frequently in Latin literature.
Under Greek influence we also have a fifth-century Armenian
account of how pygmies fight with cranes who are competing
for the produce of their fields. The Middle Persian Greater
Bundahisn relates how a large bird, the camrus , devastates
the fields of the non-Aryans while the OInd garuda attacks
and devours a non-Aryan people, the Kiratas (cf. the
Sabdakalpadruma where the garuda is employed to define
kiratasin- ‘Kiratas-eater’). Although not fully cognate, both
the PIE word for ‘crane’ and OInd garuda share the same
root. The Old Indie bird shares two other behavioral
similarities with that of the Greek ‘crane’: it is known to devour
snakes and it is associated with precious metals (in Greek
tradition a stone regurgitated by a crane becomes a touch-
stone for gold) or stones (emeralds in Indie tradition). On
the basis primarily of Greek and Indo-Iranian, it might be
suggested that in late IE there existed a motif in which a non-
Aryan people, set at the periphery of the world, were bested
by man-eating cranes who are also associated with the eating
of snakes and the discovery of precious metals and/or stones.
One further association between the crane and IE mytho-
logy involves the interpretation of the Paris Altar, a stone relief
— 140 —
CRIME
from Gaul that depicts the Celtic god Esus cutting a tree and
then a bull with three cranes ( tarvos trigaranus) which has
been linked to a Vedic account of how Indra slew a three-
headed monster and was assisted by a woodcutter who hacked
off the three heads. Out of the three stumps flew three birds
(identified in the Indie version as a woodcock, partridge and
sparrow).
See also Birds. [J.A.C.G.]
Further Reading
Greppin , J. (1976) Skt Garuda, Gk yepavog: The battle of the cranes.
JIES 4, 233-243.
CRAWL
*serp- ‘crawl’. [/EW912 ( *serp-)\ Wat 58 (*serp-); GI 445
(^serp/ 7 -); Buck 10.41], Lat serpd ‘crawl’, Grk epneo ‘crawl’,
OInd sarpati ‘crawls’. Cf. Lat serpens ‘snake’. Alb gjarper
‘snake’, (pi.) shterpinj ‘vermin’ (both < *serpeno- ), OInd
sarpa- ‘snake’. This seems to have been the usual verb for
‘crawl (on one’s belly)’, hence the derivatives with the meaning
‘snake’. Widespread and old in IE.
*rep- ‘crawl’. [IEW 865 ( *rep-)\ Wat 54 (*rep-); Buck
10.41 ] . Lat repo ‘crawl, go on all fours’, OPrus rlpaiti ‘follow’,
Lith replioti ‘crawl, go on all fours’, Latv rapat ‘crawl, go on
all fours’. Unlike *serp -, this word seems to have focused on
crawling on hands and knees rather than crawling on one’s
belly. Late word of the IE northwest.
*(t)sel~ ‘sneak up on, crawl up on’. [IEW 900 (*se/-); GI
129] . Lith selii ~ silinu ‘sneak, prowl, step softly’, Arm solim
(< *t-sol -?) ‘crawl’, Av srvant- ‘crawling’, OInd tsarati ‘creeps
up on, sneaks’, tsaru- ‘crawling animal’. Cf. OIr selige {DIE
seilche ) (< *selekio- ) ‘turtle; snail’, NIr seilide (< *selptl~)
‘snail’. Alb shlige ‘snake’. Though not attested in many stocks,
the geography of the attestations argues for PIE status. The
initial *t- may be simply the first part of a rare PIE initial
consonant-cluster or the remnant of a prefix.
See also Snake. [D.Q.A.]
CRAYFISH see SHELLFISH
CREATOR
*dhehiter - ‘creator’. [IEW 237 ( *dhe-ter)\ BK 70 ( *diy -/
*dey-)] . Lat con-ditor ‘founder’, OCS detelV doer’, Grk Oevqp
‘founder’, Av datar- ‘creator’, OInd dhatar- ‘founder’. From
*dhehi- ‘set’. The root is widespread and the derivation so
common that these terms are likely to be independent
creations in each of their stocks.
*tufR-ter- ‘creator (< *artificer < * cutter)’. [IEW 1 102] . Av
Oworastar- ‘creator’, OInd Tvasta (< *Tvarstar) ‘name of creator
deity’. As a deity, this term is entirely confined to the Indo-
Iranian superstock although it is commonly derived from the
widespread root *tuerk- ‘cut’. The Indie deity Tvastf is
prominent in the Rgveda as the artificer of the gods who,
among other things, fashioned the vajra of Indra by which he
killed the demon Vjtra. He is more than a craft god, however,
as he begets Trisiras, the ‘three-headed one’, who is prominent
in one of the myths found widely among the IE stocks.
See also Ancestor God; Cosmology; God; Three-headed
Monster. [E.C.P, J.PM ]
Further Reading
Lubotsky, A. (1994) Avestan Ofiorsstar- and the Indo-European root
turk-. Die Sprache 36, 94-101 .
CRIME
*h2/3vergh- l ±c ommitacrime’. [cf. IEW 1 154-1 155 (*uer-
gh-), 1181 ( *ureg-)\ Wat 77 ( *wergh-)\ GI 415; Puhvel 3:401-
402]. ON var^r ‘felon, criminal’ (> metaphorically also ‘wolf’),
OE (adj.) wearg ‘evil, malignant, accursed’, (noun) ‘villain,
felon, criminal; monster, malign being’ (cf. wiergan [as if <
*h 2 / 3 Uorgheie/o-\ ‘curse; do evil’), OSax warag ‘± accursed’
(epithet of Judas; cf. gi-waragean ‘punish [a criminal]’), OHG
'warg ‘devil; criminal’ (cf. fer-wergen ‘curse’), MHG ware
‘monster’, Goth launa-wargs ‘unthankful’, gawargeins
‘damnation’, wargipa ‘judgment, condemnation’, ga-wargjan
‘condemn’, OPrus wargs ‘evil’, wargan (noun) ‘evil’, Lith vargas
‘hardship, misery’, Latv vargs ‘sick, suffering’, OCS vragu
‘enemy’, Rus vorog‘enemy, devil’. From Old Low Franconian
medieval Latin has vargus ‘one who is expelled (for a crime);
highwayman, bandit’. As such a word of the northwest of the
IE world. Germanic and Baltic have evidence of a lengthened-
grade derivative *qerghos in OE eald-werig ‘vile of old’, Lith
vergas ‘slave’, Latv vergs ‘slave’. Different in form but related
are Hit hurkil- (< *h 2 / 3 Ufghil-) ‘± sin, (sexual) perversion’,
hurkiles pesnes ‘± catamites’ (subject to the death penalty
who may redeem themselves by heroic acts), TochB warsse
(< *h 2 / 3 u 6 rgh(e)sio-) ‘highwayman, bandit’. The two
meanings of ON vargr , ‘criminal’ and ‘wolf’, have led many to
reconstruct *uorghos and connect the Germanic word with
*uergh- ‘strangle’ (cf. NE worry [as a predator might do to its
prey]) and wider speculations of the PIE juridical status of
calling someone a wolf (cf. OInd vfko hi sah ‘he is a wolf’,
referring to the special legal status of the abductor in the ritual
kidnapping of a bride). However, the meaning ‘wolf’ in Old
Norse seems clearly secondary and the morphologically exact
equation with Baltic and Slavic suggests a more mundane
original meaning of ‘evil, criminal’ though the Old Norse
equation of ‘wolves’ with criminals’ may reflect a conceptual
connection of PIE age.
See also Army; Bad; Wolf. (D.Q.A.)
Further Readings
Campanile, E. (1979) Meaning and prehistory of Old Irish cu gins.
JIES 7, 237-247.
Gerstein, M. R. (1974) Germanic warg. The outlaw as werewolf, in
Myth in Indo-European Antiquity, eds. G. J. Larson, J Puhvel,
C. S. Littleton, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California,
131-156.
Weitenberg, J. (1991) To become a wolf, in Perspectives on Indo-
European Language, Culture and Religion, vol. II, ed. R. Pearson,
McLean, Va ; Journal of Indo-European Studies, 189-198.
141 —
CROOKED
CROOKED
*(s)keng- ~ *(s)kpg- ‘crooked’ [IEW 930 ( *(s)keng-)\ Wai
59 ( *skeng-)\ BK 261 ( *kp]un-k’-/*k[ h ]on-k’-)\ . Mir scingim
‘spring’, ON skakkr ‘skew, distorted’, OHG hinkan ‘limp, go
lame’, Grk gkol^co limp, go lame’, Av haxti- ‘thigh’, Olnd
sakthi ‘thigh’, khanjati ‘limps’. While there is some variation
in precise formation, geographic spread supports PIE status.
*(s)kel- ‘crooked’. [IEW 928 {*(s)kel-)\ Wat 59 ( *skel-)\
Buck 12.74J . ON skjalgr ‘slanting’, OE sceolh ‘crooked’, OHG
scelah ‘slanting, crooked’ (< Gmc *skelha < *skel-ko-), OPrus
culczi ‘hip, haunch’, Lith kulnas ‘heel’, Bulg kulka ‘thigh’.
Alb q ale ‘lame’, Grk oiceXoq ‘thigh’. An early reading of TochA
kolye as ‘hip’ might have allowed a connection here, but this
word is now seen to mean something like ‘tail’ (while TochB
kolyi appears to mean ‘paw, claw, hoof’). Although Lat scelus
‘crime, wickedness’ and Arm sel ‘crooked, bent’ are sometimes
proposed as cognates, they are doubtful. A word of at least
the west and center of the IE world.
See also Bend; Leg. [J.C.S.]
CROW
*kVr-C- ‘crow; raven’. [7£W 567 ( *ker-)\ Wat 29-30
( *ker-)\ GI 457-458 ( *k’er-)\ . Lat corvus ‘raven’, comix ‘crow’,
OE hroc ‘crow, raven, rook’ (> NE rook), Bulg krokon ‘raven’,
Grk Kopcct; ‘raven’, Kopcovri ‘crow’, Olnd karata- ‘crow’,
karava- ‘crow’ (Old Indie has in all thirty-six words for the
‘crow’). The base term *kVr-C- denotes ‘a harsh, coarse tone’.
Similar to this root is Arm agtaw ‘crow’ which cannot be easily
related. Armenian also has, for the term ‘raven’ and ‘crow’,
derivatives of *h 3 er- (cf. Grk opvig ‘bird’), i.e. , Arm on ‘raven,
crow’, while Mir tethra ‘crow’ derives from *teter- ‘type of
large (game) bird’. The same root that underlies the words
for ‘crow’ and ‘raven’ also appears to supply Mir- cere ‘hen’,
OPrus kerko ‘loon, diver’, Grk icopcd; ‘falcon’, Av kahrkatat
‘cock’ and Olnd kfkara- ‘cock’ but there is no reason to think
that these non-crow terms could not have been
onomatopeically engendered, independently.
*yer- ‘crow’. [IEW 1 1 66 ( *uer-); GI 458 ( *w[-m-) ] . OPrus
wanie‘crow’, Lith vama ‘crow’, OCS vrana ‘crow’, Rus vordna
‘crow’, TochB wrauna ‘crow’. Perhaps also Arm agtaw ‘crow’
which could have developed *uer- (PIE *uV> Arm gV), but
the initial a- would be perplexing, although Armenian does
have atmn ‘tooth’ (cf. Lat dens ‘tooth’) with no explanation
for the prothesis. The distribution suggests at least a late term
in PIE.
These large and most common black birds have a clear
name from the literature of many IE dialects. The bird itself is
indeed remarkable, not only for its size and color, but also
for its behavior, which reflects intelligence and friendliness;
it has, as well, an amusing gait, suitable for such an inquisitive
animal, and is also extremely vocal, with a wide range of
sounds. On the other hand, these traits tend to be outweighed
by these birds’ association with carrion and hence in Vedic
myth the crow is considered an inauspicious omen as it was
also among the Greeks, and indeed, others can see the crow
and raven as a spooky bird, lurking in the shadows, waiting
to announce flood, famine or disaster. This emphasizes
another aspect of these birds, their association with prophetic
knowledge. A west European comparison may be found
between Celtic and Germanic where functionally cognate
deities, the Irish Lug (= Gaul lougos ‘raven’) and the Norse
Odinn, were both accompanied by two ravens which supplied
them with foreign “intelligence”.
See also Birds. [J.A.C.G.]
CRUSH
*mer- crush, pulverize’. [/EW735-736 ( *mer~), BK 526
( *mur-/*mor -)]. OIr meirb ‘lifeless’, Weis merw ‘weak, slack’
(Celtic < *merui-), ON merja ‘prick, pierce, sting’, morna
‘wither away, droop’, OE mearu ‘tender, soft, callow’, OHG
maro ‘tender, soft, callow’, OCS iz-mrumirati ‘root out, clear
(a wood for cultivation)’, ORus mormomrati ‘gnaw’, Grk
gapaiva) ‘extinguish (a fire)’, Hit mariyattari ‘is smashed’,
Olnd mpiati ~ mpiati ‘crushes, grinds’. The basic meaning is
best preserved in the earlier attested languages, i.e., Hittite
and Old Indie, while Celtic and Germanic show a semantic
development toward the result of crushing, i.e., something
that has been ground down, made soft. Widespread and old
in IE.
*yes~ ‘crush, grind, pound, wear out; wither, fade’. [BK
501 (*wasyV*W9sy~)]. ON visna ‘wither’, \nsinn ‘withered’,
OE wisnian ‘dry up, wither, waste away’, weomian ‘pine away,
become weak, fade (away), wither’, OHG fer-wesen ‘destroy;
decay’, Alb veshk ‘wither, shrivel, wilt’, Hit wesuriya- ‘press,
oppress’. Widespread and old in IE.
*(s)tergh- ± crush’, (pres. *(s)tf-n6-gh-ti) Hit istarkzi ~
istar(ak)kiyazzi l \s ailing; afflicts’, istaminkzi(< *st[-ne-gh-ti )
‘afflicts’, Olnd tfnedhi(< *tf-ne-gb-ti ) ‘crushes, bruises’, stfbati
‘crushes’. Though preserved only in Anatolian and Old Indie,
both the geographical distribution and the archaic morpho-
logy (infixed ne-present) argue for PIE status for this word.
The meaning in Hittite may reflect semantic conflation with
a phonologically similar *(i)swark- ‘be sick’ inherited from
PIE *suergh-.
*]feld- ‘crush, grind, wear out; be worn out’. [BK 506
( *wal-/*wdl-)\ . Weis gwlydd ‘mild, soft, tender, gentle’, NE
wilt, TochB waits- ‘crush, grind’. Cf. MHG welken ‘fade, decay’.
The geographical spread of the attestations indicates PIE
status.
See also Grind. [ D . Q . A . 1
CUCKOO
*kuku ‘cuckoo’. [/EW627 ( *kuku )]. Mir cuach ‘cuckoo’,
Weis cog ‘cuckoo’, Lat cuculus ‘cuckoo’, ME cuccu ‘cuckoo’,
Lith kukuoti ‘to cuckoo’, Rus kukusa ‘cuckoo’, Grk kokkv £
‘cuckoo’. Arm k(u)ku ‘cuckoo’, NPers kuku ‘cuckoo’, Olnd
kokila- ‘cuckoo’. This widely distributed name is likely
onomatopoeic in most instances, reflecting the well-known
call of the cuckoo. The same term also appears in neighboring
language families, e.g., Georgian gugulis ‘cuckoo’, Turkish
142 —
CUT
guguk ‘cuckoo’ and Akkadian kugu ‘cuckoo’. The IE root
*(s)p(e)iko/eh a - ‘woodpecker’ supplies the OInd pika- ‘any
of the Indian cuckoos that breed in the Himalayas’.
The cuckoo is notable for its irresponsible nesting habits,
for it lays its eggs in other birds’ nests, for them to raise. Thus
the bird’s personality has sexual overtones; it is also seen as a
harbinger of Spring. Its distribution covers the IE area.
See also Birds. [J.A.C.G.]
CURE see HEAL
CURSE see PRAY
CURVE
*pandos ‘curved’. [IEW 788 ( *pando-s )]. Lat 'pandus
‘curved, bent’, ON fattr 'bent back’. Western isogloss in late
IE.
*(s)kamb- ‘curve’. \IEW 918 ( *(s)kamb-)\ Wat 58
( *skamb-)\ Buck 12.74], OIr camm ‘curve’, Weis cam ‘curve’,
Grk GKCcgPog ‘curve’. At least a word of the west and center
of the IE world.
*kan-t(h)o- ‘corner, a bending’. [IEW 526-527
(*kan-tho-)\ Wat 27 ( *kanto-)\ Buck 12.353], Weis cant ‘tyre’,
Gaul *cantos ‘rim, border; iron rim of wheel’ (> Lat canthus
~ cantus ‘iron rim of a wheel’), OCS kutu ‘angle’, Rus kut
‘angle’, Grk kocvOoc; ‘corner of the eye’. The Olr hapax cet
(cef?) ‘pillar’ has been placed here but this is doubtful. A word
of the west and center of the IE world.
See also Bend. [A.D.V.]
CUSTOM
*s(v)edh- ‘custom, characteristic, individuality’. [IEW 883
( *suidh-)\ Wat 67 (*s(w)e-)\ Buck 19.61]. Lat sodalis
‘companion’ (< ‘member of a group’), ON sidr ‘custom’, OE
sidu ‘custom’, OHG situ ‘custom’, Goth sidus ‘custom’ (< Gmc
*siduz < *sedhu-), Grk eOog ‘practice, habit’, perhaps Olnd
svadhi ‘character, peculiarity, custom’, TochA sotre ‘sign,
characteristic’, TochB sotri ‘sign, characteristic’. Both the
Germanic (because of the i vocalism) and Old Indie cognates
are questionable but if Old Indie is accepted, then there is a
good case for PIE status. This has been analyzed as consisting
of *s(u)e‘ own’ + *dh(e)hj-‘set, establish’. This term has been
connected in particular to reciprocal and contractual relation-
ships, including poet-patron relations and other gift-
exchanges.
See also Exchange, Sign. [J.C.S.]
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1989) New parameters in historical linguistics,
philology, and culture history. Language 65, 783-799.
CUT
*del- ‘carve, split, cut’. [/£W 194-196 ( *del-)\ Wat 11
( *del -); Buck 12.232]. OIr dello ‘form’, Weis delw ‘form,
image’, Lat dold ‘hew’, ON telgja ‘carve, cut’, OPrus dellieis
‘divides’, Lith dalytV to divide’, Latv dalit 1 to divide’, Alb dalloj
‘cut’, Grk daiSdXXo) (< *dai-dal-io-) ‘work cunningly’, Olnd
dalati ‘bursts, cracks’. The root is attested in a broad range of
languages and may be reconstructed to PIE with a degree of
confidence. The Old Indie form is found only in the later
language, suggesting the need for caution in connecting it
with the cognate set; its semantic value may be the result of
influence by the phonetically similar form dfnati ‘bursts, tears’.
*gleubh-c\it off, cut out’. ] IEW 40 1-402 ( *gleuhh -); Wat
23 ( *gleubh-)\ . Lat (verb) glubo ‘peel, skin’, ON kljufa ‘to
split', OE cleofan ‘to split’ (> NE cleave), OHG klioban ‘to
split’, Grk yXvtpcQ ‘carve out’. Cognates are confined to Italic,
Germanic and Greek suggesting that the case for a PIE
reconstruction is not strong. On the other hand, the zero-
vocalism seen in the Greek form may possibly point to an
earlier, athematic paradigm upon which the attested thematic
forms are based. Such a paradigm would suggest considerable
antiquity for the root.
*(s)grebh- ‘scratch, cut’. [IEW 392 ( *gerebh-), Wat 20
( *gerbh-)\ GI 536 ( *(s)k’rebh-)[ . ON skrapa ‘scrape’
(borrowed > NE scrape ), OE ceorlan ‘to cut’ (> NE carve),
OHG kerban ‘notch, carve’, MHG kerben ‘to notch, carve’,
OPrus glrbin ‘number’, OCS zrebu ‘lot’, Grk ypd(p(o ‘scratch,
write’. Distribution suggests antiquity only in the western and
central IE world. The Old Prussian word for ‘number’ suggests
that the verb may have been used to describe scratching a
tally on some object.
*(s)ker- ‘cut apart, cut off. [IEW 938-940 ( *(s)ker-)\ Wat
59-60 ( *(s)kcr-) ; Gl 612 ( *sk h er -); Buck 9.22; BK 246
(*k[ h ]ar-/*k[ h ]9r-)[. OIr scaraid ‘separates, divides’, ON skera
‘to cut’, OE scieran ‘to cut, shear’ (> NE shear), OHG sceran
‘to cut, shear’, Lith skiriu ‘to separate, divide’, Latv spirt
‘separate, divide’, Rus kroju ‘cut’, Alb shqerr ‘tear apart’, Grk
KEipco ‘cut’. Arm k‘erem ‘scrape off, scratch off’, Hit karsmi
‘cut off, castrate’, Olnd kfnati ‘wounds, kills’. The root is so
well attested that it is securely reconstructible to PIE.
Unfortunately, the present stems do not correspond very
neatly. The Old Irish form points to a root of the form
*skerhx-\ the Old Indie form, with nasal infix, may also point
to a root with final laryngeal. The Lithuanian form exhibits a
zero-grade vocalism with a suffix *ie/o-\ Greek, on the other
hand, possibly reflects a full-grade vocalism with the same
suffix. The Hittite form shows the extensions -s-. Cf. also the
derivative *(s)kert~. [IEW 941-942 ( *(s)ker-t-)}\ Lith kertii
‘hew’, Latv egrtu ‘hew’, Arm k'ert'em ‘skin’, Hit kartai- ‘cut
off’. Av kardntaiti ‘cuts’, Olnd kyntati ‘cuts’. The root also
underlies the term for ‘tally’ in Germanic, e.g., ON skor ‘notch,
tally, twenty’ (borrowed > NE score), OE sceard ‘cut, notch’,
i.e., it reflects a preliterate accounting technique by which a
notch on a stick or other artifact corresponded to a commodity
unit or set of units.
*kerd- ‘cut into, carve’. [IEW 579 ( *kerd -); Wat 30
( *kerd-)\ Buck 9.41; BK 210 ( *tjl h lar>-at’-/*tj[ h j9ry-at'-)}. OIr
cerd ‘art, handicraft’, Weis cerdd ‘song’, Grk KepSoq ‘profit,
advantage, gain’. Another enlargement of *(s)ker-. At least a
word of the west and center of the IE world.
CUT
*skehii-d- ‘cut’. [IEW9 19-92 1 ( *skei-)\ GI 94] . Lat scindo
‘cut’, ON sklta ‘to defecate’, OE be-scitan" to defecate’ (> NE
shit), OHG scizan ‘to defecate’ (Gmc < *skih x d-), Lith skiedziu
‘separate’, Latv s/ciedu ‘scatter’, OCS cediti ‘filter, strain 1 , Grk
ox(£co ‘split, tear’, perhaps Arm c‘tem ‘scratch’; *skei-t-\ Goth
skaidan ‘to separate’. The unextended *skeh\i- appears in
OInd chyati ‘cut’.
*sek- ‘cut’. [IEW 895 (*sek-)\ Wat 56-57 (*sek-)\ Buck
9.22]. Mir eiscid (< *in-sek -) ‘cuts off’, Lat seed ‘cut’, scio
‘know’, Lith i-sekti ‘to dig’, OCS sekp ‘cut’, Hit sakk- ‘know’.
Most forms based on this root are attested in west IE; if, on
the other hand, the root underlies the forms *(s)ker~, *(s)ker-
t- and *(s)kehii -, then it must be of great antiquity.
*k w er- ‘cut’ (pres. *k w 6rti). [cf. Buck 9.22; BK 328
( *k w [hj U r-/*k w l h ]or -)]. Weis pryd (< *k w ftu-) ‘time’, Osc -
pert ‘...time(s)’ (e.g., petiro-pert ‘four-times’), Hit kuerzi' cuts’,
Luv k(u)warti ‘cuts’, Olnd -krt ‘...time(s)’ (e g., sa-kft ‘once’).
Though not attested in many stocks, the geographical
distribution of those attestations would seem to guarantee
PIE status for this verb.
*put- ‘cut’. [VW 397]. Lat putare ‘prune’, TochAB putk-
(< *put-sKe/o -) ‘divide, share, separate’. Although poorly
attested, the geographical distribution suggests PIE status.
See also Craft, Craftsman; Hair (Cut Hair); Knife; Sword.
[M.N., D.Q.A., C.EJ1
— 144 —
DACIAN LANGUAGE
The Dacians, situated north of the lower Danube in the
area of the Carpathians and Transylvania, are the earliest
named Indo-European group in the present territory of
Romania. They are first mentioned in the writings of
Herodotus (Histories 4. 49, 93, 100, 119, 125) and Thucydides
( Peloponnesian Wars 2.96, 1) and later were known historic-
ally from the first centuries BC, appearing in Greece as slaves
where a Dacian was known as a Aaog (or Latin Davas ).
The Dacian language, attested primarily in the form of
personal and place names, whose etymologies can only be
speculative, or in the form of a few Greek glosses, is very
little known. A Dacian origin has also been supposed for
certain words in Romanian that lack Latin or Slavic ancestors,
e.g., Rom mal ‘mountain’ (cf. Alb mal ‘mountain’), Rom mare
‘big’ (cf. Alb madh ‘big’) but again the Indo-European nature
of these words is controversial. Dacian is generally regarded
as a variety of Indo-European closely related to Thracian
(which was centered in what is now Bulgaria) and hence the
frequently employed expression “Thraco-Dacian”. Certainly
such an association makes sense geographically (and,
according to Strabo, was the opinion of the classical world as
well) but as Thracian is similarly poorly attested such a
closeness of relationship must be taken largely as an act of
faith. Moreover, it has long been observed that certain
toponymic elements show markedly different distributions,
e.g., -dava ‘town’ is the standard element north of the Danube
while in Thrace the corresponding element is -bria. Other
frequent toponymic elements, e.g., -para ‘settlement’, -diza
‘fortified town’ and -sara ‘river’ are confined to Thracian
territory. Ivan Duridanov has reviewed the evidence for
toponymical terms of putatively IE derivation and found
thirteen exclusive to Thracian and eight ( *aba , *auras ‘river’;
Dacian Generalized distribution of the Dacians.
*mariska -, *tibas , *Iugas ‘swampy area’; *mal- ‘hill; bank’;
karpa- ‘cliff’; and *medas ‘forest’) confined to Dacian territory.
The Iron Age Dacians controlled the mines of the
Carpathians which provided gold, silver and iron and by the
145 —
DACIAN LANGUAGE
first century BC they had carved out a substantial empire
under their king Burebista. Wars between the Romans in the
next century ultimately led to Trajan’s total conquest of the
Dacians by 106 AD. From the conquered territory the Roman
province of Dacia was formed and the earlier Dacian language
was eventually replaced by Latin whose legacy has survived
as modern Romanian.
Description
Some 20-25 Indo-European etymologies have been
regarded as reasonably solid for Dacian place and personal
names and botanical terms although in the absence of a secure
semantic base, little certainty can attach to any of them. Among
the more convincing is the name of the town at the mouth of
the river Axios, Afyona, which is modem Cernavoda, i.e.,
‘black water’. The river name ’'A^iog may derive from
*p-ks(e)i- ‘not-shining’ (i.e., ‘dark’, cf. Av axsaena- ‘dark-
colored’, while the second element may be from *upa ‘river’
(e.g., Lith upe ‘river’). The place-name element -sara
( Aavoapa , Saprasara ) may derive from *sora (cf. Lat serum ,
Olnd sara- ‘liquid’) while similar appearing names such as
Aizis , Ai^ioig, and Azizis may all derive from the PIE *h a eigs
‘goat’, cf. Grk ai2;‘(she-)goat’, Arm aye ‘(she-) goat’, Av izaena-
‘(goat)hide’, and perhaps Alb edh ‘kid’. The name of the ‘birch’
(PIE *bherh x gos ) probably lies behind the place-name
Bersovia/Berzobis. Comparisons such as Dacian seba ‘elder-
tree’ and Lith seiva-medis ‘elder-tree’ from *Reiueh a - support
the argument that Dacian palatalized the palatal velars. While
the evidence is far too meager to provide a full phonological
picture, Edgar Polome has outlined the basic features of
Dacian, among which are included: merger of voiced aspirates
with non-aspirates, change of palatal velars into sibilants,
*o > a , accented *e > ie ~ ia, *e > a, etc.
Dacian Origins
With historical attestations from the fifth century BC
onwards, Dacians can presumably be recognized in the
archaeological record as bearers of the Iron Age Ferigile group
who exploited the iron sources of the Carpathians. The Ferigile
group is presumably derived from the somewhat earlier
(eighth century BC) Basarabi culture (situated in modern
Moldova). Beyond this point, the prehistoric record of
Romania is exceedingly complex and the ethnic identity of
its inhabitants is increasingly conjectural. What can be said
is that the earlier cultures marking the transition from the
Bronze Age to the Iron Age horizon (corresponding to the
Hallstatt culture of central and western Europe) are seen to
be largely if not exclusively autochthonous and based on local
Bronze Age cultures. This relationship can be seen, for
example, in the way that the earliest Iron Age cultures appear
to distribute themselves on the basis of local Bronze Age
groups. The Bronze Age itself is marked by a cultural
succession, sometimes involving cultures covering broad
territories of Romania and adjacent territories such as the Noua
culture of the thirteenth-twelfth centuries BC or smaller
regional groups, especially in the middle Bronze Age c 1600
BC. The early Bronze Age cultures of the region (eastern
Romania and Moldova) consist primarily of the Cernavoda
and Folte§ti cultures which represent, at least ceramically,
components of a broad Balkan-Danubian complex of cultures
that extended as far south as Anatolia.
In the Kurgan theory the creation of the early Bronze Age
cultures is credited to the incursion of steppe peoples from
the Ukraine and south Russia. The cultural milieu of Neolithic
Romania comprised the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture over the
north-east, the Petre§ti culture to its west and to the south,
the Gumelnita culture, which was primarily anchored in
Bulgaria, south of the Danube but extended into the northwest
Black Sea region. What is regarded as the structural collapse
of these earlier Neolithic cultures is held by many to have
been the result of Kurgan invasions which are attested in
Romania by relatively persuasive evidence for burials and
whole cemeteries of the steppe type and whose deceased may
be physically differentiated from those of the previous
Neolithic cultures by being taller, more robust and long-
headed. Other cultural markers include the appearance of
the domesticated horse, cord-decorated and shell-tempered
pottery, etc. This cultural collapse represents the most recent
major discontinuity within the archaeological record that is
widely favored to reflect IE expansions into the region. Before
this discontinuity, only the initiation of the Neolithic itself
with the spread of the Cri§ culture and subsequent Neolithic
expansions eastwards across the northwest, e.g., the Bug-
Dniester culture, or along the Black Sea coast, the Hamangia
culture (Dobrogea), could be seen as a major vector for the
spread of a new language. These Neolithic populations,
marked by a remarkable density of settlement, no doubt
formed the essential population basis of the region. Neverthe-
less, both the evidence of cultural diffusion and the subsequent
evidence of physical types suggests a persistent influx of steppe
populations beginning with the Copper Age and continuing
into later periods. This influx is especially marked in the Iron
Age where presumably Iranian-speaking steppe populations
(Scythians and Sarmatians) contributed to the ethnic mixture
among the Dacians. By the first century AD, the impact of
Roman colonization and assimilation brought about the end
of the Dacians as an ethno-linguistic group.
See also Bug-Dniester Culture; Cernavoda Culture;
Thracian Language; Tripolye Culture. [J.RM]
Further Readings
Language
Duridanov, I. (1987) Die geographische Terminologie indogerman-
ischer Herkunft im Thrakischen und Dakischen, in Studien zum
indogermanischen Wortschatz , ed. W Meid, Innsbruck, 29-34.
Katicic, R. (1976) Ancient Languages of the Balkans. The Hague,
Mouton.
Polome, E. C. (1982) Balkan languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-
Moesian), in The Cambridge Ancient History , vol. Ill, part 1,
eds. J. Boardman etal., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
866 - 888 .
— 146
DAUGHTER
Origins
Meier-Arendt, W (1986) Die Ethnogenese der Daker aus Sicht der
Vor- und Friihgeschichte, in Ethnogenese europaischer Volker ,
ed. W Bernhard, A. Kandler-Palsson, Stuttgart and New York,
Fisher, 91-101.
Bernhard, W. (1986) Die Ethnogenese der Thraker und Daker aus
dem Sicht der Anthropologie, in Ethnogenese europaischer
Volker, ed. W Bernhard, A. Kandler-Palsson, Stuttgart and New
York, Fisher, 103-136.
DARK
*dh(o)ngu- dark’. [JEW 248 ( *dheng»o-y, G1 173
(*d h p-k’-)\ BK 78 ( *dum-k’w-/*dom-k’w -)]. Weis dew
(?< *dhpg-u-io/eh a -l ) ‘mist, smoke’, ON d 0 ldcr(< Proto-Gmc
*dankwiaz ) ‘dark’, OHG tunkal (< PIE *dhpg- ) ‘dark’, Hit
dankuis (o- or zero-grade) ‘dark’. The various reflexes suggest
an u-stem adjective, *dhongus, *dhpgdus. The distribution
suggests PIE antiquity. A proposed derivation from *dhemhx~
‘to blow’ is semantically improbable.
*t dmhxes - ‘dark’. [JEW 1063-1064 (*iem(z)-)\ Wat 69
( *temo-)\ Buck 15.63; BK 101 (*t[ h ]am-/*t[ h ]dm-)]. Lat temere
‘blindly, by chance’ (< *‘in the dark’), Lith tamsa ‘darkness’,
Latv tumsa ‘darkness’, Av tomah- ‘darkness’, OInd tamas-
‘darkness’. Compare the derivative *temh x sreh a _ in Lat (pi.)
tenebrae (< *temebrae) ‘darkness’, Olnd (pi.) tamisrah
‘darkness’ and the laryngealless variant *temsro/eh a - in OHG
dinstar ‘dark’, Lith timsras ‘dark’, Av tpQra- ‘darkness’, NPers
far ‘dark’. Other formations are seen in Mir teimen ‘dark gray’,
OCS tlma ‘darkness’, timlnu ‘dark’, Rus temrivo ‘darkness’.
Finally we find this word in various toponyms such as British
Tamesas (< *tamessa) ‘Thames’ (as quoted by Caesar), and
Illyrian Topapoq (name of mountain). The underlying verb
is preserved in Lith temti ‘become dark’. Widespread and old
in IE.
*hireg w -es- ‘(place of) darkness’. [/EW857 ( *reg?os-)\ Wat
54 (*reg w -es-)\. ON rokkr ‘darkness’, Goth riqts ‘darkness’
(< *rekwez ), Grk epepoq ‘hell, darkness of underworld’, Arm
erek ‘evening’, OInd rajas- ‘night’. Another formation is seen
in TochA orkam ‘dark, darkness’, TochB orkamo ‘dark’.
Distribution suggests PIE status for a term that may refer to a
place of darkness, perhaps the underworld.
*syer- ‘darken (either by making red or black)’. [ IEW 1052
( *syordo-s)\ Wat 68 ( *swordo-)\ Gl 685 (*s°er-)l. The
underlying form is preserved only in Iranian: Oss (vb.) xuarun
‘color’, (noun) xuaraen ‘color’, Khot hvaraka- ‘one who colors’
(the Ossetic and Khotanese implying a Proto-Iranian *hvaraya-
‘make dark, color’), Sogd xwrn- (= / xwaran /) ‘color’; an
enlargement *suerd- appears in Lat sordes ‘dirt, filth,
uncleanness’, sordeo ‘am dirty, am despised, appear worthless’,
suasum ‘dirt’ (< *suassom < *suardstom but the *-a- is not
altogether explained), ON svartr ‘black’, sorta ‘black color’,
sorti ‘darkness, thick fog’, sortna ‘become dark’, OE sweart
‘black, dark’ (> NE swart), OHG swarz ‘black’, Goth swarts
‘black’, NPers xval ‘lampblack’. Other enlargements appear
in (possibly) OIr sorb ‘stain, dirt’, OE sweorc ‘cloud, darkness,
mist’, sweorcan ‘become dark; be troubled’. Sufficiently
widespread to guarantee its PIE status.
*dhuenhx~ cover over, darken’. [/EW266 ( *dhuen(o)-)\
Wat 15 ( *dhweno -)]. Grk Qvpcnao die’, redvriKct ‘am dead’,
e'Oavov ‘died’, Oavaroq ‘death’, Ovrjxoq mortal’, OInd
adhvanlt ‘was extinguished (of anger)’, dhvanaya- ‘envelop,
wrap up, darken’, dhvanta- ‘covered, veiled, dark; darkness,
night’. The exact morphological equivalence of the Greek and
Old Indie assures at least late IE status for this word. It is
ultimately related to a large number of words for ‘dust’ and
‘smoke’ and the original meaning must have been ‘be covered
or darkened with dust or smoke’. That meaning remains
relatively unchanged in Old Indie but in Greek we see a further
metaphorical (and euphemistic) change to ‘die’.
*bhlendh~ ‘be/make cloudy’. [ IEW 1 57-1 58 ( *bhlendh-)\
Wat (*bhel-)\ Gl 366; Buck 4.97; BK 13 (*ba/-/*ba/-)]. MLat
blundus ‘blond’ (loanword < Gmc *blunda-), ON blanda ‘mix’,
blindr ‘blind’, blunda ‘close one’s eyes, sleep’, OE blandan
‘mix, mingle; trouble, disturb, corrupt’, blendan ‘make blind;
mix’, blind ‘blind; dark, obscure’ (> NE blind), blandenfeax
‘grizzly-haired, old’, ME blund(e)ren stir up, confuse’ (> NE
blunder), OHG blantan ‘mix’, blenten ‘make blind’, blmt
‘blind’, Goth blandan ‘associate with’, blinds ‘blind’, Lith
blandits ‘unclean’, bl0sti' mix food with flour’, b/psfis ‘become
dark’, OCS bl^dp ‘err’, blpdu ‘prostitution’, Rus blud
‘unchastity, lewdness’. A word of the northwest of the IE world.
*merk- ± darken’, [cf. /EW733-734 (*mer(a)k-) ; cf. Wat
42 ( *mer-)\ BK 539 ( *mar-/*mdr-)\ . Olr mrecht - ‘variegated’,
Weis brith ‘variegated’, ON myrginn ‘morning’, OE morgen
‘morning’, OHG morgan ‘morning’, Goth maurgi ns ‘morning’
(Gmc < *mfkdno- ~ *mjkeno- ‘twilight’), Lith merktu ‘close
one’s eyes, wink’, OCS mruknpti ‘become dark’, mrakti ‘dark’,
mraclnu ‘dark’. A word of the northwest of the IE world.
*(h a )merh x g* r - ‘dark’ . [JEW 733-7 34 ( *mer~)\ . ON myrkr
‘darkness’ (borrowed > NE murk), OE mierce ‘darkness’ (<
Proto-Gmc *merkwia-), Lith margas ‘variegated’, Alb murg
(< PIE *morhxg w o~) ‘black’, Grk apopp6q(< *h a morhig w o-
or metathesized from *popa(i6q < *morh a g w o-) ‘dark’. A
relation to OInd mgga- ‘wild animal’ is doubtful. Distribution
suggests a word of the west and center of the IE world.
?*(ha)mauros dark’. [/EW701 ( *mau-ro-)\ . Rus (s)muryj
‘dark gray’, Grk dpavpoq ‘dim, faint; troubling, confusing’.
Possibly a word of the center in late IE. Perhaps belonging
here as well is ON meyrr(< Proto-Gmc *maurya-) 'soft, tender,
mellow’ but the semantic distance is troubling.
See also Color; Death; Dirt; Underworld [M.E.H., D.Q.A.]
DAUGHTER
*dhug(ha)ter (gen *dhug(ha)trds) daughter’ \1EW 277
( *dhug(h)dter -); Wat 15 ( *dhughater-)\ Gl 668
( *d h ug^ldt h er-). Buck 2.42; Szem 4; Wordick 1 53—1 54] . Gaul
duxtir ‘daughter’, Osc fu(u)tir l daughter’, ON doff/r‘daughter’,
OE dohtor 1 daughter’ (> NE daughter), OHG tohteE daughter’,
Goth dauhtar ‘daughter’, OPrus duckti ‘daughter’, Lith dukte
‘daughter’, OCS dusti ‘daughter’, ORus doci daughter’, Myc
— 147 —
DAUGHTER
tu-ka-te ‘daughter’, Grk Ovydxrjp ‘daughter’, Arm dustr
‘daughter’, Luv SAl duttar(ri)yati- ‘daughter’, Lycian (acc.)
kbatra- ‘daughter’, Av duyadar- ‘daughter’, Sogd 8wyt
‘daughter’, Pashto lur ‘daughter’, OInd duhitar- ‘daughter’,
Ashkun zu ‘daughter’, Prasun liist(ul) ‘daughter’, TochA ckacar
‘daughter’, TochB tkacer ‘daughter’.
That a single term ‘daughter’ survives in some way in all
major branches except Albanian shows that Indo-European
daughters were significant to their families. Later Italic and
Celtic languages have innovated with a new term, but archaic
Oscan and Gaulish inscriptions preserve traces of the original
lexeme. The exact nature of the medial laryngeal cannot be
determined, and the unexpected loss in Italic, Celtic and
Armenian suggests a unique cluster. Persistent efforts to create
just-so stories about Indo-European home-life by etymo-
logizing ‘daughter’ as ‘milker’ (< *dheugh-, though the
meaning ‘milk’ for this verb is restricted to Indo-Iranian) and
more recently as ‘the person who prepares the meals’
(< *dhug- ‘meal’, cf. Goth dauhts ‘meal, banquet’, East Iranian
(Herodotus) xvKxd ‘banquet’) provide no insight into the
actual state of affairs.
See also Brother; Kinship. [M.E.H.]
DAUGHTER-IN-LAW
*snusds ‘son’s wife, brother’s wife’. [7£W 978 ( *snusos );
GI 663 ( *snuso-)\ Buck 2.64; Szem 19; Wordick 244], Lat
nurus ‘son’s/grandson’s wife’, ON snor ‘son’s wife’, OE snoru
‘son’s wife’, Fris snore ‘son’s wife’, OHG snur(a) ‘son’s wife’,
CrimGoth schuos (for *schnos ) ‘son’s wife’, ORus snukha ‘son’s
wife, bride’, Rus snokha ‘son’s wife, bride’, Grk vvoq ‘son’s
wife, bride’, Arm nu ‘son’s wife’, Sogd swnsh ‘daughter-in-
law’, Oss nost’a ‘son’s/brother‘s wife’, OInd snusa ‘son’s wife’.
The distribution indicates PIE status. Unrelated or only
distantly related is Alb nuse ‘bride’ < ( *(s)nubh-tieh a ), parallel
to the later replacement in Greek by vvpcpr] ‘young wife,
married woman, marriageable woman, daughter-in-law’.
Daughters-in-law have not only suffered at the hands of
their husbands’ mothers but from Teutonic etymologists, who
have attempted to relate the term to ‘knot’ (< *snu - ‘bind,
tie’; cf. the homophonous German schnur). These attempts
and Szemerenyi’s more recent attempt to see the word as a
derivative of ‘son’ (< *snusus< *sunu~sus< *sunu-su-s ‘son’s
wife’) with unparalleled zero-grade ablaut of u is most
unconvincing. Alternatively, GI suggest a relationship with
the root *sneubh- ‘marry’ which is plausible if the latter
represents an enlargement of (an unattested) *sneu- ‘marry’.
See also Daughter; Kinship; Son-in-law. [M.E.H.]
DAWN
*h a €usds ‘dawn’. [1EW 86-87 ( *(a)us-ds ) ; Wat 4
(*ausos-); Buck 14.43; BK 393 (*haw-/*hdw-)]. Mir fair
‘sunrise’, Weis gwawr ‘dawn’, Lat aurora (< *h a eusoseh a , with
regular change of intervocalic -s- to -r-; cf. a us- ter ‘south wind’)
‘dawn’, OE eastre ‘goddess of springtime’ (> NE Easter ), OHG
ostan ‘eastern’, Lith ausra ‘dawn’, Latv austra ‘dawn’, OCS
(za) ustra ‘morning’, Grk (Homeric) f](oq, (Attic) ecoq ‘dawn’,
Av usi ‘dawn’, OInd usa- ‘dawn’. From *h a eues- ‘to shine’.
The PIE word for ‘dawn’.
*h a (e)us-sketi ‘it lights up, dawns’. ( IEW 86-87 ( *aues -)] .
Lith austa ‘(it) dawns’, Latv aust ‘(it) dawns’, Av usaiti ‘(it)
dawns’, OInd ucchati ‘(it) dawns’.
The root *h a eues- ‘to shine’ effects a broad semantic range,
including not only ‘dawn’, ‘morning’, ‘day’ and ‘light’ but also
‘east’ (the direction of the sunrise) and ‘red’ (= morning
redness, the color of the dawn), reflected in Lat aurum
(< *h a eusom ) ‘gold’, OPrus ausis ‘gold’.
See also Dawn Goddess; Day; East; Gold [PB ]
DAWN GODDESS
A Proto-Indo-European goddess of the dawn is supported
both by the evidence of cognate names and the similarity of
mythic representation of the dawn goddesses among various
IE groups. The primary evidence for a PIE *h a eusds ‘Dawn’ is
to be found in OInd Usas, Grk ’Hcbq (Eos), Lat Aurora (and
non-cognate Mater Matuta) , and the Baltic dawn goddesses,
Lith Ausrine and Latv Auseklis.
The OInd Usas was the “reluctant” dawn, punished by the
warrior-god lndra for attempting to forestall the day. She, as
the Roman Mater Matuta, nurtured her sibling’s child instead
of her own. In this case the foster child was Agni the fire god,
the son of the night, Ratrl (RV 1.96). Usas was the most
addressed goddess in the Rgveda. She was described as a
‘Great’-goddess, and she was transfunctional, being ‘endowed
with knowledge’, ‘strong with strength’, and ‘bestowing all
treasures’.
Aurora (the feminine a-suffix is a Latin innovation) was
the Roman goddess of the dawn. In Greco-Roman myth, Eos-
Aurora fell in love with the mortal, Tlthonus, and she begged
the father-god Zeus to grant her lover immortality. She forgot
to ask that Tlthonus be granted eternal youth as well, and
she continued to live with her immortal, but ever-ageing, lover.
In fact, it was with reluctance that she left his bed each
morning, until he became terribly old; then she locked him
in a room, where he mindlessly blathers (Homeric Hymn to
Aphrodite 237). This theme of the reluctant dawn is found
throughout Indo-European dawn mythology. Aurora’s
inherited Indo-European mythology was shared by the Roman
Mater Matuta, ‘Morning Mother’, who took on much of
Aurora’s inherited Indo-European myth. In the Roman rites
of ‘The Mothers’, the Matralia , yellow cakes were offered to
the goddess. Female slaves were excluded from the temple of
Mater Matuta at this time, and mothers prayed to her, not on
behalf of their own children, but on behalf of another’s, since
she was an ‘unfortunate parent’. The Indie myth of the dawn-
goddess Usas explains this latter aspect of the rite, described
in Ovid’s Fasti (6.473-568); Usas took care of Agni the fire
god, the son of the night, Usas’ sister, Ratrl. Plutarch (Vitae
Parallelae, ‘Life of Camillus’ 5.2) also describes the ritual,
stating that the mothers care for their brothers ’children rather
than their own. Further, slaves are not only excluded from
148
DEAF
the temple; a handmaid is led into the shrine, struck with
sticks, and driven forth again. The underlying myth behind
this rite is the punishment of the “reluctant” dawn, seen more
transparently in Indie myth; in Roman rite the handmaid is
punished in her stead.
Eos, the Greek goddess of the dawn, shares mythology
with Aurora, having the immortal, ever-aging Tlthonus as
lover; Eos, as Aurora and other dawn goddesses, is “reluctant”
to leave her bed.
The Lithuanian Ausrine began each day by lighting a fire
for the sun. Her name is cognate with Latvian Auseklis, who
like other goddesses of the dawn, was “reluctant” in the sense
that she did not always rise in the morning. In Latvian folk-
songs, there were various explanations for her absence: she
was said to be locked up in a golden chamber, or in Germany
sewing velvet skirts.
All of this evidence permits us to posit a PIE *h a eusos
‘goddess of dawn’ who was characterized as a “reluctant”
bringer of light for which she is punished. In three of the IE
stocks, Baltic, Greek and Indo-lranian, the existence of a PIE
‘goddess of the dawn’ is given additional linguistic support
in that she is designated the ‘daughter of heaven’. This can be
seen in the correspondence of Lith dievo dukte, Grk Ovydrpp
Aioq , and OInd duhita divah which all derive from a PIE
*dhug(ha)ter diyos ‘daughter of heaven’. The corresponding
‘son of heaven’ is not lexically reconstructible but is both
semantically and mythologically associated with the “Divine
Twins”.
See also Dawn; Divine Twins; Goddesses; Sun Goddess.
[M.R.D.]
Further Readings
Dexter, M. (1996) Dawn-maid and Sun-maid: Celestial goddesses
among the Proto-Indo-Europeans, in The Indo-Europeanization
of Northern Europe, eds. K. Jones-Bley and M. E. Huld,
Washington, Institute for the Study of Man, 228-246.
Dumezil, G. (1956) Deesses latines et mythes vediques. Brussels,
Latomus.
Dumezil, G. (1976) Mythe et epopee III. Paris, Gallimard.
Euler, W (1987) Gab es eine indogermanische Gotterfamilie? in
Studien zum indogermanischen Wortschatz , ed W. Meid,
Innsbruck, 35-56.
DAY
*h^ghr l day’. [IEW7 ( *a gher-)\ Wat 1 ( *agh-)\ Buck 14.41 ;
BK 461 ( *hag-/hog-)] . ON dagr ‘day’, OE dreg ‘day’ (> NE
day), OHG tak ‘day’, Goth dags ‘day’, Av azan - ‘day’, OInd
ahar (gen. ahnas) ‘day’. The etymological connection of the
Germanic and Indie forms is based on a dubious analogical
effect of Proto-Gmc *dajwaz ‘warm time of the year’ ([<
*dhdg w hos ‘burning’ 1 > ON deegr ~ doegn ‘half day, period of
twelve hours’, OE dogor ‘day’), which purportedly supplied
the initial *d- to the Germanic forms. Another suggestion is
that the Gmc *d~ results from a misdivision of *tod h a eghf
‘that day’ or the like as *to(d) dh a eghf (where *dh a - gave the
same result as *dh-). If the Germanic and Indo-lranian forms
are cognate, the root appears to be an archaic r/n- stem. But
its limited geographical spread indicates dialectal status in
any case.
*h 2 ehx-mer- day’. [1EW 35 ( *amer-)' Wat 2 ( *amer~), Buck
14.41]. Grk (Homeric) f]gap (gen. rjpaxoq), (Attic) ppepa
‘day’. Arm awr(< *h 2 eh x mor) ‘day’. Dialectal IE, represented
only in two stocks that frequently exhibit shared isoglosses.
*deino- ~ *dino- ‘day’. [IEW 186 ( *deino-)\ Wat 10
( *deiw-)\ Buck 14.41; BK 119 (*t aT-/*f y-)]. OIr tredenus,
‘three-day period’, Lat nundinae ‘the ninth (market) day’, OCS
dim ‘day’, OInd dina-m ‘day’; the full form of the root is
represented by Goth sinteins ‘daily’, OPrus (acc.) deinan ‘day’,
Lith diena ‘day’, Latv diena ‘day’. Possibly belonging here as
well is Alb gdhin (< *-d(e)ime/o -) ‘it dawns’. The root *deino-
~ *dino- is a nominal form derived from the verbal root *deiu-
‘to shine’ by means of a nasal infix. This secondary form is
probably PIE in date.
*dje(u)- ‘day’. \IEW 184-185 (*deieu-)\ Wat 10 (*deiw-)\
GI 693 ( *t’iu -); Buck 14.41; BK 119 ( W-/W-)]. OIr dla
‘day’, Weis dydd ‘day’, Lat dies ‘day’, Osc zicolo- ‘day’, Grk
evSioq ‘at mid-day’, Arm tiw ‘day’. Hit slwatt - ‘day’, OInd
diva ‘during the day’, divasa- ‘day’. Words descended from
*die(u)- ‘day’ are based on the root *deiyi- ‘to shine’ (cf. OInd
dideti ‘it shines’). Though *die - is geographically diffused and
is represented in three regional groups, the robust number of
metaphorical extensions of this root and the obvious nature
of the ‘day’ from ‘shine’ derivation suggest that *die- may be
dialectally independent and not of PIE date.
The root *deiu- furnishes a number of lexical derivatives.
In addition to ‘day’, there is ‘see’ (cf. Homeric <5 eaxo ‘he was
being seen’), ‘clear’ (cf. Grk (Hesychius) diaAoq ‘clear,
certain’), ‘sky’ (cf. OInd dyauh ), ‘heaven’ (cf. OInd divam ),
and ‘god’ (cf. Grk Zevq, Lat deus , lupiter).
See also Burn, Shine, Sky God, Time. (PB. ]
DEAF
*bhodfr x r&s deaf’, [cf. IEW 1 12 (*bhau-)\ Buck 4.95], OIr
bodar ‘deaf’, Weis byddar" deaf’, OInd badhira- ‘deaf’. Though
very sparsely attested, the exact equation in meaning and form
of Celtic and Old Indie guarantees PIE status for this word.
As a word designating an infirmity it was presumably subject
to taboo or euphemistic replacement.
*m Q- ‘dumb’. [/EW751 ( *md-)\ Wat 43 ( *mu -); Buck
4.96] . Lat mutus ‘dumb’, Norw mua ‘be silent’, Grk
(Hesychius) pvKoq‘dumb\ Arm mun] ‘dumb’, OInd mQka-
‘dumb’. The underlying *mu- is probably sound-symbolic
(from the gesture of compressing the lips), though it would
appear to be at least of late PIE date.
Not to be able to speak is a serious disfunction in the IE
context, also affecting the First Function area or zone, of the
head, the tongue, and the powers of communication. Much
of the evidence comes from the Celtic area, where Caesar
noted that the druids privileged the spoken word over the
written (Bell. Gall. 6.14), where “the first lie” in Ireland was
— 149
DEAF
said to be an inscription on a sword, and where, in the mytho-
legendary atmosphere of the Welsh Mabinogi , warriors
resuscitated in a Caldron of Regeneration can fight, but they
cannot speak. To be dumb is, in fact, to be seen as dead
(deafness would probably be included in this view); we note
the widespread European folkloric belief concerning “seeing
the wolf’ (Grk ...XvKog ideiv ), that is, if the wolf (the sign of
death) is seen or sees someone, that person is struck dumb:
loss of the power to communicate verbally is tantamount to
loss of vitality, to dying.
See also Blind; Defect. [D.Q.A., D.A.M.J
DEATH
*mer- ‘die’. [IEW 735 (*mer-); Wat 42 (*mer-); GI 396
( *mer-)\ Buck 4.75; BK 525 ( *mir-/*mer -)] . Lat morior‘die’,
Lith mirstu ‘die’, Latv mirstu ‘die’, OCS min? ‘die’, Grk
(Hesychius) epopxev (aorist) ‘died’, Arm metanim ‘die’, Hit
mer- ‘disappear, die off’, Av miryeite ‘dies’, OInd mriyate ‘dies’.
This is a very wide-spread verbal root in PIE (lacking only in
Celtic, Albanian and Tocharian) and clearly of great antiquity.
It has spawned a number of nominal derivatives, some of
which are listed below:
*mft6s ‘dead; mortal’. [IEW 735 ( *mf-to-)\ Wat 42
( *mf-to -); Buck 4.75; BK 525 ( *mir-/*mer-)l . Lat mortuus
‘dead’, OCS mrQtvu ‘dead’ (Latin and Slavic < *mftuos, whose
formation is analogical to the word for ‘alive’), Grk fipoxog
‘person’ (< *‘mortal’), apfipoxog ‘immortal’. Arm mard
‘person’, Av marsta- ‘dead’, OInd mpta- ‘dead’. Widespread
PIE term for ‘dead’.
*mditos ‘person, mortal’, f IEW 735 (*mor-fo-); Wat 42
( *mer-)\ GI 396 (*mer-); BK 525 ( *mir-/*mer-)J. Grk
(Hesychius) popxog ‘person; dead’, Av marota- ‘person,
mortal’, OInd marta- ‘person, mortal’. A late dialectal term in
IE.
*mftls ‘death’. [IEW 735 ( *mp-ti-)\ Wat 42 ( *mpti-)\ Buck
4.75; BK 525 ( *mir-/*mer-)\ . Lat mors ‘death’, Lith minis
‘death’, OCS su-mrutl ‘death’, Av mardti- ‘death’, OInd mftyu-
‘death’, and (only late attested) m/Ti- ‘death’. Distribution
suggests PIE antiquity.
‘death’. [IEW 735 ( *mp-to-m)\ Wat 42 ( *mer-)\
Buck 4.75; BK 525 ( *mir-/*mer-)\ . ON mord ‘murder’, OE
mord ‘murder, death, destruction’, OHG mord ‘murder’, OInd
mfta- ‘death’.
*m6ros ‘death’. [IEW 735 ( *moro-s)\ Wat 42 ( *mer-)\ BK
525 ( *mir-/*men)\. Lith maras ‘pestilence, plague’, OCS moru
‘plague’, Grk popog ‘fate, doom, death’, OInd mara- ‘death’.
A word of at least the center and east of the IE world.
*nek- ‘perish, die’. [LEW 762 ( *nek-)\ Wat 44 (*nek-)\ GI
397 ( *Hnek h -)\ BK 557 ( *nik[ h ]-/*nek[ h ]~ )]. Lat need ‘kill’,
noced ‘inflict injury’, Av nasyeiti ‘disappears’, OInd nasyati ‘is
lost, disappears, perishes’, TochA nakstar ‘disappears,
perishes’, TochB nakstar ‘disappears, perishes’ ( naksam
‘destroys’). Perhaps also here is the name of the Germanic
chthonian goddess Nehalennia. Though not certainly found
in Hittite, this word is also ancient in IE. Compare the
following nominal derivatives:
*neK- death’. [IEW 762 (*nek-)\ Wat 44 (*nek-)\ BK 557
( *nik[ h ]-/*nek[ h ]-)[ . OIr echt (< *$kti-) ‘killing’, Lat nex
‘death’, OE oht (< *onkteh a -) ‘hostile pursuit’, Grk vcotcap
‘coma’, vsKxap ‘nectar’ (< * ‘death conquering’), and possibly
Hit henkan- ‘death’, though the he- is not well explained (the
remains of a prefix?).
*n6kus ‘death; dead’. [IEW 762 ( *nek-)\ Wat 44 ( *nek-)\
Buck 4.77; BK 557 (*nik[ h ]-/*nek[ h ]-)]. OIr ec (< *nkii-)
‘death’, Weis angau ‘death’, Grk veicvg ‘corpse; dead’, Av nasu-
‘corpse’, TochA onk ‘man’, TochB enkwe ‘man’ (Toch
< *nku-o- ‘mortal’). Distribution suggests PIE antiquity.
*y el- ‘die’. [IEW 1144 ( *ueI-)\ Wat 76 ( *weh -); GI 723
(*wel-)\. ON valr' one who dies on the battlefield’, val-hpll
‘Valhalla’ (dwelling place of warriors fallen in battle), val-kyrja
‘Valkyrie’ (one who chooses from the slain those who go to
dwell in Valhalla), OE wael ‘slaughter, carnage’, (pi.) ‘dead
bodies’, wael-cyrige ‘witch-sorceress’, wol pestilence, mortality,
disease’, OHG wal ‘battlefield’, wudl ‘pestilence, destruction,
overthrow’, Lith veli ‘soul, spirit’, velines ‘remembrance of
the dead’, Veliuoka ‘god of the dead’, Latv velis ‘spirit of the
dead’, veins ‘devil’, Ve\u laiks ‘rite of remembrance of the
dead’, Ukr valjava ‘body-covered battlefield’, Czech valeti
‘fight, make war upon’, TochA wal- ‘die’, walu ‘dead’. Perhaps
belonging here as well is Luv walant(i)- ~ ulant(i)- ‘dead’
though it might also be derived from *g w el-. More speculative
is any connection with the Greek adjective r\Xvoiov keSiov
‘Elysian fields’ (the abode of the dead). Certainly if the Luvian
word belongs here, we have a word that was widespread and
old in IE.
*dhg"hei- perish’. [/EW487 (*^hdei(a-))[. Grk (pOi'vco
‘dwindle’, OInd kstyate ‘disappear, be destroyed’ ( ksindti
‘destroys’). Cf. the derived *dhg w hitis\ Lat sifts ‘thirst’, Grk
(pOicng ‘decay’, OInd ksiti- ‘collapse’. With the exception of
Lat sifts ‘thirst’, which may not belong here, the distribution
suggests a late isogloss in IE.
*dheu - ‘die’. [/EW260 ( *dheu-)\ Wat 14 ( *dheu-)\ Buck
4.75], OIr dith ‘end, death’, Lat funus ‘burial’, ON deyja die’
(borrowed > NE die), OHG tauwen ‘die’, Goth diwans ‘mortal’,
OCS daviti (< *dhoueie/o-) ‘strangle’, Arm di ‘corpse’. Found
in the west and center of the IE world. Perhaps from '“‘breathe
one’s last’ and related to *dhues- ‘breathe’.
*nih a u is ‘corpse’. [7EW756 ( *nauis)\ Wat 43 ( *nau -); GI
724 ( *nau-s-)\ Buck 4.77; BK 568 ( *na-/*na-)\ . ON nar
‘corpse’, OE ne(o)- ‘corpse’, Goth naus ‘corpse’, OPrus nowis
‘corpse’, Lith nove ‘oppression, torment of death, death’, novyti
‘oppress, destroy, extirpate’, Latv nave ‘death’, navet ‘kill,
destroy’, ORus navi ‘corpse’, TochA nwam{< *nu-eh a -ment-)
‘sick’. In the sense of ‘corpse’ an innovation of the Germano-
Balto-Slavic group. GI takes this word to be identical with
the word for ‘boat’, hence a vessel that transports one to the
afterlife.
See also Death Beliefs; Destroy; Extinguish; Underworld.
(D.Q.A.j
— 150 —
DEATH BELIEFS
Further Reading
Barton, C. R. (1989) PIE *mer-, Arm meranim ‘die’. IF 94, 135-
157.
DEATH BELIEFS
The details of the Indo-Europeans’ beliefs about death and
the afterlife can be ascertained to a degree by testimony from
comparative linguistics, inscriptions, religious texts, myth-
ology, and archaeological evidence about funerary practices.
Burial
The traditions of the various IE stocks indicate that when
a person died he or she was mourned by family and friends,
and the body was prepared for cremation or inhumation. One
of the few lexical sets possibly associated with burial is
*sepelie/o - seen in Lat sepelio ‘bury’, sepulcrum ‘tomb’, OInd
saparyati ‘honors, upholds’. The word is a derivative of *sep-
‘handle (skillfully), hold (reverently)’ [IEW 909 ( *sep-); Wat
58 ( *sep-)\ GI 728 (*sep tl -)] as in Grk etco) ‘serve, prepare’,
geOeica)- £(p£7T(o ‘manage (horses)’, Av hap- ‘hold’, 01 nd sapati
‘touches, handles, caresses; venerates’, sapti- ‘team of horses’.
During the early historical period, inhumation was more
common among most IE groups than cremation, although
the latter was also accepted in many cultures and preferred
in India and Iran. In other areas such as Homeric Greece and
Scandinavia, cremation was sometimes a special honor
accorded to heroes. The variation in funeral rites over both
space and time, however, militates against any attempt to
reconstruct an “original” PIE burial mode through an analysis
of the burial rites of the various IE stocks. All that can be said
is that an IE origin set at any time up to about the fourth or
third millennium BC would more likely comprise inhumation
rather than cremation, which at that time was less widely
employed and more common in peripheral areas of Europe.
As for the former, inhumation was generally soon after death;
however, there is sporadic evidence from the Atlantic to Asia
of secondary burial of the deceased after the flesh had been
removed, either through exposure (to the elements or birds
or slower decay in a charnel house) or the assistance of flint
tools where the flesh would be cleaned from the bones. The
range of burial modes is also considerable: flat graves,
megalithic tombs, earthen barrows, both elongated or circular,
are encountered in various regions of Eurasia. In addition to
the actual burials there are in some IE traditions evidence of
sacrificial pits associated with the graves of presumably
renowned persons, e.g. , at Mycenae and earlier sites in Greece,
in Hittite (Hattie and Hurrian) texts and at the Hittite site of
Gedikli, and some earlier Yamna sites in the north Pontic
region. But without decisive linguistic evidence it is impossible
to determine which if any of these may have applied
specifically to the Proto-Indo-Europeans. It should also be
added that in the discussion below concerning various IE
themes, the different IE traditions present such a variety of
beliefs and approaches to death and the otherworld that one
may well suspect that there was also considerable variety in
death beliefs among the Proto-Indo-Europeans as well.
Among the various IE stocks, the final disposition of the
body was accompanied by religious rituals, aimed at ensuring
the future well-being of the dead person’s spirit, and sacrifices
of drink, food, or animals. Grave gifts of weapons, tools,
clothing, jewellery, household objects, food, and drink were
commonly placed with the body; money was not usually
offered except as a coin or two to pay the otherworldly
ferryman in Greek and Roman tradition. Further sacrifice^
were often made after the funeral, both at specified intervals
following the rites (most commonly three, nine, thirty, and
forty days after the death, and thereafter at yearly intervals)
and on particular festival days honoring the spirits of the dead
(e.g., the third day of the Greek Anthesteria, a spring festival;
the Roman Dies Parentales; German Feasts of the Dead). The
soul maintained a strong link with the burial place, where
the libations and sacrifices were usually performed. In some
IE stocks, those who died without descendants to sacrifice to
them were condemned to eternal hunger; a desire to avoid
this promoted reverence for ones ancestors, a higher birth
rate, and (in some cases) the practice of adoption if there
were no offspring in a marriage.
Afterworld
Evidence from the different IE groups suggests a Proto-
Indo-European belief that, after the inhumation or cremation
of the corpse, the spirit of the dead person made a journey
culminating in crossing a river or climbing a hill to reach an
afterlife. In this afterworld, ruled by a deity or deified human
and inhabited by other more minor deities, the souls of the
dead carried on their existence, occasionally returning to the
world of the living as ghosts, but more often simply receiving
gifts or sacrifices from their survivors and descendants. In
different cultures, the soul’s journey to the afterworld may
begin at the moment of death, at the completion of a
prescribed ceremony or ritual, or at the dissolution of the
body, whether by fire or by natural decay. Primary evidence
for the death journey is found in various originally slang or
euphemistic terms for death and dying which are derived
from words meaning ‘go’ (e.g., *leit(hx)~ ‘go forth’ which gives
ON Iidinn , ‘dead’, leidi ‘tomb’, Goth (causative) - leipan , Av
raeO- ‘die’; and *g w eh 3 - ‘go’ which yields OIr baid ‘he dies’
and at-bath ‘died’, at-bailO) ‘vanishes, perishes’, bas ‘death’,
Weis had ‘plague’. Another linguistic pointer is the prevalency
of euphemisms for dying or killing formed from terms
meaning ‘put’ or ‘bring’ compounded with prepositions to
give a sense of movement from one place to another (e.g., Lat
interficid 1 put between, kill’ and intereo and pereo ‘die’, Goth
usqiman ‘die’, OInd antar dha- ‘do in, kill’).
Rituals and grave gifts also attest to the concept of the
journey: the Vedic sraddha ceremony is repeated at frequent
intervals for a year or two to provide the soul with food on its
travels, then discontinued when the soul is presumed to have
arrived. Vedic hymns adjure the soul to ‘follow the path’ to
151 —
DEATH BELIEFS
the afterworld. In Hittite funeral ritual, priests were responsi-
ble for smoothing the path to be followed by the soul with a
mixture of honey, tallow, and oil. The souls of the dead in
Iranian belief must cross the narrow Chinvat bridge spanning
an abyss. In Greek mythology, the soul walked to the river
boundary of Hades, where the ferryman Kharon was waiting.
It has been suggested that this last motif reflects a PIE belief
that the soul was transported into the afterlife by an old man,
death personified, who served as a ferryman. The motif is
not only present in Greek myth where Kharon is consistently
depicted as an ‘old man’ {yepcov < PIE *gerh a - ‘to age, mature’)
but also in Old Norse sources where one encounters a karl
(< *gerh a -) ‘(old) man’ ferrying the body of Sinfjptli across a
fjord ( Vplsunga Saga 10). In Celtic tradition we find Barinthus
(< *Barrfind ‘head-white’), the ferryman who carries Arthur’s
body to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Fortunata. The motif of a
ferryman is also known in lndo-Iranian and Slavic tradition
but here his role is more concerned with carrying the “saved”
to a happy afterlife rather than simply conveying all the dead
to the next world. Yet there are still a number of similarities
with the concept of a white-haired and bearded old man that
Bruce Lincoln has postulated a PIE belief concerning
*gerh a ont- ‘old man’ as ferryman of the dead.
The river of the otherworld has also been analyzed in
comparative terms and it has been suggested that a number
of IE traditions are variations on an original theme. The well-
known river of the Greek otherworld, Lethe, washed away
memories while the Vijara of Indie tradition washed away
both good and bad deeds. On the other hand, there are also
lakes and springs such as the spring of the Norse Mlmir which
imparts great wisdom as do certain springs or lakes in Irish
tradition. On such a basis, Bruce Lincoln has suggested that
there was a PIE tradition that envisaged the dead having their
memories washed away by a river of the otherworld. These
memories were then carried by the river into a spring from
whence certain chosen ones might drink and draw the
accumulated wisdom of the departed.
The soul of an unburied Greek was unable to make the
river crossing and could only wait outside the gates of the
afterworld. Early Attic tombs often contain clay models of
boats provided for the journey. Italian funerary monuments
and tomb paintings from the sixth through fourth centuries
BC show the deceased traveling on horseback or in a chariot
to the afterworld, although this may be influenced by the
Etruscan substrate. Nevertheless, the motif of conveyance to
the site of burial by a wheeled vehicle is widespread among
many IE stocks not only in the historic period but also among
their presumable prehistoric ancestors. Chariots or wagons
are found in the graves of the Celts and Iranians of the steppe
(attested both in Scythian royal burials and in the writings of
Herodotus) and the motif is depicted in art among both the
Italic peoples and ancient Greeks. In prehistoric contexts such
wagon burials are known in the Iron Age Hallstatt and La
Tene cultures in the west and in burials spanning the Bronze
Age in eastern Europe, either in the form of actual wagon
burials in the late Yamna, Catacomb, and other cultures of
the steppe and forest-steppe or in the form of clay models in
the Baden culture of the Danube basin.
In literature, the Romans were heavily influenced by the
Greek mythology of the journey, with few original touches.
However, in an older Italic (and Etruscan) tradition the soul
remained closely tied to the actual grave or tomb, which was
often decorated and furnished inside to provide a home-like
atmosphere. Tomb inscriptions often evince concern about
the safety of the tomb and the bones; violating a grave was a
criminal offense; and the tomb’s owner frequently made
provisions against the sale or transmission by inheritance of
the tomb. In Baltic, Slavic, and steppe Iranian areas the tomb
is also often decorated like a house, with lavish funeral gifts.
Frequently a supply of horses, carts, and harness suggests
provisions for a journey to the afterlife and a prosperous
existence there. Scandinavian evidence again has the spirit of
the dead person closely associated with the grave while an
apparently separate soul inhabits either Hel, the underworld,
or Valhalla, the warriors’ paradise. Those who died in battle
were taken immediately to Valhalla by the Valkyries. As befits
a seafaring people, the afterworld may also be reached by
sailing; the well-known image of the Viking funeral via a
burning ship dates back to the Bronze Age. For those too
poor to ride, grave gifts included wagons for the transport of
the soul or Hel-shoes for the long and arduous walk. A bridge,
a river, and a great gate all stand as obstacles to the pilgrim
soul. Although the Celtic traditions concerning the afterworld
are confusing and contradictory, the concept of the soul’s
journey is clearly present. Literary evidence deals mostly with
two coexisting traditions of water journeys to an island
afterworld or otherworld and access to an underworld through
a mound or hill (Olr sid, cf. the NE loan banshee ‘woman of
the sidh).
That the afterworld was surrounded by an earthen wall or
enclosure is widely found in IE tradition where a range of IE
terms relating to ‘enclosure’, ‘fort’ or ‘wall’ are employed in
depicting the place where mortals go after death. For example,
from PIE *ghordhos ‘hedge, fence, enclosure’, ON (pi.) garefar
is employed to describe the surrounding walls of the realm of
Hel, the goddess of death; the Av goroda is employed in the
Avesta to denote the cave of demons associated with pollution
by death, and OInd (acc. sg.) mfnmayam grham ‘house of
clay’ is used to indicate where one goes after death. lndo-
Iranian tradition also employs lndo-Iranian *saitu- ‘boundary
wall’ (Av haetu -, Olnd setu -) to indicate the wall surrounding
paradise (cf. NE paradise from Iranian ‘that which is walled
around’) while other terms normally indicating a fort or wall
are found in other IE stocks. It has been tentatively suggested
that the concept of the earthen wall as a boundary between
the living and the dead may also derive from the practice of
tumulus burial where the house-like construction that
contained the body of the deceased was separated from the
world of the living by the earthen walls of the mound.
Once the journey was accomplished and the barriers of
— 152 —
DEATH BELIEFS
water or earth had been surmounted, the soul was believed
to exist eternally in the afterworld. The presumed location of
the afterworld varies according to the geographical situation
of each stock of the Indo-Europeans. A subterranean world
is depicted in Greek, Roman, Germanic, Celtic, and probably
Hittite belief, supplemented by an afterworld which could
be reached variously by travelling west over sea for the Greeks,
Celts, and Balts; north by land or sea for the Germanic people
and again the Greeks; and south for Indie people. Since there
is also some textual evidence for an afterworld in the south in
Celtic (the location of the Tech Duinn ‘house of Donn’ who is
the first king of the early Irish afterworld), Germanic
(Odainsakr, the ‘land of the living’ beyond India) as well as
Indie, it has been suggested that this is the direction of the IE
afterworld itself but there are so many variations that such an
assertion is exceedingly difficult to demonstrate. Many
branches of IE, among them Hittite, Germanic, Indie, Iranian,
Baltic, and Thracian, also believed that the souls of the dead
resided in the sky. In fact, the only direction which did not
lead to an afterworld for some group of Indo-Europeans was
east.
It has been argued on the basis of a number of IE traditions
that the afterworld or the deceased was ruled by a “lord of
the dead” who was also the ‘Twin’ of the IE cosmogonic myth.
This relationship is most clearly indicated in the Indie tradition
where Yama, the first king and etymologically equivalent with
‘twin’, reigns over the departed. His Iranian equivalent Yima
was also first man and king and although the religion of
ZaraBustra deprived him of his original role, it is recollected
in part in the story of how he built an underground enclosure
to house humans, beast and plants through a mythic winter.
In Irish tradition we encounter Donn, one of a set of brothers,
who has a house across the sea where the dead are gathered
and one of the names of the Irish afterworld is Emain Ablach,
the first element of which reprises the IE word for twin (OIr
emon ‘twin’). ‘Twin’ is found again in Old Norse tradition
where the functional if not lexically cognate Ymir, who is
part of the cosmogonic creation of the world, has his land in
the south, the direction of the Norse afterworld.
While there was no concept of punishment for sins or
reward for virtue per se, the afterworld took different forms
in different IE branches. It could be pleasant, featuring
reunions with ancestors, abundant food, and enjoyable
activities, as in Indie, Iranian, Hittite, Greek, Germanic, and
Celtic tradition, or merely a dull waiting period, as in Hittite,
Greek, Roman, and Germanic, during which the souls felt
nothing but suffered if neglected by their descendants. It has
been observed that descriptions of the more pleasant
afterworld in IE literature tends to stress more what it does
not possess — sorrow, labor, pain, disease, hunger, etc. — than
what it does. Its southerly direction, at least according to some
IE traditions, is then held to be more congruent with a
northern homeland for the Indo-Europeans who would look
to the warmer climates of the south for a model of their more
pleasant afterlife. Sometimes both types of afterworld are
present in the same culture, possibly representing a PIE
distinction between the pleasant afterworld designed to induce
heroes to sacrifice themselves in battle for the people, and
the somber underworld with its reminder of the seasonal cycle
of birth and death for women and the common people, who
needed a reminder of their duty to produce descendants but
were not to be encouraged to die young.
Through the great variation in IE afterworlds, one has been
suggested as having PIE status. In Anatolian, specifically Hittite
belief, one finds the expression nu-war-a-si-san sarrizzi
hannari le kuiski ‘let none seize it (= wellu- ‘pasture,
meadow’)’, which finds a Vedic ( RV 10.14.2) echo in natsa
gavyutir apabhartava u ‘this cow pasture is not to be taken
away’, both suggesting that the afterworld is modeled on a
pasture or meadow. The lexical support for assigning this motif
to PIE requires an association between words meaning ‘die’
(e.g., ON valr 'one who dies on the battlefield’, val-hgll
‘Valhalla’, Lith velines ‘remembrance of the dead’, Latv Ve\u
laiks ‘rite of remembrance of the dead’, TochA walu ‘dead’,
which are from *uel- and the element *uel- which may
underlie *uelsu- indicating a ‘meadow, pasture’ (e.g., ORus
Volosu (< *uol-su -) ‘cattle god = deified pasture’, Greek
’ HXvoiov nediov ‘meadowy field’ = Greek otherworld, and
Hit wellu- (< *uel-nu-) ‘meadow’. As there is no synchronic
derivational relationship between ‘dying’ and ‘meadow’ in any
IE stock, however, and the semantic development ‘place of
the dead’ > ‘meadow’ seems rather obscure, these two roots
are more likely to be independent of one another.
In addition to the more “pragmatic” approach to death,
various IE traditions reflect a more philosophical approach
founded within the IE cosmogonic scheme where the human
body is an alloform of the cosmos. And just as in the IE
creation myth, where the universe is constructed out of the
constituent elements of a primordial giant (or cow), death is
seen as a return of the body back into the elements from
whence it originally derived. In the Rgveda (10.16.3), for
example, the deceased is informed by the priest that in death
the eye must return to the sun, the self or spirit to the wind
while in Euripides Suppliants (531-534), on burial of the
corpses, the body is expected to return to the earth and the
breath to the aether. Such an extension of the IE cosmogonic
myth is found in other IE traditions and points to an explicit
belief that the world is essentially timeless, living things being
created out of the substance of the material world (stones,
grass, water, wind, etc.) and then dissolving back into their
constituent elements on death only to be reassembled, i.e. ,
born, again.
See also Cosmogony; Death; Eschatology; Hell-Hound,
Underworld. [L.J.H., J.PM.]
Further Readings
Hansen, L. J. (1980) Death and the Indo-Europeans: some traditions
JIES 8, 31-40.
Lincoln, B. (1980) The ferryman of the dead. JIES 8, 41-59.
— 153 —
DEATH BELIEFS
Lincoln, B. (1986) Myth, Cosmos, and Society. Cambridge, Harvard
University Press.
Lincoln, B. (1991) Death, War and Sacrifice. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.
Makkay, J. (1992) Funerary sacrifices of the Yamna-complex and
their Anatolian (Hittite) and Aegean (Mycenaean and Homeric)
parallels. Acta Archaeologica 44, 213-237.
Melchert, C. (1991) Death and the Hittite king, in Perspectives on
Indo-European Language, Culture and Religion , vol. 1, ed. Roger
Pearson, McLean, Va.; Journal of Indo-European Studies, 182-
198.
Puhvel, J. (1969) “Meadow of the Otherworld” in Indo-European
tradition. KZ 83, 64-69.
DEBT see COMPENSATION
DECEIVE
*dhreugh- ‘deceive’. [IEW 276 ( *dhreugh-)\ Wat 15
( *dhreugh-)\ Buck 16.68] . OHG triogan ‘deceive’, Av druzaiti
‘lies, deceives’, OInd druhyati ‘harms, is hostile to’; also Mir
aur-frach ‘ghost, spectre’, ON draugr ‘ghost, spectre’, Av
draoga- ‘lie, deceit’, OInd dhrogha- ‘injury, harm’. Cf. ON
draumr ‘dream’, OHG troum ‘dream’ (< * [false] vision’).
Found only on the western and eastern extremes of the IE
world, its distribution would seem to assure its PIE status.
*(s)peig- ‘deceive’, [cf. VW 568], ON svikva , svlkja
‘deceive, betray’, svik (pi.) ‘betrayal, fraud’, OE swican ~
swic(i)an ‘betray; wander off; offend’, swic ‘deceit, treachery;
illusion’, TochA wek- ‘to lie’, TochB waike ‘lie’. The apparent
agreement of Germanic and Tocharian would make likely the
PIE status of this word.
*kel- ‘deceive’. [IEW 551 ( *kel-)\ Wat 28 (*kel-)]. Lat
ca!vor~ calvo ‘deceive’, calumnia ‘deception, calumny’, ON
hoi ‘praise, boasting’, hoela ‘praise, boast’, OE hoi ‘slander’,
holian ~ helan ‘slander’, OHG huolan ‘deceive’, Grk tcqXeco
‘bewitch, deceive’, KoXcd; ‘flatterer’. At least a late PIE word
in the west and center of the IE world.
*(s)mel- ‘deceive’. [ IEW 719-720 ( *mel -)]. Lith melas
(dialectally malas) ‘lie’, Latv m^li ‘lie’, Arm me/ ‘sin’, Av mairya-
‘deceitful’, TochA smale ‘lie’. Distribution suggests at least late
PIE status.
*meug- ‘± cheat, deceive’. [IEW 743-744 (*meug-)\ Wat
42 ( *meug -)]. Olr formuchtha ~ for-muigthe ‘smothered,
concealed’, Lat muger ‘dice cheat’, ME micher ‘thief’ (> NE
meecher ), OHG muhhari ‘highwayman’. Western isogloss in
late IE.
*meh a - ‘± wave (the hand), trick (with the hand)’. [IEW
693 ( *ma-)] . Lith moju ‘wave, signal with the hand’, Latv
mat ‘wave with the hand’, madit ‘wave, signal with the hand’,
OCS (na)majati ‘nod, beckon to’, Rus ob-manuti ‘trick,
deceive’, OInd may a ‘trick, illusion’, TochA mask- ‘switch,
juggle’. A word, apparently, of the center and east of the IE
world.
?*meng- ‘± charm, deceive’. [IEW 731 ( *meng-)\ Buck
16.68], Mir meng ‘deceit, guile’, Grk pdyyavov ‘charm,
philtre’, payyaveia ‘trickery’, Oss maeng ‘deceit’. If all these
words belong together, then their geographical spread would
indicate PIE status for the group.
See also Lie 2 . [D.Q.A.]
DEEP
*dheub- ‘deep’. [IEW 267-268 ( *dheu-b - ~ *dheu-p-)\
Wat 14 ( *dheub-)\ GI 6; Buck 12.67], Olr domain ‘deep’,
Weis dwfn' deep’ (< Celt *dub-no ), ON djupr'deep’, OE deop
‘deep’ (> NE deep), OHG tiof ‘deep’, Goth diups ‘deep’ (<
Gmc *deupaz ), Lith dubus ‘deep’, Latv dudbjs ‘deep’, OCS
dtino (< PIE *dubno-) ‘ground, floor’ dubru ‘ravine, valley’,
Alb det ‘sea’ (< *dheubetos), TochA tpar ‘high’, TochB tapre
‘high’ (Toch < *dhubros). Grk v6oq ‘depth, bottom of the
sea’ is highly unlikely and the Celtic forms have been
questioned. This item has sometimes been regarded as a
(possibly substratal) northwesternism, but the plausible
Albanian and Tocharian connections would secure IE status
which is of particular importance since this would represent
a relatively strong case for the rare PIE *b. Probably also with
a nasal infix is Olr domun ‘world’, Corn down ‘deep’, NE
dump ‘deep hole in pond’, OHG tumpfilo ‘deep place in
water’, Lith dumblas ‘slime’. With final voiceless stop as
*dheup- ‘deep’: ON dufa ‘dive’, OE dufan ~ dyfan ‘dive’
(> NE dive), OCS dupina ‘cave’.
See also Dive; Lake. [j.C.S.]
DEER
*hielhi£n (gen. *hielhinds) ‘(British English) red deer/
(North American English) elk or wapiti ( Cervus elaphus)’.
[IEW 303-304 ( *el-en-)\ Wat 16-17 (M-); Gl 437
( *el-en~) ; Buck 3.75; BK 452 (*il-/*el-)\. Lith ellenis ‘elk/
moose; red deer/elk’, elnis ~ elnias ‘elk/moose ( Alces alces)' \
(in central Lithuania) ‘red deer/elk ( Cervus elaphus), stag’,
Latv alms ‘elk/moose (Alces alces)' , OCS (j)elenl( pi. (j)elene)
‘red deer/elk (Cervus elaphus) , stag’, Rus olenl' red deer/elk
(Cervus elaphus), stag’, Bulg (dial.) alne ‘young chamois’, Myc
e-ra-pi-ja ‘pertaining to deer’, Grk k'Acn pot; (< *h lelhjpbhos)
‘red deer/elk (Cervus elaphus) 1 , eXXoq (< *h ielh inos) ‘young
of (red) deer, fawn’, (Hesychius) eveXoq (< *hielhieno- by
metathesis) ‘young of (red) deer, fawn’, Arm eln (gen. elm)
‘hind’, TochA yal ‘gazelle’, TochB yal ‘gazelle’ (the Tocharian
probably = ‘goitered/Persian gazelle [Gazella subgutturosa]').
Perhaps belonging here ScotsGael Ion (< *hilh\onos) ‘elk/
moose (Alces alces)’ and perhaps ON Iamb ‘lamb’, OE lamb
‘lamb’ (> NE lamb), OHG lamb ‘lamb’, Goth lamb iamb’, if
the latter set is from *hilh]onbhos, a derivative with new
full-grade of the hjelhipbhos seen in Grk eXcupoq, and once
meant * ‘young of any animal’ < *‘fawn’. Possibly belonging
here as well is Lat Inuleus ~ hinnuleus (the latter form
influenced by hinn us ‘mule’) ‘young roebuck’ if with the same
metathesis of *-l- and *-n- as we see in Grk eveXoq fawn’.
Also sometimes connected is Hit aliya(n)- iamb’ but this word
is more likely to be an inner-Hittite creation from ah- ‘(soft)
wool’. Widespread and old in IE. The semantic development
— 154 —
DEFECT
seen in Tocharian presumably results from the movement of
the pre : Tocharian speakers to the east, out of the territory
where red deer/elk are native and the assignment of the word
to perceptually similar game animals (i.e., *‘red deer’ > *‘game
animal’ > ‘gazelle’). Often this word is taken as a derivative of
*hiel- ‘brown’ seen in OHG e/o ‘brown, reddish yellow’, Av
aurusa- ‘white’, OInd arusa- ‘reddish, flame-colored’, aruna-
‘reddish’. Certainly such an assumption makes a good deal of
semantic sense (cf. British English ‘red deer’). However, one
should note that the color-term is always with a *-u-, i.e.,
*hielu -, which the animal designation always lacks and that
the color-term occurs in IE stocks that do not have the animal
term.
*hielhinSh a - ‘hind/cow-elk (adult female Cervus elaphus)'.
{ JEW 303-304 ( *ehni)\ BK 452 ( *il-/*el-)} . Weis elain ‘hind’,
OPrus alne ‘animal’ (< *‘hind’), Lith alne ~ elne ‘hind’, OCS
lani ~ alni ‘hind’, Rus lanV hind’, (dial.) alynja ‘cow’ (the initial
*a- of the Baltic and Slavic words is probably an internal
development in those stocks). Cf. OIr elit (< *hielh\pti-) ‘doe,
hind’. A feminine noun regularly derived from the preceding
word. At least a word of the west and center of the IE world.
?*bhrent6s ‘stag’. [IEW 168-169 ( *bhren-to-s)\ Buck 3.75] .
Norw bringe ‘stag’, Swed brinde ‘stag’, Messapic (3pev8ov
‘stag’. Cf. Norw brund(< *bhpi[ds ) ‘male reindeer’. Derivatives
of *bhjrios seen in Alb bri (Gheg bri) ‘horn’. Perhaps a word
of the west and center of the IE world.
??*b(h)roid(h)is ‘red deer; elk’, fcf. Buck 3.75]. OPrus
braydis ‘elk/moose ( Alces alces)', Lith briedis ‘stag, hart
( Cervus elaphus)' ; (in central Lithuania) ‘elk/moose ( Alces
alces )’, Latv briedis ‘red deer/elk ( Cervus elaphus)', OCS a-
bredil ‘grasshopper’ (< *‘like a stag’). Apparently limited to
only Baltic and Slavic; doubtful antiquity.
The red deer ( Cervus elaphus) is ubiquitous across most
of Eurasia although its historical range only extended as far
south as the southern slopes of the Himalayas, i.e., it includes
Iran, Afghanistan and Kashmir, Sikkim and Bhutan but not
further south. It was one of the primary animals hunted in
both the Mesolithic and Neolithic and in later periods from
Ireland to across much of Asia. There is probably no postulated
homeland in which the Indo-Europeans would not have
regularly hunted the red deer. It was exploited not only for
its meat (adult sizes range from 130 to 300 kg) and hide but
antler and bones which provided material for tool manufacture
and its teeth were often made into ornaments.
*idrks ‘roedeer ( Capreolus capreolus )’ . [IEW 513
( *iork -)]. Weis iwrch (with not well explained vowel)
‘roebuck’, Corn yorgh ‘roebuck’, Grk £op£ ‘roedeer (in
Europe), gazelle (in the African colonies)’, (Hesychius) wpKoq
‘roebuck’ (probably a word of the Celtic Galatians). A
remarkable Greek-Celtic correspondence which would seem
to assure this word PIE status at least in the west and center
of the IE world. Witczak has recently suggested that the
Germanic words for roedeer also belong here. Proto-Germanic
apparently had *raihas ‘roedeer’ (> OHG reh ‘roedeer’), *raiho
‘roedeer’ (> ON ra ‘roedeer’, OHG reha ‘roedeer’), and *raihan-
‘roebuck’ (> OE ra ~ raha ‘roebuck’ [> NE roe], OHG reho
‘roebuck’). Witczak takes the Proto-Gmc *raiha- as reflecting
a late PIE *roikos by metathesis from *iorkos. This species
has rather short antlers that do not branch elaborately; thus
it is not too surprising that the word might be readily
transferred in Greek to the gazelle. One might note that the
zoological name, capreolus , is the Latin word for roedeer and
it is transparently a derivative of capra ‘goat’.
The roedeer ( Capreolus capreolus) is found across much
of Eurasia but not south of Iran and northern Iraq and it is
unknown from northwest India. It is regularly known front
European Neolithic sites, although usually in amounts
considerably less than those of the much larger red deer. In
general, most IE stocks, other than Indie, who knew the red
deer are also likely to have exploited the roedeer as well.
Among the Cervidae with whom some of the early Indo-
Europeans would have come into contact there is also the
fallow deer ( Dama dama) whose natural distribution would
have included the Mediterranean, southeast Balkans, and
Anatolia while the Persian fallow deer ( Dama mesopotamica)
occupied western Asia. The animal is very infrequently found
on European sites and apparently lacks any significant lexical
antiquity. It appears to have been deliberately imported into
Cyprus and Crete by the Bronze Age. It was kept enclosed by
both the Hittites and Greeks and later in Italy and Gaul. The
barasingha or swamp deer ( Cervus duvauceli) and the chital
or spotted deer ( Axis axis) appear in the early Neolithic of
Baluchistan.
See also Elk; Mammals. (D.Q.A., J.PM ]
Further Readings
Adams, D. Q. (1985) Designations of the Cervidae in Proto-Indo-
European. JIES 13, 269-282.
Witczak, K. T. (1994) Germanic *raih- ‘roedeer’, Capreolus
capreolus: A proposal for a new etymology. KZ 107, 123-142.
DEFECT
Moral
*melos ‘bad’ and *m6les- ‘fault, mistake'. [IEW 719
( *meP)\ Wat 40 ( *me/-)l . Mir mell (< *melso-) ‘mistake’, Lat
malus ‘bad’, Lith melas ‘lie’, Latv mp/i ‘lie’, Grk pekeoq
‘miserable, fruitless, vain’, Arm melk ‘ ‘sin’, Av mairy'a- (an
epithet of evil beings). From *mel- ‘fail’. It is not certain that
all the forms given here belong together. If they do, they
provide good evidence for a word for ‘moral flaw’ or the like,
at least in late PIE.
Physical
*mendo/eh a - ± (bodily) defect’. [IEW 729-730 ( *mend(a ,
-om))\ Wat 41 ( *mend-)\. OIr mennar' spot, stain’, Lat menda
‘bodily defect’, mendum ‘fault, error, mistake’, Lycian mete-
‘damage, harm’, OInd mmda ‘defect of the body’ (crossed
with ninda ‘abuse, slander’ 7 ). A good semantic match from
both ends of the IE world, though weaker phonologically.
Probably of late PIE status.
— 155 —
DEFECT
*lord(sk)os crooked of body’. [IEW 679 ( *lord-sko-)\ Wat
36 ( *lerd-)\ ScotsGael breach (< *lor(d)skakos] ‘lame’, MHG
lerz ‘left’, Grk XopSog ‘bent backwards, so that the front of
the body is convex’, Arm Iorc‘-k‘ (< *lor(d)-sk-[iJ) ‘bent
backwards, so that the front of the body is convex’. From
*Ierd- ‘bend’. Sufficiently widely attested that it is probable
we have at least a late IE word.
*(s)keng- ‘limp’. [JEW 930 ( *(s)keng-')\ Wat 59 ( *skeng-)\
Buck 4.94; BK 261 ( *k[ h ]un-k’-/*k[ h ]on-k ON skakkr
‘awry, twisted’, OHG hinkan ‘limp’, Grk a koc^cd ‘limp’, OInd
kanj- ‘limp’, khanja- ‘lame’ (khanj(a)- a Middle Indicism for
*skanj(a)~). A reasonably well-attested group of PIE date.
*sromds ‘lame’. [IEW 1004 ( *srd/omo-)-. Buck 4.94]. OCS
chromQ ‘lame’, Rus khromoj ‘lame’, OInd srama- ‘lame’. The
underlying verb appears only in OCS o-chrump ‘they became
lame’. The initial chr- of Slavic may suggest the influence of
an (unattested) Iranian cognate *hrama-. Probably an
“eastemism” in late PIE.
*skauros ‘± lame’. [Buck 4.94]. Lat scaurus ‘clubfooted’,
OInd khora- (~ khota- ~ khoda-) ‘lame’ ( khora - a Middle
Indicism for *skor-). If these words belong together, we have
evidence for at least a late PIE term. However, it is also possible
that they are independent formations or borrowings in the
two languages.
As injuries to the head and the senses are usually tied to
the First Function, and injuries to the arms or hands or torso
are tied to the Second Function, so the lower part of the human
body is allocated to the Third Function, and wounds and
injuries there are conceived of as attacking that function, and
the powers of generation and male sexuality generally Injuries
to the leg or knee (note Lat genu ‘knee’ and geno ‘beget’) are
transferred to the male generative powers, and can diminish
them. However, a more flexible symbolic usage seems to
dictate the widespread belief that an artificer, such as a smith —
an ambiguous figure but one who in this case can be fitted
into the Third Function — has sacrificed bodily integrity for
his quasi-magical powers of material transformation. The
smith is often seen as dwarfish or crippled in his lower limbs
or, at least, unable to pass on his power and the mastery of
his art to any children of his own, though he may be very
often found in the IE sources as a fostering figure, protecting,
raising and training a son not his own.
See also Blind; Deaf. [D.Q.A., D.A.M.]
DEGREES OF DESCENT
*pro- third generation marker. [IEW 8 1 3 ( *pro-)\ Wordick
249], Weis or-wyr ‘great-grandson’, Lat pro-avus ‘great-
grandfather’, pro-nepos ‘great-grandson’, OHG fer-nefo ‘great-
grandson’, Lith pro-anukis ‘great-grandson’, Rus pra-vnuk
‘great-grandson’, Grk nponannog npoeyyovog ‘great-
grandson’, OInd pra-napat ‘great-grandson’. Widespread and
old in IE.
*/i 4 ep- fourth generation marker. [IEW 323 ( *epf)\
Wordick 249-250]. Lat ab-avus ‘great-great-grandfather’, ab-
nepos ‘great-great-grandson’, OE of-spring ‘offspring’ (> NE
offspring ), Grk ano-Kannog air-eyyovog 1 descendant’, OPers
ap-anyaka- ‘great-great-grandfather’, OInd ap-atyam
‘offspring’. Sufficiently widespread to support PIE status.
?*haet- fifth generation marker. [/EW344 ( *eti)\ Wordick
250]. Lat at-avus ‘great-great-great-grandfather’, ad-nepos
‘great-great-great-grandson’. OInd ati-vjddhaprapitamaha-
‘great-great-great-grandfather’ has been placed here as well
but this is very dubious in that it is more transparently
explained as a compound of *ati-vyddha- ‘very old’ with ati-
< PIE *hieti ‘beyond’. If this explanation for the Old Indie
word is correct, we are left with evidence only from Latin.
And as Lat atavus has plausibly been taken as a compound of
atta ‘grandfather’ and avus ‘grandfather’, the likelihood that
we have anything of PIE date is very doubtful.
PIE employed distinctive kinship terms only to the second
ascending or descending generation, the grandparents and
grandchildren. Remoter degrees of kinship were signaled by
locational compounds. There is reasonably strong evidence
that *pro- was used to mark the third ascending and
descending generation, while *h 4 ep- marked the fourth
ascending or descending generation. Markers of remoter
generations are much more suspect. There are traces of a
“competing” system, at least for ascending generations in Hit
dan attas ‘grandfather’ (lit. ‘twice father’) and Lat *bis-avolus
(cf. Spanish bisabuelo , etc.) ‘great-grandfather’ (lit. ‘twice
grandfather’).
See also Descendant; Kinship . [M.E.H.]
DEREIVKA
Dereivka is a site of the Sredny Stog culture on a tributary
of the middle Dnieper and dates to c 4500-3500 BC. The
site consists of both a settlement and cemetery and has been
presented as an archetypal Proto-Indo-European settlement
by supporters of the “Kurgan solution” to the IE homeland
problem. The settlement attests several structures, timber-
built houses about 10 x 6 m in size, purportedly enclosed by
a fence. The faunal remains consist predominantly of horse.
Other species are domestic cattle, sheep/goat, pig and dog as
well as wild species (red deer, roedeer, wild pig, elk, badger,
bear, otter, wolf, fox, beaver, hare), a variety of birds (mallard,
pintail duck, goose, teal, coot), and fish (silurus, perch, roach,
red-eye, carp, and pike). Remains of over thirty tortoises were
also recovered. The horse remains from Dereivka, which
numbered at least fifty-two individuals, are widely regarded
as critical for determining the origins of the domestic horse.
One of the most important finds in the site was that of the
skull of a stallion, accompanied by the forelegs of another
individual and also the remains of a dog. The horses were
originally identified as domesticated on morphological
grounds (size) and age-slaughter pattern but recent analysis
has declared them to be wild horses. The stallion, however,
has been the major point of contention as it has been deemed
domestic because of the dental evidence for the use of a horse
bit (the other horses did not show such a pattern). Still others
have suggested that the skull of the stallion derived from a
— 156
later period and that there is no evidence for domestic horses
at Dereivka. Direct radiocarbon dating of the skull satisfies
neither party in that it dates to c 2900 BC, too recent for easy
assignment with the other Dereivka dates but too old for those
who regard it as a very late deposition of the Bronze Age.
Adjacent to the settlement was a cemetery which comprised
burials from two cultures: the Dnieper-Donets culture and,
contemporary with the Dereivka settlement, burials of the
Sredny Stog culture.
See also Sredny Stog Culture; Horse; Kurgan Tradition.
(J.RM.l
Further Readings
Anthony, D. and D. Brown (1991) The origins of horseback riding.
Antiquity 65: 22-38.
Levine, M. (1991) Dereivka and the problem of horse domestication.
Antiquity 64: 727-740.
Telegin, D. Ya. (1986) Dereivka. Oxford, BAR International Ser 287.
DESCENDANT
*neptiios ‘descendant’. \IEW1 64 ( *neptio-s)\ cf. Wat 44
( *nepot-)\ cf. GI 670; Szem 9; BK 573 ( WippyWepf *. }-)} .
Rus netijl ‘nephew’, Grk avey/ioq (< *siji-nepsios ) ‘cousin’
i.e., ‘co-descendants’, Av napt(i)ya- ‘descendant’.
The most widely employed term for ‘descendant’ is based
on the concept of ‘grandchild’, but a term meaning just
‘descendant’ is found only in central and eastern languages
and is a masculinization of an innovative feminine *neptiieh a ,
analogically developed from the regular feminine, *nept-ih a>
‘daughter’s daughter, sister’s daughter’. Accordingly, there is
no reconstructible term for ‘descendant’ in the generic sense,
although any number of specific terms such as ‘son’ can be
used so metaphorically. In other cases metaphors derived from
the natural world like ‘offspring’ or ‘scion’ are employed. As a
result, many items are later glossed simply as ‘kinsmen’, e g.,
Hesychius’ eopeq • npocrriKovreg, avyyeveig ‘relatives’.
See also Child, Daughter; Kinship; Son. [M.E.H.]
DESIRE
*las- ‘be greedy, lascivious’. \1EW 654 ( *las -)]. Olr lainn
(< *lasni -) ‘eager, greedy’, Lat lasclvus ‘lascivious’, ON losti
‘joy, pleasure, desire’, OE lust ‘pleasure, desire’ (> NE lust),
OHG lust ‘pleasure, desire’, Goth lustus ‘desire, covetousness’,
Lith loksnus ‘loving, amorous, tender’, OCS laskati ‘flatter’,
— 157 —
DESIRE
SC Yaska ‘flattery’, Czech laska ‘love’, Grk XiXaiopai ‘desire’,
(Hesychius) Xaaxr\ ‘courtesan’, Olnd lasati ‘strives, plays, is
delighted’, lasati (< *la-ls-ati ) ‘desires’. Widespread and old
in IE.
*y enhx- ‘desire, strive to obtain’. [ IEW 1 146 ( *uen-)\ Wat
76 ( *wen-)\ BK 619 ( *win-/*wen -)] . Lat venus ‘lust’, ON vim
‘friend’, OE wine ‘friend’, OHG gi-winnan ‘achieve through
struggle’, Goth wens ‘hope’, perhaps Hit wen- ‘copulate’, Av
vanta ‘beloved, wife’, Olnd vanas- ‘lust’, vanoti ‘demands,
strives for, likes; obtains, conquers’, vama- (< *urih x md-) ‘dear,
fair, noble’, TochA wani ‘pleasure’, TochB wlna ‘pleasure’. Cf.
the derived verb *uph x ske/o- and its nominal derivatives in
OE wyscan ‘wish’ (> NE wish), OHG wunsc ‘wish’, Olnd
vanchati ‘wishes, desires’. Widespread and old in IE.
*ghor(ie/o)- ‘desire’ [IEW 440-441 (*gher-)\ Wat 22
( *gher-)\ VW 1881 . Lat honor ‘exhort, incite’, Umb heriest
‘wishes’, ON gjam ‘desirous of’, gima ‘desire, yearn’, OE
gieman ‘yearn’ (> NE yearn), OHG geron ‘want, desire, long
for’, Grk x a ^P m ‘rejoice’, Olnd haryati ‘finds pleasure in,
desires’, TochA kar(y)- ‘laugh’, TochB ker(y)- ‘laugh’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*gheldh- ‘desire’ (pres. *ghldhie/o~). [IEW 434
( *gheldh-)\ . OCS zlideti ‘desire’, Olnd gfdhyati ‘is envious’;
cf. the derivative *gholdhos: OCS gladu ‘hunger’, Rus golod
‘hunger’, Olnd gardha- ‘envy’. A word of the center and east
of the IE world.
*h x ihjdgh-(e/o)- ~ *h x igh-ie/o- ‘desire (strongly)’. [IEW 14-
15 (*a(i)gh-)\ Buck 16.62; cf. VW 609-610], From *h x ih x igh -
( e/o )-: Grk ixocp ‘violent desire’, Av Iza- ‘desire’, Olnd Ihate
‘strives for, wants’, Iha- ‘desire’, TochB ykasse ‘concupiscence’;
from *h x igh-ie/o-: Av izya- ‘crave, yearn for’, TochA (pi.)
ysalman ‘(sexual) pleasures’, TochB yselme ‘(sexual) pleasure’
(< *h x igh-io-lmo-) . At least a word of the center and east of
the IE world.
*hiop- ‘desire’. [IEW 781 ( *op-)\ Wat 46 ( *op-) ] . Lat opto
‘wish’, OCS za-(j)apQ ‘presumption, suspicion’, Grk
emoy/opai ‘choose’. At least a word of the west and center of
late PIE. If ‘desire’ is in this case ‘grasp at’ (for which there are
parallels) then it may be that this word is originally an intensive
derived from *hiep- ‘grasp’, seen otherwise in Hit epzi ‘grasps,
seizes’.
?*k w lep- ‘desire’, [cf. VW 242]. Av xrap- ‘desire’, TochAB
kulyp- ‘desire’. Known only in these two stocks, this word
may be of late IE age.
*?moud- ‘desire strongly’. [VW 282], Lith maudziu/mausti
‘desire passionately’, Czech mdllti po cem ‘desire (something),
seek after (something)’, TochB maune (< *moud-no-) ‘avarice,
avidity’. The apparent agreement of Balto-Slavic and Tocharian
would suggest at least late PIE status for this word.
See also Love; Pray; Want. [D.Q.A.]
DESTROY
*g w ieh a - ‘physical power; overcome, oppress’. [7EW469-
470 (*g?eid-)\ Wat 24 (*g w eid-)]. ON kveita ‘make an end,
kill’, Goth qistjan (< *g w ieh a -s~) ‘destroy’, Grk /3i'ff ‘physical
force, violence’, piaco ‘do violence to’, Olnd jya ‘force,
violence’, jiniti ‘overpowers, suppresses’. The most secure
correspondence is between Grk /jiff and Olnd jya, suggesting
that the root in the proto-language may have been nominal
rather than verbal. Uncertainty exists as to whether the
Germanic forms belong with this set; if they do, then there is
a reasonable case for reconstructing the root as PIE. Otherwise,
the form may be a late dialectal isogloss.
*dhg w hei- destroy’ [IEW 487 (*g IJ hdei(o)-)]. OIr t inaid
‘vanishes’, Lat situs ‘abandonment’, Grk (pOivco ‘destroy’, Av
dojlt.arata- (= /djit-arta-/) ‘who violates Arta’, Olnd ksinati
‘destroys’. The connection between Greek and Indo-lranian
seems secure while the Old Irish and Latin forms are in some
doubt. Lat situs may go with sino ‘place’ via an intermediate
meaning ‘act of placing, leaving’ which is semantically more
plausible.
*h 3 elhi- ‘destroy’. [7EW777 ( *ol-(e)-)\ Wat 46 ( *ol-), BK
4 1 2 ( *hul-/*hol-)] . Lat ab-oled ‘destroy’, Grk oXXvpi ‘destroy’,
Hit hulla(i)- ‘combat, fight’. Although the form is attested in
very few languages, their geographic distribution makes a
good case for PIE status.
*h 2 erk- ‘rend, destroy’. [BK402 (*har-ak’-I *hor-ak’-)[ . Olr
orcaid ( DIL oirgid) ‘slays’, Arm harkanem ‘split, fell’, Hit harkzi
‘is destroyed’. The distribution of attestations suggests PIE
status.
*h2erhjr ‘destroy’. [ 77HV 332-333 (*er~), Puhvel 1 36—137 1 .
Lith ini ‘dissolve, go asunder’, OCS oriti ‘destroy’, Rus raz-
oritl ‘destroy’ (< *h 2 orh x eie/o-). Hit harra- ‘destroy’. The
agreement of Hittite and Balto-Slavic should indicate PIE
status.
?*bhreh x i- destroy, cut to pieces’. [7£W 166 ( *bhrei-): Wat
9 ( *bhrei-)] . OIr (3sg subj.) ro-bria (DIL bris(s)id) ‘may spoil,
destroy’, briathar ‘word’, Lat frid ‘tear apart’, Rus britV shave’,
Av pairi-bnnanti ‘cuts out’, Olnd bhnnanti ‘injure, hurt’. This
cognate set presents numerous problems. If the Old Irish form
ro-bria belongs to the root bronn- ‘use, consume’ ( DIL
bronnaid), as Vendryes suggests, then the form probably
comes from *bhreus- ‘break’ rather than *bhrei-. Olr briathar
‘word’ may come from a form *bhrei-treh 3 \ Vendryes notes
that in Celtic numerous forms exhibit a connection between
physical combat and speech. Lat frid probably belongs here
but has also been connected with Olnd mrityati ‘decays’. The
various uncertainties associated with this set suggests that
extreme caution should be used in positing the form for the
proto-language.
See also Break; Death; Conquer. [M.N. J
DEW
*r6s (acc. *r6srgi) ‘dew, trickling liquid, moisture’. [IEW
336 (*rosa-)\ Wat 17 ( *ers -); Buck 15.831. Lat ros (gen. roris)
‘dew; trickling liquid, drops, moisture’, Lith rasa ‘dew’, Latv
rasa ‘dew, droplets, fine rain’, OCS rosa ‘dew’, Rus rosa ‘dew’,
Alb resh (< the denominative verb *r6s-ie/o-) ‘precipitate’ (cf.
po resh shi ‘it’s raining’, po resh bore ‘it’s snowing’), re (Gheg
re) ‘cloud’ (< *rosni-), Av Ranha (name of river), Scythian
— 158 —
DIRECTION
'Pa ‘Volga’, Olnd rasi ‘moisture, humidity; name of a river;
mythical river supposed to flow around the earth and
atmosphere’, rasa- ‘sap, juice, any liquid or fluid; marrow,
essence’. It is also possible to reconstruct *hiros- with an
initial laryngeal (only Greek could give the crucial evidence
on this point). If so, it would be possible to see a relationship
of this word with *hjers- ‘flow’. However, it is also entirely
possible to take the meaning ‘flow’ which appears only in
Indo-lranian (in the designation of rivers) as a secondary
development in that stock of IE, perhaps induced by the
phonetic similarity of the descendants of *rds ‘dew’ and
*hiers- ‘flow’. In any case in the root noun *ros- we have a
solidly attested PIE word.
See also Flow; Rain; Wet. [J.C.S., D.Q.A.f
DIE see DEATH
DIG
*bhedh - ‘dig, burrow’. [1EW 113-114 ( *bhedh-)\ Wat 6
( *bhedh~); GI 133 (*b h ed h -)\ BK 18 (*bad-/*bad-)) . Weis
bedd ‘grave’, Gaul bedo- ‘channel’, Lat fodid ‘dig’, OPrus
boadis (noun) ‘prick’, Lith bedii (vb.) ‘prick’, OCS bosti ‘prick,
gore’, Hit padda- ~ pidda- (reading of first syllable unclear)
‘dig’, TochA pat- ‘plow’. A Germanic set indicating a ‘bed’
(ON bedr ‘bolster, feather-bed’, OE bedd ‘bed’ (> NE bed),
OHG betti ‘bed’, Goth badi ‘bed’) has sometimes been placed
here under the belief that the early Germans slept in hollows
in the ground, i.e., ‘dig’ > ‘animal burrow’ > ‘bed’, but as the
Proto-Germanic form *badja- apparently was borrowed into
Finnish as patja ‘cushion’, derivation from *bhedb- ‘bend’,
i.e., a pliable pad on which one slept, has also been suggested.
Even without the Germanic words, the root is securely
reconstructible to PIE.
*dhelbh- ‘dig’. [IEW 246 ( *dhelbh-)\ Wat 13 ( *dhelbh -);
BK 79 {*dal-/*dol-)\. OE delfan ‘dig’ (> NE delve), OHG bi-
telban ‘dig’, Lith dalba ‘lever, crowbar’, SC dupsti ‘dig out’. A
late dialectal form of the northwest.
*ghrebh- ‘dig’. [IEW 455-446 ( *ghrebh -); Wat 23
( *ghrebh-)\ BK 223 (*gir-/*ger-)\. ON grafa ‘dig’, OE grafan
‘dig’ (> NE grave), OHG graban ‘dig’, Goth graban ‘dig’, Lith
grebti ‘rake’, Latv grebt ‘scrape, hollow out’, OCS pogrebp
‘bury’. A northwest dialectal term of late IE. It is doubtful
that this word can be related to the homophonous root
*ghrebh- ‘seize forcibly’ via a chain of semantic meanings
such as ‘rake together’ > ‘plunder, seize’.
*h 3 reuk- ‘dig up’. [IEW 869-870 ( *reuk-)\ cf. Wat 55
(*reu-)[. OIr rucht ‘pig’ (< *‘one who roots things up’), Lat-
runco (with nasal infix) ‘weed’, Latv rukit ‘dig’, Grk opvooco
‘dig’, Olnd luncatV tears, plucks’. Whether the Old Irish form
belongs here may be open to question.
See also Bed. [M.N.]
DIRECTION
*deil c-(~ *dikeh a ~) ~ *doikds rule, canon, measure’. [IEW
188 ( *deiko-s ;); Wat 10 ( *deik -); GI 706 (*t’edc^-); Buck
15.55, 19.11, 19.14], From *deik-(~ *dikeh a -)\ Grk <5iK7j(<
*dik-a) ‘justice’, Olnd dis- ‘direction’, disa- ‘direction’; from
*doikos\ ON teigr ‘strip of land’, OHG zeiga ‘directions’, Av
daesa- ‘sign, omen’, Olnd desa- ‘direction, region’. (Cf. *deikos
in OE tig ~ tih ‘meadow, pasture’, OHG zlah ‘forum’.) Related
verbal forms include Lat dicere ‘say’, dicare ‘proclaim’, Grk
diKeco ‘throw’. The variant *deig- appears in OE t£can ‘show,
teach’ (> NE teach), tac(e)n ‘sign, mark’ (> NE token), Goth
taikns ‘sign’, Lat index ‘finger’ (< ^‘pointer’). To explain the
semantic developments one must assume that the original
notion was that of ‘norm, canon, rule’, i.e., something that is
fixed. The semantic transitions then can be explained
according to the use of a norm, fixed point. For instance, a
fixed point from which one gets one’s bearings gives ‘direction’;
a fixed point is also a ‘sign’. When ‘that which is fixed’ refers
to an area, it may indicate a ‘region or strip of land’, in other
words, a measure. Such a notion can also apply to a set
distance, hence to a discus throw. When the notion of ‘that
which is fixed’ refers to social norms, it assumes the meaning
of ‘custom’, hence ‘law, justice’. Customs or laws were generally
spoken formulae, hence a ‘saying’.
Cardinal Directions
The majority of the words for the cardinal directions are
based on one of two systems. They may be based on literal
orientation, i.e., where east is held to be ‘in front’, west is
‘behind’, south is to the (propitious) right, and north is on
the unpropitious left. Thus Olr anair L from the east’ has as its
second part a PIE *pfh a ei ‘in front of’ also seen in Av pouru-
and Olnd purva- ‘front of, former, earlier’ while Av apara-
and Olnd apanc- indicate both ‘backwards’ and ‘west’ (cf.
Olr tlar 1 in the west’). OIr dess, Av dasma - and Olnd daksina-
mean both ‘right’ and ‘south’ while OIr tuaiscert means both
‘north’ and ‘left’ as does Olnd savya-. Later innovations, albeit
built on PIE roots, continue these semantic associations, e.g.,
OIr cle ‘left’ and Weis cledd 1 left’ also underlie words for ‘north’,
e.g., OIr fochla, Weis gogledd. In Germanic the words for
‘north’, e.g., ON nordr, OE norp, OHG nord-an (< Proto-
Gmc *nf-tro-) may be compared with Umb nertru ‘left’ or, in
further semantic association with the equation of the ‘north’
and ‘left’ with the unpropitious, Grk vepxepoq ‘lower, nether
(world)’. The association of the cardinal directions with ‘right’
and ‘left’ also emphasizes their polarity in terms of the positive
or propitious ‘right’ or ‘south’ and the negative or unpropitious
‘left’ and ‘north’.
In the other system the cardinal directions are associated
with the sun at a particular time of day, i.e., east (or south) is
associated with the dawn or morning, e.g., PIE *h a eusos
‘dawn’ which underlies ON ausfreast’, OE easte ‘east’, OHG
ostan ‘east’ and Lat auster ‘south wind’ while the west is linked
to the evening, e.g., OE west ‘west’ (cf. Lat vesper ‘evening’,
etc.). Germanic also offers words for ‘north’ which are
derivatives of *ner- ‘under’ - the north being down as opposed
to the south being up (cf. TochA kom-tpant ‘south’, lit. ‘sun-
high’). The latter terms would be proof, if proof were needed,
— 159 —
DIRECTION
?*mai- ‘soil, defile’. [IEW 697 ( *mai-)\ Wat 38 (*mai-)].
OE mal (< *mai-lo -) ‘spot, stain’ (> NE mole), OHG meil (<
*mai-lo-) ‘spot’, Goth (gen. pi.) maile ‘wrinkle 1 , Lith mieles
‘yeast’, Latv mieles ‘yeast 1 . Grk fiiaivo) ‘stain, sully’ is
sometimes placed here but is better derived from *meih x -
‘harm’ (cf. OInd minati ‘damages, lessens, diminishes’, or
TochAB mi- ‘harm’). Thus we are left with a Balto-Germanic
correspondence which is not a very strong basis for
reconstruction to PIE.
?*dhUlis dust’ . [7EW262 ( *dhu-li -)]. This root should be
rejected as Mir duil ‘wish’ is semantically too distant to be
related, Lat fullgo ‘soot’ is derived from the word ‘smoke 1 ,
Lith diimai ‘smoking beehives’ does not belong here nor does
OInd dhuli- ‘dust 1 .
5ee also Dark. [D.Q.A. + , M.N., R.S.RB]
DISH see POT
that PIE speakers inhabited the northern and not the southern
hemisphere. The cardinal directions provide a situation where
the individual exponents of the PIE system cannot (usually)
be reconstructed but the principles underlying the system
can.
See also Before; Dawn; Dwell; Evening; Left; Right; Under.
[A.D.V., D.Q.A., J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) ‘ dike \ in Indo-European Languages and
Society. Coral Gables, Florida, University of Miami Press, 385-
388.
Meid, W (1987) Zur Vorstellungswelt der Indogermanen anhand
des Wortschatzes, in Studien zum Indogermanischen Wortschatz,
ed. W Meid, Innsbruck, 155-166.
DIRT
*rSmds (or *rehim6s) ‘dirty; dirt, soot’. [IEW 853
( *re-mo -); BK 611 (*rum-/*rom-)]. Nice rama-legr ‘dirty 1 ,
OE romig ‘sooty’, OHG ramak ‘dirty’, MHG ram ~ rom ‘dirt,
soot 1 , OInd rama- ‘dark, black 1 , Rama- ‘Rama 1 . The
geographical spread of the attestations, from the west and
east margins of the IE world, would appear to guarantee PIE
status for this word.
*solhx- ‘dirt; dirty’. [7EW879 ( *sal-)\ Wat 56 ( *sal-)\ Buck
15.88] OIr sal (< Proto-Celtic *sala-<?\E *slhx-eh a ~) ‘dirty 1 ,
salach ‘dirty’, OWels halou ‘dung’, MWels halog ‘dirty’, Lat
salebra (< Proto-Italic *sales-ra-) ‘dirt’, ON sp7r ‘dirty yellow 1 ,
OE salu ‘dark, dusky’ (> NE sallow), OHG salo ‘dirty gray’,
OCS slavoj-ocije ‘state of having greenish eyes’, Rus solovoj
‘buff, dun, cream-colored’ (Germanic and Slavic < *solh x uo-),
OE so7‘dark, dirty; mud, wet sand, wallowing-place’, TochB
sal ‘dirty’ (Old English and Tocharian < *slhx-6-). Perhaps a
derivative is Hit salpa- ‘(dog) dung’. Even without including
the Hittite word we have evidence for a PIE term that was
widespread and old.
‘(be) dirty’, [cf. IEW 1053 ( *ta-)] . OE pinan ‘become
moist 1 , OCS tina ‘mire, filth’, Bulg tina ‘mire, filth; dung 1 , Czech
tina ‘dung’, TochB tin- ‘be dirty’. Clearly the Slavic and
Tocharian belong together though the connection of the Old
English is less certain due to its semantic distance. Even
without Old English, the evidence for PIE status is strong. 1
*leu- ‘dirt 1 . [7EW 681 ( *leu-)\ Wat 37 ( *leu-)\ BK 579
( *law-/*bw-)] . OIr loth (< *luta) ‘dirt’, Weis lluddedic (< *le/
out-) ‘muddy’, Lat polluo ‘soil, defile’, lutum ‘mud 1 , Lith
liutynas (secondary zero-grade) ‘puddle 1 , Grk Xvjia (with
unique long u) ‘dirt’. Fair distribution suggests some antiquity.
*grugs dirt’. [BK 603 ( *k‘ar-/k l or-)\ . Regional NE crock
‘smut, soot, dirt 1 , Latv gruzis ‘dirt, smut; rubbish’, Grk
(Hesychius) ypvt; ‘dirt in the nails’. Though only sparsely
attested, the geographical distribution of those attestations
and the possibility of reconstructing a consonant-stem in PIE
(i-stems in Baltic are the usual outcome of consonant-stems;
the NE word is indeterminate) would seem to be evidence
for IE status.
DIVE
*mesg- ‘dip under water, dive’ (pres. *misge/o-). [IEW
745-746 ( *mezg -); Wat 42 ( *mezg-)\ Buck 10.33; BK 544
(*musy-ik , -/*mosy-ik’-)[. Lat mergo ‘dip, immerse, dive 1 , Late
Lat merganser ‘duck’ (< *‘± diving goose’), Lith mazgoti ‘wash
up’, Latv mazgat ‘wash’ (Baltic < *‘dip repeatedly’), OInd
majjati ‘sinks, perishes’. Reasonably widespread and certainly
old in IE.
?*g w adh~ ‘dive’. [IEW 465 ( *g u adh-)\ Wat 24 ( *g w adh-)\
Buck 10.33]. OIr baidid ‘dives; drowns 1 , Weis boddi ‘drown;
overflow, flood’, Grk /frjcrcra (< *g w adhih a -) ‘valley’, Av vi-gaOa-
‘ravine’. If all these words belong together, then their ancestor
is surely of PIE age but it is still quite uncertain whether these
are actually cognates.
?*g w abh- dip’, [IEW 465-466 ( *g LJ ebh-)\ Wat 24
( *g w ebh-)] . ON kafa ‘dive, plunge’, kvefja ‘dip, submerge,
choke’, k(v)cefa ‘choke 1 , MHG erqueben choke 1 , Grk fianro)
‘dip in’. Perhaps related to some Indo-lranian words meaning
‘deep’ and the like: Av jafra- ‘deep’, OInd ga(m)bhira- ‘deep 1 .
If all these words are to be related, and their similarity of
form makes an attempt to relate them tempting, they would
appear to have undergone some irregular phonological
developments that may suggest that it was a “popular” word
of some sort.
See also Wade. [D.Q.A.]
DIVIDE
*yi-dhhi- ‘put asunder 1 , [cf. IEW 1127-1 128 ( *ueidh-)\
Wat 74 (*weidh-)[. Lat divide ‘divide, separate 1 , Lith vidus
‘interior’, Latv vidus ‘interior 1 . Hit wida(i)- ‘bring’, OInd
vldhyate ‘bores through 1 , vi-dha- ‘distribute, apportion, grant,
bestow; prepare; furnish’. See also the derivative
*uidhhieueh a - ‘widow 1 . Widespread and old in IE.
*deh a (i)~ ‘cut up; divide 1 . [IEW 175-176 ( *da-)\ Wat 10
( *da-)\ BK 130 (*t’ah-/*t9h-)]. OIr dam ‘host, retinue 1 , Alb
per-daj ‘distribute, divide, share (out), scatter 1 , n-daj ‘divide,
distribute, split; distinguish 1 , Grk Sai'opai (< *dh a ie/o-)
— 160 —
DIVINE TWINS
11
II
‘divide; feast on’, daivv/ii ‘give a banquet or feast’, 8f\poq
‘people’ (< *‘section of population’), OInd did ‘cuts up,
divides’, dyad{< *dh a ie/o -) ‘cuts off, shares out’. Cf. also ON
tld ‘time’, OE tld ‘time’ (> NE tide), OHG zit ‘time’, ON timi
‘time’, OE tlma ‘time’, Arm ti ‘age, time’, TochB taiwe ‘ripe
fruit’ (< *deh a iuo- ‘± what one feasts on’). Sufficiently wide-
spread to be assured PIE status.
*bhag- ‘divide, distribute’ (also ‘receive, enjoy’). [/EW107
( *bhag-)\ G1 121 ( *b h ak’-)\ Wat 5 ( *bhag-)\ Buck 4. 1 1] . Grk
(payeiv't at’ (< *‘enjoy, share’), OCS bogu ‘god’, Rus hog ‘god’
(perhaps Slavic < Iranian), Av bag- ‘apportion’, baya - ‘god’,
OPers baji- ‘tribute’, Olnd bhajati ‘divides, distributes,
receives, enjoys’, bbaga- ‘lord, “dispenser” (epithet of gods)’,
TochA pak ‘share, portion’, TochB pake ‘share, portion’
(Tocharian possibly borrowed from Iranian). At least a word
of the center and east of the IE world.
•hiertfii;- ‘separate’. [IEW 332-333 (*er-); Wat 17
( *ers-)l . Grk epfjpoq (< *h jrehimo-) ‘desolate, lonely, solitary’,
OInd yte ‘except, without’. A word of the southeast of the IE
world.
See also Cut; Destroy; Portion; Widow. [D.Q.A.]
DIVINE TWINS
Few mythological themes are as consistent or as widespread
among Indo-European groups as that of the Divine Twins.
Likewise few are as characteristically Indo-European. A pair
of lessor gods, the Divine Twins have enjoyed widespread
popularity in myth, legend and folklore from Sri Lanka to
the Isle of Man.
Their prototype is easily reconstructed from extant mytho-
logical sources. They are two youths, twins or brothers, who
frequently bear the epithet ‘son’ or ‘youth’. They are depicted
as supernatural horsemen and their epiphanies are horses. In
their equine form, they are the divine steeds which draw the
solar chariot. Perhaps for this reason, they are often regarded
as offspring of the Indo-European Sky or Sun gods. They share
a consistent relationship with the Sun god and the goddess
or goddesses who represent the dawn, the morning and
evening stars. One of the latter is presented variously as their
consort, wife, or sister. Her solar associations are likewise
extensive, her epiphany is frequently a swan, and she is
identified onomastically with roots meaning ‘bright’, ‘white’,
and ‘shining’.
As a triad, the Twins and their consort appear in numerous
myths, epics, legends and are particularly popular in folktales.
Most often, these tales involve the rescue of the consort by
the Twins from some watery peril. This theme probably
evolved from the Twins’ role as the solar steeds. It was the
widely attested belief that the horses of the sun traversed the
sky during the day in pursuit of their consort, the morning
star. The Divine Twins, the Sun god and his daughters, the
morning and evening stars, would rest at the end of the day
on the islands in the western sea. At night, they would return
to the east in a golden boat. Whatever the source, at a very
early time the attribute cf rescuers, especially by or from water,
was attached to the divine youths. This has proven to be one
of the most durable, popular, and highly developed themes
in epic and folklore.
From these primary functions, this pair has developed a
greatly expanded range of attributes. Prevalent among these
are stockmen, healers,, physicians, sailors, controllers and
forecasters of weather, and keepers of the wind. Especially in
their epical manifestations, the twins emerge as individuals
with distinct characters and different strengths. For example,
when one appears physically strong, aggressive, and martially
skilled, the other is a healer, who gives patient attention to
domestic duties, agrarian pursuits, and romantic adventures.
In certain geographic regions and among different ethnic
groups, this functional disparity often led to one brother’s
popularity increasing at the expense of the other, effectively
’ eclipsing the original relationship between the two and leaving
only faint traces for the mythologist to discern. Alternatively,
so extensively have the Divine Twins and their related themes
penetrated all strata of Indo-European religious and folk belief
that they have multiplied under varying monikers and guises
and, in some of the more heavily worked sagas, they
recombine to form pairs of brothers or twins, encountering
and even combating themselves.
Celtic
No unambiguous myth has survived describing the
functions and relationships of the Celtic Sun god. One Gaulish
‘Apollo’, called Belenos , was associated with sacred, thermal
springs and bore the epithet Atepormaros (‘having great
horses’). In Ireland, his feast day was Beltaine , a term
combining the root tene ‘fire’ with bel ‘bright’. Grannos ,
another Gaulish god who the Romans identified with Apollo,
possessed curative powers. While etymologically obscure, it
is difficult not to associate his name with the Irish word grian
‘sun’ (or ‘hot springs’). Grannos is connected with the goddess
S(t)irona whose name has been variously related to the word
for ‘star’ or ‘heifer’. In west and north Britain, the god Maponos
‘divine son’, who also was connected with healing springs as
well as music, was equated with Apollo Citharoedus ‘the
harper’. In all, the historic and iconographic evidence indicates
the existence of a Celtic Sun god connected with horses and
an astral goddess. Furthermore, a divine ‘son’ is part of this
solar complex.
Celtic myth shows the Divine Twins in close association
with the horse goddess Epona ‘divine mare’, a peculiarly Celtic
aspect of the IE transfunctional goddess who enjoyed wide
popularity among the Celts as well as subsequent Roman
cavalry units. She is easily recognized in myth as the Welsh
goddess Rhiannon (from *Rlgantdna ‘divine queen’) and the
Irish goddess Macha. Pagan iconography in Gaul and Britain
show this goddess seated on a horse just as Rhiannon is
introduced in the beginning of the Mabinogi, the principal
source of Welsh mythology. Interspersed throughout that work
are references to horse-like behavior by this goddess which
makes her identification with Epona compelling. In the
DIVINE TWINS
Mabinogi , Rhiannon bears a son, Pryderi, who disappears
immediately and is raised by foster parents together with a
magic colt born on the same night. This sort of simultaneous
equine birth occurs also in the tale of the birth of the Irish
hero, Cu Chulainn. In another tale, the Irish goddess Macha
is forced, in an advanced stage of pregnancy, to race against
the Ulster kings fleetest horses. As expected, this horse
goddess wins the contest but prematurely gives birth to twins,
who immediately disappear from the narrative. Thereafter the
ancient capital of Ulster, the site of the race, was called Emain
Macha Twins of Macha’. Another tale in the Irish Dindsenchas
connects Macha with the construction of Emain Macha.
Archaeological investigations of this site (Navan Fort) have
disclosed that around 100 BC, a huge temple structure was
erected there. Its name and the mythical tradition linked to it
suggests that the Divine Twins may have been worshipped at
this site.
Mabon ‘divine son’ (cf. Gaulish Maponos, and the Irish
god Mac ind Og‘ the young son’), a Welsh mythological figure
who also disappears just after his birth, gives his name to the
Mabinogi. In addition to Pryderi and Mabon, tales in the
Mabinogi deal with the divine brothers under another name:
the children of Llyr. These are Bran ‘crow’, Manawydan and
their sister, Branwen ‘white crow’ (swan?). In the first tale,
the brothers rescue their sister from her abusive husband after
first crossing the Irish sea, a plot which conforms to the “rescue
by sea” formula. In a second tale, Manawydan appears with
Pryderi as his partner and with Rhiannon acting as their
consort. In this confusing tale, the brothers assume the roles
of itinerant craftsmen, wandering about and engaging in
numerous trades and agrarian pursuits which emphasize their
manifold functions. Ultimately, Rhiannon and Pryderi are
abducted and eventually rescued by Manawydan,
Counterparts for the Welsh divinities Bran, Manawydan,
and Mabon are found in Irish mythical figures of Bodb ‘crow’,
Manannan mac Lir (cf. Welsh Manawydan mab Llyr), and
Oengus Mac ind Og ‘the young son’. All three are second
generation gods, sons of the Dagda. In the opening of the
Irish tale “The Fate of the Children of Lir”, Bodb is made king
of the Tuatha De Danann (one of the “primeval” peoples of
Ireland) just as Bran was king in the Mabinogi. The remainder
of the tale focuses on Lir’s children, Aed ‘fire’ and Fionguala
‘white shoulder’ (swan?) and twin brothers, Fiachra and Conn.
The tale stresses how Lir rises at dawn to play with them.
Retained here is a relic version of the Twins’ original solar
function together with their sister and the Sun god. Ultimately,
a jealous stepmother turns the children into swans and exiles
them to watery places like the Sea of Moyle, between Ireland
and Scotland. Later Christian redactors substituted a stilted
Christian ending and the expected water rescue is not found.
A glimpse of the original ending may be preserved in the
“Dream of Oengus”, wherein Oengus, the divine ‘youth’, falls
in love with a girl who appears to him in his dreams. After
years of searching, Oengus locates her with the help of his
brother, Bodb. Finding her on a lake in the shape of a swan,
Oengus changes into a similar shape and flies with her back
to his mansion at Bruig na Boinne. Irish legends stress Oengus’
youthful good looks and recount his romantic adventures.
These characteristics and his proclivity for rescuing heroines
from watery peril mark him as the womanizing brother. For
example, in the Fenian tale, “The Pursuit of Diarmaid and
Grainne”, he spirits the heroine Grainne away from her
pursuers to the safety of his fairy mound. In the “Wooing of
Etain”, Etain is rescued by Oengus after Midir’s jealous wife
causes her to be blown out to sea by a magical wind.
Oengus engages in a number of other, Twin-like enterprises:
sometimes with Bodb and sometimes with Manannan but
never with both at the same time. Here, a single deity
appearing under different names contributes to the confusion.
In an early tale, “The Nurture of the Houses of the Two Milk
Vessels”, Bodb is chosen king but Manannan exercises the
kingship. Manannan conspires with Oengus to trick the Dagda
into giving Oengus the fairy mound, Bruig na Boinne. On a
joint cattle raid, Manannan and Oengus capture a brace of
magic cows whose milk has curative properties. Manannan
institutes the “Feast of Age” which fends off sickness and age
from the Tuatha De Danann and Oengus hosts it at Bruig na
Boinne. Manannan and Oengus are called to cure Eithne of
her wasting sickness.
Even by the standards of Irish mythology, Manannan’s
horses are conspicuously famous. His healing skills are
renowned. He is called the ‘son of the sea’ and in the late
pagan period, replaces Tethra as the god of the sea. His
kingdom is the Isle of Man but his mythical abode is Emain
Ablach ‘Twins of the apple trees’, generally regarded as the
Land of Promise, the Celtic realm of the dead. Mythologists
stress that Manannan mac Lir and Oengus appear among the
Tuatha De Danann but are not one of them. This outsider
role reflects the Divine Twins’ membership in the ideological
Third Function which sets them apart from the primary gods
and allies them with chthonic and fertility gods of that order.
As elsewhere, these Irish gods are better understood in light
of their Indo-European origins.
Germanic
Evidence for the IE Divine Twins among Germanic speaking
peoples is dispersed over 1500 years and across central and
northern Europe. A composite picture drawn from these data
lacks the coherency of the other traditions. For example,
middle and late Bronze Age rock carvings in Scandinavia
repeatedly feature solar discs in conjunction with both
chariots, ships, pairs of figures, and aquatic birds. Half a
millennium later, in the Germania , Tacitus reports that a
Germanic tribe, the Nahamavali, dwelling near present day
Wroclaw in Poland, worshipped a pair of youthful, twin
brothers which Tacitus regards as close equivalents of the
Roman Castor and Pollux. He also remarks that they are
administered to by priests in female attire.
Almost a thousand years later, at the dawn of the Christian
era in Scandinavia, the bulk of the Norse myths and legends
162 —
DIVINE TWINS
were recorded which provide the preponderance of informa-
tion about Germanic mythology. In these myths, figures readily
recognizable as the Divine Twins are not found. Instead, a
triad of deities comprising the god, Njordr, his son, Freyr,
and his daughter Freyja, have been identified as the greatly
evolved IE Divine Twins and their consort. They are all
chthonic, fertility deities, belonging to the Vanir branch of
gods. Careful examination reveals a number of compelling
qualifications. Both Freyr ‘Lord’ and Njordr possess strong
associations with horses and the sea. Njordr is the patron of
sailors and Freyr possess the magic collapsible ship
Skldbladnir which is the official ferry boat of the gods. Freyr
has the strongest solar characteristics of all the Norse deities.
In the Skimismal, Freyr becomes sick with love for Gerd, a
maiden so white her radiance lights up the sea and sky. Flaving
had only glimpses of her as he sat in Odinn’s seat on the
heights of Asgard, he sends his servant, Skimir ‘Bright One’
to woo her. This theme of the love sick god and his helper
searching for a distant consort follows very closely that of the
Irish tale, “The Dream of Oengus”. Like Manannan mac Lir,
Njordr and Freyr are associated with not only the sea, but the
land of the dead and the apples of immortality.
In Norse myth, horses are also engaged as celestial traction
animals: Skinfaxi ‘Shining Mane’ draws the suns chariot while
Hrimfaxi ‘Frost Mane’ pulls the moon’s. Both these bodies are
associated with the goddess Freyja. The most famous horse
in Norse myth is Sleipnir, Odinn’s eight legged steed. As told
in the Prose Edda , Sleipnir’s birth is connected with the
building of the Walls of Asgard, for which a giant demands
Freyja, together with the sun and moon, as payment. Elements
of this story recall the Celtic horse goddess and birth of the
Divine Twins viz. the demand for the goddess by an unwanted
suitor and the seduction of the builders. Instead of a twin
birth, in the Norse tale Sleipnir is bom with an extra set of
legs, thus representing an original pair of horses. Like Freyr
and Njordr, Sleipnir is responsible for carrying the dead to
the otherworld.
Early Germanic legends are salted with the appearances of
Divine Twin-like heroes. For example, the kingdom of Kent
was founded by two Anglo-Saxon leaders named Hengist
‘stallion’ and Horsa ‘horse’, whose sister was named Swana
‘swan’. The consort rescue theme has been popularized in
Germanic epic, notably in the jumbled skein of tales
comprising the Vplsunga Saga and the Nibelungenlied.
Historically, these epics build on the heroic sagas about famous
figures and events dating from the period of the Germanic
migrations. Accreted to these are an array of themes and motifs
drawn from folklore and myth, including the consort rescue
theme. An example of this evolution is seen in the Ermanaric
legend. Ermanaric was a Gothic king whose kingdom was
overrun by the Huns and who subsequently committed
suicide around 375 AD. Two hundred years later, the historian
Jordanes, using an embellished version of this legend as his
source, reported that the defeated Ermanaric seized Sunhild,
the wife of an unfaithful vassal, and caused her to be torn
apart by wild horses. Sunhild’s death is revenged by her two
brothers, Ammius and Sams. By the end of the thirteenth
century, this tale had been incorporated by German bards
into the saga of the Volsung family. In the VQlsunga Saga,
Sunhild is named Swanhild and, as befits the sister of the
divine horsemen, can restrain wild horses with only her gaze.
Rescue or revenge of ill-wed sisters (e.g., Signy, Gudrun,
Swanhild) by their brothers is so common in these famous
Germanic epics that the strength and popularity of the earlier,
underlying myth is hard to doubt.
Baltic
In the Baltic region, pagan religion survived much longer
than elsewhere in Europe. Nevertheless, only a few written
records document the religion of the Balts and these date from
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries AD. Because these early
chroniclers were often Christian missionaries whose perceived
duty was to eradicate pagan belief, their records are neither
comprehensive nor coherent. Fortunately, their reports have
been augmented by a body of evidence drawn from the native
folklore. This material is rich in solar imagery and corroborates
early ethnographer’s accounts of sun worship by the pagan
Balts. Also forthcoming is evidence of a strong and remarkably
conservative tradition associated with the Indo-European
Divine Twins.
Named Dieva deli (Latvian: ‘sons of god’) or Dievo suneliai
(Lithuanian ‘sons of god’), this pair of handsome youths are
an exact equivalent of the Greek Dioskouroi. Lith Dievas, the
Baltic Sky god, is the linguistic cognate of Greek Zeus , Vedic
Dyaus and Roman Jupiter. He and his two sons are closely
associated with Latv Saules meita ‘Sun’s daughter’ and Saule
‘sun’, the Baltic Sun goddess, whose name is cognate with
Greek Helios. Although Dievas does not appear to figure
among the principal gods in the early accounts, he together
with Saule and the Divine Twins enjoyed tremendous
popularity in the folk tradition.
Latvian folk songs, called damas , are replete with the
adventures of the Sun as she rolls across the sky. At the end of
the day she rests in the waters to the west. Here, she washes
her pair of solar horses in the sea after their daily travail and
ties them to the sun tree, the Baltic axis mundi , which is
identified variously as a linden or an apple tree. This island
in the west is also the place to which the dead travel and
where they reside: the Baltic otherworld.
A favorite theme in the damas is the rescue of the Sun, as
she sinks beneath the waves, by the Dieva deli who row to
save her in a golden boat. Preserved in these songs is an
extremely ancient archetype of the consort theme.
Greek
Despite strong influences from older Mediterranean
cultures which tend to obscure its Indo-European roots,
ancient Greek religion provides a remarkably clear picture of
Indo-European Divine Twins. Their best known
manifestations are the demi-gods, Kastor and Polydeukes.
DIVINE TWINS
However, vestiges of other, archaic reflections allow precious
insights to their development.
Greek solar imagery begins with the god Helios ‘Sun’ and
his sister, Eds ‘Dawn’, who become in the course of the day,
Hemera ‘Day’ and Hespera ‘Evening’. Eos’ chariot is drawn
by the two horses, Lampas ‘Torch’ and Phaethon ‘Shining one’.
Eds accompanies her brother in his solar chariot across the
sky. At the end of the day, on the Islands of the Blessed in the
western ocean, Helios pastures his solar steeds. Later they
return to the east sailing Helios’ golden ferry boat along the
ocean stream. Here again is the IE grouping of the Sun god
and his sister, and the equine pair. In addition, associations
with the Island of the ‘Blessed’ (i.e. , the dead), the sea and
sailing are demonstrated.
The Greek Divine Twins’ relationship with the solar ponies
is more than circumstantial. Kastor and Polydeukes have
strong equine associations: they are known as great horsemen
and bear monikers such as evikkoi ‘good horsemen’,
Xevkikkoi ‘white horses’, XevkokcoXoi ‘white colts’ and even
Xevkq) TtcoXco Aioq ‘Zeus’ white ponies’. The use of ncbXoq
‘colt’ here stresses their youth, as does their most commonly
used collective title, the Dioskouroi ‘Zeus’ youths’. This title
also reveals their relationship with the Indo-European Sky
god and sustains their comparison with their counterparts in
other IE traditions.
Kastor and Polydeukes are also connected with maidens
who have suspiciously solar characteristics. Their sister is
Helene, who hatched from a. swan’s egg and whose father,
Zeus, engendered her in the form of a swan. Etymologically,
Helene’s name is related to the Greek Sun god’s, Helios. Kastor
and Polydeukes abduct and marry the sisters, Hilaeira
‘Shining’ and Phoibe ‘Bright one’ who are known collectively
as the Leukippides.
Two other themes recur in tales of the Greek Divine Twins:
water and rescue. The twins are called ‘rescuers’ and are the
patron deities of sailors whom they save from shipwreck and
to whom they can send favorable winds. Conforming strictly
to the proto-type, they are famous for the rescue of their sister,
Helene, after she is abducted by Theseus and Pirithous and
hidden away in a remote village in Attica. Abduction and
rescue are recurrent events in the careers of the twins and
their sister. For example, the first work of western literature,
the Iliad, involves Helene’s abduction by Paris and her rescue
by the brothers; Menelaos and Agamemnon.
Hippomorphism, solar imagery, and twin births typify the
Dioskouroi’s lineage as far back as Hellen, the mythical
ancestor of the Greeks. Thus Hellen’s son, Aiolos, seduces
Thea who is later changed into the mare Euippe. In this form,
she gives birth to Melanippe ‘Black mare’ who in turn is
seduced by Poseidon. When her foster father discovers her
pregnancy, he blinds and imprisons her in an empty tomb
where she gives birth to twin boys who are named Aiolos and
Boiotos ‘herdsman’. Aiolos becomes a sailor and settles on
the island of Lipari, where he serves as the guardian of the
winds. As kings of Sparta, the Dioskouroi abduct and marry
their cousins who are betrothed to the kings ot Messenia, the
twin brothers Idas and Lynkeus. This farrago of horsey twin
births, abduction, rescue, and seamanship is the Divine Twin
myth bumping into itself as the tutelary gods and tales of
early Greek tribes were consolidated into a greater Greek
tradition. Kastor and Polydeukes’ rivalry with Idas and
Lynkeos reflect the ethnic conflict between Sparta and
Messenia. The ascendancy of Sparta as a major political and
military power in Greece assured Sparta’s dioskouroi the
dominant mythological position.
Indo-Iranian
When the Indo-Aryan tribes moved south across the
Iranian plateau early in the second millennium BC, their
cultural inventory included a refined skill in horse handling
and chariot warfare. To the great empires of western Asia,
Egypt, and the Levant, chariot warfare represented the latest
technology in the Bronze Age arms race. By conquest or
contract, Indo-Aryan speakers were entrenched by the
fifteenth century BC in the kingdom of the Mitanni which
stretched across northern Syria from the Mediterranean to
the Zagros mountains. In a treaty between the Mitanni and
the powerful Hittite kingdom to the north, the names of
numerous Mitanni gods were invoked. Among them was the
earliest recorded name of the Indo-European Divine Twins:
Na-sa-at-tiya.
An almost identical name, Nasatya, appears later In the
verses of the Rgveda where it refers to the Indie Divine Twins.
Allonyms for these two Indie gods include Divo napatah ‘sons
of Dyaus’, asvinah ‘horsemen’, and dasrah ‘wonder workers’.
In the Vedas, references to the Twins’ acts of healing and
rescuing are numerous and these themes were readily
transposed in epic, legend, and folklore. Another frequent
theme is their role in fertility where they implant the seed (of
man or beast) and it has been suggested that they are to be
associated with paired male sexual organs, i.e., the testicles.
However, their celestial origins are also well attested. Their
father, or perhaps grandfather, is Dyaus, the ancient Indie
Sky god. As in the other Indo-European traditions, this
relationship is genealogically complex, incorporating Usas
‘Dawn’ (etymologically related to Greek Eos and Latin Aurora )
and Nakta ‘night’ who were known collectively as Divo
duhitah ‘daughters of Dyaus’. Jointly, these goddesses bear
Surya, the Sun god and father of the sun maid, Surya. The
latter is the joint wife of the Divine Twins. The Sun god is the
solar charioteer and the wheels of his carriage are the sun. At
dawn, the Twins yoke the horses to the golden chariot and
Usas, the Dawn goddess, is bom. With the sun maid, the
Twins accompany the sun on his daily course.
Transpositions of the Divine Twins occur in the major
Indian epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, both of
which are traced back to the first millennium BC. In the
former, the twins appear as Nakula and Sahadeva, twin boys
who, with their more important half brothers Yudhistira,
Bhima, and Arjuna form the famous Pandava family.
— 164
DJEITUN CULTURE
Throughout the Mahabharata, the twins play a secondary role
commensurate with the minor status of their divine congeners
and exhibit similar behavioral characteristics.
At the heart of the Ramayana is the Divine Twins’ popular
search and rescue theme. Rama leads his brother, Laksmana,
and wife, Slta, into exile in Dandaka forest. Sita is abducted
by the demon Ravana to his island kingdom, Lanka (Sri
Lanka). Together with his brother, Rama effects a rescue across
the sea. In all, the Ramayana combines many of the elements
found in the later Welsh tales (e.g., “Branwen Daughter of
Llyr” and “Manawydan Son of Lyr”) and demonstrates
convincingly the antiquity of this theme.
The reforms of ZaraOustra transformed at least one of the
original Divine Twins into a demon where Nanhaithya (=.Vedic
Nasatya) is explicitly represented as a demon. Nevertheless,
the original dualism was replicated in the abstractions
Haurvatat ‘wholeness’ or ‘health’ and Amorotat ‘deathlessness’
who are associated respectively with waters and plants,
features that may be related to their herbal healing techniques
reflected more clearly in Indo-Aryan myth.
Patterns
The genesis of the Divine Twins can be sought in Indo-
European cosmology. Associating a pair, or better, a matched
pair of perfect horses with the solar wheel and the celestial
deities representing the diurnal cycle would have occurred at
a very early date, if we use wheeled transport and horse
traction as a terminus post quern. Anthropomorphized, the
shining youths’ birth and adventures with their celestial
companions would likely have soon become a standard
component of the mythological repertory.
It is also reasonable to speculate that the cultural
importance of the horse among Indo-European groups,
especially among what might be called the nobility, was at
least partly responsible for the widespread popularity of these
two otherwise minor deities. Conversely, their links with
agrarian pursuits, healing, and romantic adventures surely
made them popular with the common folk. Evidence for their
worship can be found from Scandinavia to the Near East as
early as the Bronze Age. If the mythological evidence can be
relied upon, their importance in the pre-Christian pantheons
grew over time. In both Scandinavia and India, specific myths
relate how the Divine Twins were admitted into the ranks of
the older Indo-European gods and serve to document their
growing popularity
The relationships between the gods forming the solar
constellation, including the Divine Twins, the Sun god (or
goddess) and the astral goddesses vary only slightly among
the different traditions. Always appearing at the head of the
family was the Indo-European Sky god, *ditus. The traditions
are equally insistent that the Divine Twins are his offspring
and that they are young. This is true even where their worship
had been adopted by the non-Indo-European Etruscans, who
knew them as Tinas Clenar ‘sons of Jupiter’.
Whatever the implications the notion of the evening sun
sinking into a western sea has for Indo-European homeland
theories, it cannot be disassociated from the Divine Twins’
special nautical skills. Their reputation as sailors undoubtedly
stems from their part in the celestial crew navigating the golden
sun-boat through the night to their home in the east. Because
the crossing of water is integral to many of the consort rescue
themes, it is probable that the rescue theme is also rooted in
this cosmological belief. Whether the connection between
the solar gods and waters, especially thermal springs, may
have contributed to the Twins’ reputation as healers is moot.
We know that this reputation is both ancient and strong,
occurring as it does from Celtic regions in the west to Vedic
tradition in the east.
Uniformly, European traditions held that on an island in
the western sea the solar deities rested after their daily journey.
That this island was also identified as the Isles of the “Blessed”,
possessing magic apple orchards where the dead rested after
their own “labors” ended, may have been the conflation of
separate themes. Whatever its origin, the connection between
the Divine Twins, the sea, magic apples, and the dead is so
similar in Celtic, Germanic and Baltic myth that it may well
be a later development among western Indo-European groups.
See also Cosmology; Death Beliefs; Twin;
War of the Foundation. IS.T.O.BJ
Further Readings
Dubuisson, D. (1992) Les enjeux d une exegese (Le mythe
dioscurique indo-europeen) in Perspectives on Indo-European
Language, Culture and Religion , vol. II, ed. R. Pearson, McLean,
Va.; Journal of Indo-European Studies, 360-379.
Grottanelli, C. (1986) Yoked horses, twins and the powerful lady:
India, Greece, Ireland and elsewhere. J1ES 14, 125-152.
Lehmann, W P (1988) “The Divine Twins" or “The Twins. ..Divine",
in Language and Cultures : Studies in Honour of Edgar C. Polome ,
eds. M. A. Jazayery and W Winter, New York, Mouton, 373-
380.
Puhvel, J. (1988) Comparative Mythology. Baltimore, John Hopkins
University Press.
Ward, D. (1968) The Divine Twins: An Indo-European Myth in
Germanic Tradition. Folklore Studies no. 19. Berkeley, University
of California Press.
York, M. (1995) The Divine Twins in the Celtic pantheon. J1ES 23,
83-112.
DJEITUN CULTURE
The earliest appearance of domesticated plants and animals
and village settlement southeast of the Caspian is associated
with the Djeitun culture. The culture dates to approximately
6000-5000 BC. Settlements were small villages occupying
from one to two hectares; a completely excavated level at
Djeitun itself revealed some thirty houses constructed of mud
bricks, painted walls and lime-plastered floors. Internal
hearths are also very characteristic of the dwellings. Material
culture included pottery and flint tools, particularly sickle
blades and grinding stones. Plant remains include wheats such
— - 165 —
DJEITUN CULTURE
as spelt and bread wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) as well as barley.
Sheep and goats dominate among the domestic animals with
evidence for cattle domestication occurring late; among the
hunted animals were gazelles, wild boar and traces of onager.
A feline is depicted on a wall painting from a large room at
Pessedjik-depe which has been variously interpreted as a club-
house or temple. Within one of the settlements were found a
number of graves covered with red ocher.
The earliest remains of the Djeitun culture already indicate
a mixed agricultural subsistence basis and it is clear that the
economy was imported to the region rather than marking a
transition from hunting-gathering to agriculture which is more
likely to have occurred in northern Iran. Djeitun and the
cultural sequence it initiates remains linguistically anonymous
although it is highly unlikely that it was part of the linguistic
continuum that led to Proto-Indo-European. Nevertheless,
by c 2000 BC, many would argue that the Bronze Age villages
and urban centers of the region played a critical part in
defining the origins and dispersals of the Indo- Iranians in
southern Asia.
See a/soBMAC; Indo- Iranian Languages; Namazga. [J.RM.]
Further Reading
Harris, D. R., V M. Masson ef al. (1993) New research at Jeitun,
Turkmenistan. Antiquity 67, 324-338.
\ \
Djeitun b. Djeitun settlement; c. Plan of house from site
of Pessedjik-depe.
DNIEPER-DONETS CULTURE
The Neolithic Dnieper-Donets culture of the Black Sea
region flourished in the fifth and fourth millennia BC.
Settlements of the culture are not well known but include
semi-subterranean huts, and the economy of the population,
at least in its earliest phases, was primarily based on fishing
and hunting (aurochs, elk, red deer, roe, wild pig, onager,
etc.). Domestic plant remains have also been recovered and
these comprise wheat ( Triticum monococcum, T. dicoccon ),
millet ( Panicum miliaceum ) and pea ( Pisum sativa). Examina-
tion of the dentition of the Dnieper-Donets populations
suggests that their diet was primarily high protein foods (meat,
fish, nuts) and that the component provided by plants was
minimal although there is some chemical (stable isotope)
evidence from skeletal remains to suggest the consumption
of plants. The importance of such information lies in the fact
that the Dnieper-Donets culture, through the course of its
existence, marks a transition from hunting-gathering to an
agricultural economy.
The culture is best known from about thirty cemeteries
which have so far yielded about eight hundred individuals.
Burials are sometimes found in individual graves but more
often in large grave pits in which the deceased were
periodically placed and covered with ocher. The physical type
of the Dnieper-Donets population has been termed “proto-
— 166 —
DNIEPER-DONETS CULTURE
Europoid”, a variety which was considerably larger and more
massive than their neighbors elsewhere in Neolithic Europe.
Some physical anthropologists have associated the Dnieper-
Donets population with Mesolithic peoples of northern
Europe.
The Dnieper-Donets culture has parallels in the middle
Volga region in the so-called Samara culture and has suggested
that already by the fifth millennium BC there was a broadly
similar cultural horizon stretching from the middle Dnieper
eastwards to the middle Volga. This is a region which is also
associated with the earliest IE homeland according to the
“Kurgan theory” and the role of the Dnieper-Donets culture
has been the subject of some debate. In the Kurgan model,
the Dnieper-Donets culture has been cast as a pre-IE
population absorbed into the PIE community with the
expansion of steppe pastoralists to the west. Its contribution,
according to this model, may have been genetic, i.e., the
massive physical traits of its population persisted among later
cultures, but not linguistic. On the other hand, its distribution
and connections with more easterly cultures might also
Suggest that it provided the initial foundation of the later so-
called Kurgan tribes. Furthermore, its distribution, which
extended to the upper reaches of the Dnieper, a territory whose
river names have been ascribed to the early Balts, and its links
with contemporary cultures of northeastern Europe, have also
prompted its identification with the later (IE) Baltic
populations.
See also Kurgan Tradition; Samara Culture;
Sredny Stog Culture. U.PM.l
Dnieper-Donets a. Distribution of the Dnieper-Donets culture
DNIEPER-DONETS CULTURE
Further Reading
Telegin, D. Ya. and I. D. Potekhina (1987) Neolithic Cemeteries and
Populations in the Dnieper Basin. Oxford, BAR International Ser.
383.
DO see MAKE
DOG
*E(u)y6n (gen. *Kun6s) ‘dog (Cams familiaris)'. [JEW 632-
633 (*ic uon-); Wat 34 ( *kwon -); G1 505 (*k h won-)\ Buck
3.61; BK 652 ( *k[ h ]uwan-/*k[ h ]uwon -)]. OIr cu (gen. con )
‘hound’, cuilen (< * kune no- by dissimilation) ‘young dog’,
Weis ci ‘dog’, colwyn (< *kuneno- by dissimilation) ‘young
dog’, Lat canis ‘dog’, OPrus sunis ‘dog’, Lith suo (gen. suns )
‘dog’, Latv suns ‘dog’, Rus suka ‘bitch’, Grk kvcov (gen. Kvvog )
‘dog’, Arm sun (gen. san) ‘dog’, Hit LU kuwan-/kun- ‘dog-man’,
HierLuv zu-wa/i-n(i)- ‘dog’, Av spa (gen. spano) ‘dog’, OInd
svA (gen. sunas) ‘dog’, TochA ku (acc. kom ) ‘dog’, TochB ku
(acc. kwem) ‘dog’. Enlarged by *-fo- we have ON hundC dog’,
OE hund ‘dog’ (> NE hound), OHG hunt ‘dog’, Goth hunds
‘dog’, Latv suntena ‘large dog’ (deprecatory), Arm skund (<
*kuonteh a -) ‘small dog’. Widespread and old in IE. It has
been suggested (not very plausibly) that *kuon reflects an
older *pku-on ‘± he of the sheep’ (i.e., ‘sheep-dog’). However,
one might expect some trace of the initial *p- in some
descendant and, in any case, *peku seems not to have meant
specifically ‘sheep’. It has also been suggested that *hiekuos
‘horse’ is a thematic derivative, with new full-grade, of this
word but both the morphology (a new full-grade at the
absolute beginning of the word) and the semantic distance
(although some American Indian tribes did employ the word
for ‘dog’ to the newly introduced horse) make such a
derivation rather unlikely.
??*(s )koli- ‘young dog’. [ JEW 5 50 ( *(s)k v el -) ; Buck 3.612].
OPrus scalenix ‘setter, pointer’, Lith kale ‘bitch’, skalikas
‘hound, hunting dog’, Alb kelysh ‘young dog’, Grk (jKvXcd;
‘young dog; young animal’, (Hesychius) tcuXXa ‘young dog’.
Arm c‘ul ‘young steer’. This is a most doubtful grouping. If all
the words assembled here do actually belong together, then
we have evidence at most for a late word of the center of the
IE world.
The dog is the earliest domesticated animal and derives
from the wolf (Cam's lupus). The process of domestication
began by c 10,000-8000 BC and from the Mesolithic onwards
the dog is known widely across Eurasia and its remains are
relatively abundant on archaeological sites, often in the range
of 2 to 5% of all individuals, occasionally much more. Either
to assist in hunting or, in agricultural societies, to guard the
flock or herd or drive away wild deer from crops, the dog has
been indispensable. From an archaeological point of view,
the Proto-Indo-Europeans must have known the dog but it is
striking that other than the basic word, there seems to be a
relative dearth of reconstructible terms pertaining to it (cf.
‘wolf where we can reconstruct a word for both the male and
female or the variety of terms for cattle, sheep, and goat).
Although the basic lines of the modern breeds may have
emerged only with the late Bronze Age or Iron Age, i.e., c
1000 BC, there were different types of dogs from the fifth
millennium BC onwards which, at least in size and probably
in other forms of appearance, might have called for different
terms.
Words for ‘dog’ in some IE stocks may also indicate the
‘wolf’, e.g., OIr cu (allaid) ‘wolf’ (< ‘wild dog’), OInd svaka-
‘wolf’ (but Av spaka- ‘of a dog’). In these instances, the dog
participates in the extensive complex of myth and social
behavior which associates wolves with warriors.
See also Bark 2 ; Death Beliefs; Hell-Hound; Mammals;
Maykop Culture; Sintashta; Wolf. [D.Q.A.J.RM.j
Further Readings
Clutton-Brock, J. (1987) A Natural History of Domesticated
Mammals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hamp, E. R (1980) IE *(p)kuon- ‘dog’. IF 85, 35-42.
Mason, I. L. (1984) Evolution of Domesticated Animals. London
and New York, Longman.
Schlerath, B. (1954) Der Hund bei den Indogennanen Paideuma 6,
25-40.
Zeuner, E E. (1963) A History of Domesticated Animals. London,
Hutchinson.
DOOR
*h a inhxt(e)h a (gen. *h a yh x th a 6s) ‘doorjamb’. [IEW 42
( *anata)\ Wat 2 ( *anata)\ Buck 7.22J. Lat (pi.) antae ‘pillars
framing a door, square pilasters’, ON pnd ‘foreroom’. Arm
dr-and ‘door-posts’, OInd Ata ‘door-post’. Cf. Av piOya (<
*h a nh x th a -io-) ‘door posts’. Archaic morphology and
geographical distribution assure PIE status.
*dh\j6r (gen. *dhurds ) door, gate’ (perhaps more
particularly when used in the dual, the two leaves of a double
door). [7EW278-279 ( *dhutr-)\ Wat 15 ( *dhwer-)\ Cl 647
( *d h ur-)\ Buck 7.221. OIr dorus (< *duorestu-) ‘gateway,
doorway’, Weis dor(< *dhureh a - or *dhuoreh a -) ‘door, gate’,
Lat foris ‘door, gate’, (pi.) fores ‘the two leaves of a door;
entrance’ (cf. fora- in the adverbial foras ‘to the outside’ and
fons ‘[from the] outside’), ON dyrr (< nom. pi. *dhures)
‘doorway’, OE dor(< *dhurom) ‘door, gate, pass’ (> NE door),
duru (< acc. pi. *dhurps) ‘door-opening’, OHG turi (< nom.
pi. *dhures ) ‘door’, Goth daur(< *dhurom) ‘gate’, auga-dauro
‘window’ (< ‘eye-door’), OPrus dauris ‘large double gate’, Lith
(pi.) durys ‘door’ (< an old consonantal stem), Latv dur\ r is
‘door’, OCS dvlrl (as if < *dhuf-ns) ‘door’, Alb dere (<
*dhudreh a -) ‘door’, Grk Ovpa ‘door’, Ovpiq ‘window’, Arm
(pi.) dur-k“ door’, durn ‘door, gate’, Hit andurza (< *hien-
dhur-s) ‘within’ (< *‘in-doors’), Av dvarom ‘door, gate’, OInd
(nom. pi.) dvAras ~ (dual) dvArau ‘door, gate’ (the loss of
aspiration, however it is to be explained, is secondary), TochB
twere ‘door’. In addition there was a derived *dhuorom
meaning ‘enclosure, courtyard’ (< *‘that enclosed by the door’)
and also possibly also ‘gate, door’: Lat forum (vulgarly forus)
‘forum’, Lith dvaras ‘estate, court (of a prince)’, OCS dvoru
— 168 —
DREAM
‘court’, Olnd dvaram ‘door, gate, passage’. Certain PIE status
for a word designating ‘door’ or ‘gate’. That both the word for
‘door’ and ‘doorjamb’ show archaic morphology and no
known root connections strongly suggests the antiquity of
these objects in PIE culture.
This set of terms provides the essential elements of the IE
‘door’, a set of jambs and (usually) two doors, the word for
door itself often appearing in the dual or plural. A door set to
swing from jambs may be postulated for most areas of Eurasia
from the beginning of the Neolithic (c 7000 BC) onwards. In
some instances in southwest Asia, however, at sites such as
(latal Huyuk which has been advanced by some as a “typical”
PIE settlement, the entrances to the rooms would have been
through the ceilings rather than the walls of the structures.
In the early historic period there is evidence for the re-use of
earlier door-jambs, structurally one of the most solid
components of a house.
See also House. [A.D.V, J. P. M.l
DORMOUSE see MOUSE
DOVE
The distinction between ‘dove’ and ‘pigeon’ is not entirely
clear in English, and numerous European languages lack
separate terms for each. In English, the slender Columbidae
are called ‘dove’, especially the white dove. It is likely though
that the white dove is a late arriver in Europe, being noted
first in Greek in the fifth century BC. The various IE stocks
support numerous and apparently unrelated terms. Olr
colman ‘dove, pigeon’ and Weis colomen ‘dove, pigeon’ are
possible loans from Lat columba ‘pigeon’ while palumbus is
almost always the ‘ring dove, wood pigeon, Columba
palumbus ’. In Baltic we have Latv balodis‘dovt, pigeon’ while
Albanian provides vida ‘male pigeon’, vide ‘female pigeon’.
Grk KoXvpjioq ‘waterbird, especially the grebe’, is clearly
related to Lat columba but does not share the same semantics.
Armenian has alawni ‘dove, pigeon’. In Old Indie there is no
distinction between dove and pigeon; the Rgveda has kapota-
‘dove, pigeon’ while it is not clear if paravata - is only the
pigeon. Other than the semantically unrelated cognates in
Latin and Greek, there is no continued term for ‘dove’ or
‘pigeon’ in Indo-European.
See also Birds. [J A.C.G.l
DOWN
*ni ‘downwards’. \IEW 312 ( *ni- ); Wat 45 (*n/)]. Olr ne
‘down’, ON n/<)r‘under’, OE nider'under’ (> NE nether, ), OHG
nidar (Gmc < *ni-ter- ) ‘under’, OCS nizu ‘down’, Arm ni-
‘down, back, into’, Olnd nl ‘down’. Widespread and old in
IE.
*kat-h a e ‘down’. |cf. IEW 613 ( *kipta)\ cf. Wat 27
(*kat-)]. Grk Kara - Kara 1 down; through, among; according
to’, Hit katta ‘down, by, with, under’. Cf. Hit katkattiya - 1 ±
kneel, go down’, TochB katk- (< *kat-ske/o- ) ‘to lower’, katkare
‘deep’. Grk Kara has sometimes been connected with OWels
cant ‘with’, MWels gan with’, and Olr cet- (a verbal prefix)
but the -n- of the Celtic forms makes any comparison with
the Hittite or Tocharian words very difficult.
bee also Adpreps. [D.Q.A.)
DRAGON
*dfk- dragon’ [/EW213 (*derk-)\. Mir muir-dris (< *-
dfksi(h a )-) ‘sea-monster’, Grk dpaKcov ‘dragon’, SpaKaiva
‘she-dragon’. The apparent agreement of Old Irish and Greek,
even though morphologically that agreement is only partial,
is at least suggestive evidence for the shape of the PIE word
for the mythical creature that places so prominent a role in IE
legend. From *derk- ‘see’ from the dangerous, potentially
lethal, gaze of dragons (e g., Greek gorgons).
See also Animal, Poetry; Snake; Three-headed Monster.
ID.Q.A.J
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1995) How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European
Poetics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
DRAW (WATER)
*h 2 eu(hx)s- ‘draw water’. [IEW 90 ( *aus-)\ Wat 4
(*aus-)]. Lat haurio (with secondary /?-) ‘draw water’, ON
ausa ‘draw water’, Grk auco'take fire to’, Palaic hussiya- ‘pour’.
Phonologically, this set is unproblematic but offers an
interesting semantic shift in Greek where fire replaces water.
Perhaps this relates to the IE myth of “fire in water” where
the Indo-Iranian god Apam Napat, who is characterized by
fire, lives in water and the Irish story of the well of Nechtan
which emits a blast of heat or light if anyone but its owner
attempts to draw water from it.
*h 2 en- ‘draw (liquids)’. [Wat 2 (*an-)\ Puhvel 3:76—77 1 .
Grk dvzXov ‘bilge-water’, av rXeco ‘bale (out)’. Arm hanem
‘draw out, remove’, Hit han- ~ haniye- ‘draw (liquids)’. Though
attested only in Hittite, Armenian and Greek, it would appear
likely that we have here a PIE word.
*sem- ‘draw water’. [/EW901-902 ( *sem-)l . Olr do-essim
( *to-ess-sem -) ‘pours’, Lat sen-tina ‘sewer’, Lith semti ‘ladle,
draw (water)’, Grk -apaopai ‘gather, collect’, app ‘bucket’.
Old Irish, Latin and Lithuanian correspond well enough to
reconstruct this root at least to western IE. The Greek form is
more dubious. Possibly an original meaning ‘draw water’ could
have served as the basis for ‘bucket’ which in turn could have
underlain the verbal form ‘place in a bucket’, or, more
generally, ‘gather’. Alternatively, if the Greek verb is not based
on a nominal form, the meaning ‘draw water’ could simply
have become generalized to ‘collect (objects)’; it is worth
noting that in Homer the verb is used to describe collecting
milk.
See also Fire in Water. [M .N .j
DREAM
*h 3 enp ‘dream’. [IEW 779 ( *oner -); Wat 46 ( *oner-)\ Gl
205 {*Honr-~ *Hner-)\ Buck 4.62). Alb enderr dream', Grk
— 169
DREAM
ovap ~ oveipog ‘dream’, Arm anurj (< *h3ndrio-) ‘dream’.
Although the distribution is confined to the IE center, the
presence of an r-stem would suggest at least late PIE status
for this word.
?*sij6pniiom ‘dream’. [IEW 1048-1049 ( *suopniio-m)\
Wat 68 ( *swep-)\ GI 100 ( *swep h -)\ Buck 4.62; BK 197 ( *saw/
*S9W-)]. Lat somnium ‘dream’, Lith sapnys ‘sleep, dream’, Grk
Evvnviov ‘dream’, Olnd svapnyam ‘dreamy’. Cf. OCS sunije
‘dream’. From *syep- ‘sleep’ but quite possibly we have more
than one independent creation here.
See also Deceive; Sleep. [D.Q. A. 1
DREGS
*dhrogh- ‘dregs’. \IEW 251 ( *dhero-gh -); Wat 13
( *dher-)\ BK 76 ( *dur-/*dor-)\ . ON dregg(< * drag-jo) ‘dregs’
(borrowed > NE dregs), OE daerst(e) ‘dregs’, OHG trestir
(< West Gmc *dra%st~) ‘dregs’, OPrus (pi.) dragios ‘dregs’,
Lith (pi.) drages ‘dregs’, Latv (pi.) dradzi ‘remains of cooked
fat’, OCS drozdlje (< *drozga ) ‘dregs’, MBulg (pi.) drostija
(< *drog-ska ) ‘dregs’, Alb dra (< *draga ) ‘dregs, grounds, lees’.
Perhaps also Lat (pi.) / races ‘dregs’, if the -c- is from faeces
‘grounds, sediment, dregs’ or flocces ‘dregs of wine’ but the a
< *o still remains difficult. To be rejected is Lith dregnas
‘humid’ as it indicates *g and not *gh (Winter- Kortlandt Law);
also Grk OpGooco (< *dhfh a gh -) ‘trouble, destroy’ is
impossible. Cf. ON draf ‘dregs’, etc.
See also Beer. [ R. S . P B . ]
DRIVE
*h a eg- ‘drive’ (pres. *h a £ge/o~) [IEW 4 {*ag-)\ Wat 1
(*ag-); GI 61 (*aF-); Buck 10.64/65; BK 397 ( *hekW
*hdk’-)}. OIr ad-aig ‘drive’, OWels agit ‘goes’, Lat ago ‘drive,
lead’, ON aka ‘travel’, Grk ayco ‘lead’, Arm acem ‘lead’, Av
azaiti ‘drives’, Olnd ajati ‘drives’, TochAB ak- ‘lead’. Cf. the
derivative *h a egmen-\ Lat agmen ‘that which is driven’, Olnd
ajman- ‘career, passage, battle’. The primary word for driving
cattle which also includes raiding for cattle, e.g., OIr tain (pre-
Irish < *to-ag-no-) bo ‘cattle raid’, Lat boves agere ‘to drive or
raid for cattle’, Av gpm varotpm az- ‘drive off cattle (as) booty’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*kel- ‘drive’. [IEW 548 (*kel-)\ Wat 28 (*kel-)\ BK 248
( *k[ h ]al-/*k[ h ] 9 l-)\. Lat celer ‘swift’, Grk keXXo ) ‘drive (a ship
to land)’, KeXf\q ‘swift’, (Hesychius) koXeco ‘go’, Olnd kalayati
‘impels, bears, carries, does’, kalayati ‘impels’. Cf. ON halda
‘hold’, OE healdan ‘hold’ (> NE hold), OHG haltan ‘hold’,
Goth haldan ‘pasture cattle’, TochB kalts- (< *kjd-ie/o-) ‘press,
goad, drive’. Reasonably widespread and certainly old in IE.
*dhreibh- ‘drive’. [IEW 274 ( *dhreibh-)\ Wat 15
( *dhreibh-)\ Buck 10.65]. ON drlfa ‘puli’, OE drlfan ‘drive,
hunt’ (> NE drive), draPherd ’ (> NE drove), OHG tnban ‘put
to flight’, Goth dreiban ‘drive, push’, Lith drimbu ‘slowly drop
down’. Cf. the Lithuanian phrase sniegas drimba ‘the snow
falls thickly’ = ON pa drlfr sneer. A dialectally restricted word
of the IE northwest.
See also Lead 1 ; Leader; Ride; Wagon. [D.Q. A.]
DRY
*h2es- ‘be/become dry’. [IEW 68 (*as-); Wat 3-4 (*as-);
BK 381 ( *has-/*hos-)] . Lat areo ‘am dry’, ara ‘hearth’, Osc
aasal ‘in the hearth’, ON arinn ‘hearth’, aska ‘ash’, OE asce
‘ash’, OHG asca ‘ash’, essa (< *asion) ‘chimney’, Hit hassan
‘hearth’, has ‘ash’, Ormuri yanak (< *as-naka-) ‘ash’, Olnd
asa- (< *h20so-l) ‘ash, dust’, TochAB as- (< *h2es-) become
dry’. To this series may probably be added: Goth azgo (with -
gh-) ‘ash’, Czech ozditi ‘dry malt’, Grk atjogai ‘become dry’,
Arm azazim (< *h2es-gh-l), aciwn (< *h2es-g-l) ‘ash’. The
underlying semantic development is clearly ‘dry’ > ‘dust, ash’
> ‘ash-place, hearth’ and is unconnected with ‘burn’, e g., Lat
arded ‘burn’ < aridus ‘dry’ and not the reverse.
*h2sus- ~ *h2SOUSos ‘dry’. [IEW 880-881 ( *saus -); Wat
56 ( *saus-)\ GI 5 12 ( *saus-/*sus-); BK 1 68 ( V'avv-/Vovv-)l .
Lat sudus ‘dry’, OE sear ‘dry’ (> NE sear), OHG soren ‘to dry
up’, OPrus sausai ‘dry’, Lith sausas ‘dry’, Latv sauss ‘dry’, OCS
suchu ‘dry’, Rus sukhoj ‘dry’, Alb thaj (< older and dialectal
thanj) (< *sausnio) ‘to dry up’, Grk avoq (< *ahuhos <
*h2SUsos), Av haos- ‘wither away’, Olnd sus- ‘become dry’.
The underlying meaning seems to be adjectival. Perhaps
*h2sus- is from the perfect participle of the previous root.
Both words are widespread and assignable to PIE.
*ksehiros dry (of weather or land)’. [IEW 625 ( *kse-ro-)\
Wat 33 ( *ksero-)\ . Grk tqepov ‘dry (land)’, £ r\poq ‘dry, dried
up’, Olnd ksara- ‘caustic, burning’. Other cognates have been
suggested such as Lat serenus ‘dry, clean’, OHG serawen
‘become weak’, Arm c‘or ‘dry’, TochA ksar ‘in the morning’
but each of these are problematic. At best, the Greek and Old
Indie forms may reflect parallel formations from PIE *ksehi-
‘burn, singe’. +
*senk- ‘make/become dry, singe’. [IEW 907 ( *senk-)\ Wat
58 (*senk-)]. OE sengan (< *sangjan) ‘singe’, MHG sungen
(< *snk-) ‘singe’, OCS pre-sgeiti ‘make dry’. Probably from
*sek - ‘dry up’, cf. Lith senkii ‘dry up’; secondarily ‘singe’ in
Germanic.
*ters- ‘dry’. [IEW 1078-1079 ( *ters-)\ Wat 70-71
( *ters-)\ GI 39 ( *t h er-s-)-, BK 99 ( *t[ h }ar-/*t( h ] 9 r-)[ . Lat torreo
‘dry’, ON perra ‘dry’, OHG derren ‘to let dry’, Goth paursus
‘withered’, Alb ter (< *torseie/o) ‘dry off’, Grk r epoopai
‘become dry’, Arm t'aramim ‘wilt, fade’, Olnd tfsyati ‘thirsts’
possibly OIr tir‘land’, tirim ‘dry’ (< *teres), Lith tirstas ‘thick,
viscous, turbid (of clouds, rain, etc.)’. The same root also
provides *tfsus/*tfstos ‘dry’: OIr tart ‘thirst, drought’, Lat
torrus ‘dried out’, ON purr ‘parched’, OE pyrre‘dry, withered’,
OHG durri ‘barren, arid, parched, drought’, Goth pairsjan ‘to
be thirsty’, Av tarsu- ‘dry’, Olnd tfsu- ‘greedy, desirous,
vehement’. The root *ters- ‘dry’ is broadly and securely enough
attested to suggest PIE status although the vocalism varies.
Further developments in Indie and the northwest may have
been post-IE. +
*siskus ‘dry’. [IEW 894 (*si-sk-us)]. OIr sesc ‘sterile,
unproductive (of animals)’, Weis hysb ‘dry’, Lat siccus (with
expressive gemination?) ‘dry’, Av hisku- ‘dry’. A reduplicated
form built from *sek- ‘to drain, run off’; possible IE status/
See also Burn. [R.S.PB. J.C.S. + ]
— 170
DYE
Further Reading
Lubotsky, A. (1986). The PIE word for ‘dry’. KZ 98, 1-10.
DUCK
*h^fh a ti- ~ *h a enh a ti- ‘duck’. [IEW 41-42 ( 345
(*ef I-); Wat 17 (*etf-); G1 460-461 {*anljth-)\ Buck 3.57],
Lat anas (gen. anatis) ‘duck’, ON pnd‘ duck’, OE ened ~ aenid
‘drake, duck’, OHG end ~ anut ‘duck’, OPrus antis ‘duck’,
Lith antis ‘duck’, Rus utka ‘duck’, Grk vfjoc ra ‘duck’, Khot
ace (pi.) ‘waterfowl’; Oss acc ‘wild duck’, OInd ati-
(< *h a pti-) ‘water bird’. Good geographical spread suggests
PIE status for this word. Cf. the banal derivation *h a ph a ti-
no/eh a - ‘duck flesh’ in Lat anatina ‘duck flesh’, Lith antiena
‘duck flesh’.
*pad- ‘duck, teal?’. Span pato ‘duck’, SC patka ‘duck’, Arm
bad ‘drake’, NPers bat ‘duck’. This root is also known in
Semitic, e.g., Arabic baft ‘duck’, and Kartvelian, eg., Georgian
batti ‘duck’ and has been termed onomatopoetic.
The species indicated by PIE ‘duck’, a bird widely known
and hunted for its meat, is not certain although the mallard is
by far the best attested species. It is ubiquitous across Europe
and much of northern Asia with migrations to India, and
frequently numbers among bird remains on archaeological
sites. There is no evidence, however, that the remains derive
from a domesticated variety. The domesticated duck is
generally believed to derive from the mallard ( Anas
platyrhynchos platyrhynchos ) and the earliest evidence for
the domestication of the duck in the Old World derives from
southeast Asia c 3000 BC. Although there are historical
references to ducks kept in captivity in ancient Greece and
Rome, the earliest solid reference to the domestic duck in
Europe does not predate the twelfth century AD. One of the
results of domestication was an increase in the size of the
bird such that domestic ducks became incapable of flight.
See also Birds. [J.A.C.G.]
Further Readings
Hamp, E. P (1978) Indo-European ‘duck’. KZ 92, 29—3 1
Rix, H. (1991) Nochmals griech. vgxxa , vrjcma. KZ 104, 186-198.
DUMB see DEAF
DUNG see EXCREMENT
DWELL
*tkei- ‘settle, dwell’. [IEW 626 {*kjaei-)\ Gl 127;'Buck
7.11]. Grk kti^q) ‘found, establish’, Av sen ‘dwell, live’, OInd
kseti ‘live, dwell’. Late IE isogloss of the south and east.
*h2ues- ‘dwell, pass the night, stay’. [IEW 1 170 (*yes-);
Wat 78 (*wes-); GI 389 ( *Hwes-) } Buck 7.1 1; BK 368 (*aw/
*dw-)\ . Olr foaid (< *h2Uoseti ) ‘passes the night, dwells’, ON
vesa ‘be, stay’, OE wesan ‘be, stay’, OHG wesan ‘be, stay’,
Goth wisan ‘stay, dwell’, was ‘was’, Grk vvkxcc a(f)e< 7 a T
passed the night’, Arm goy (< *h2UOS-) ‘is, exists’, aganim
‘spend the night’, awt‘ ‘night’s rest’, Hit hues- ‘live’, huski- (<
*h2Us-ske/o -) ‘wait for, linger, procrastinate’, Av vanhaiti
‘dwells’, OInd vasati ‘dwells, passes the night’, TochB was-
‘dwell’, TochB weswe ‘trace’ (< *‘what lingers after’). Lat Vesfa,
the goddess of the hearth has been put here but surely belongs
with Grk eax ia~ iatiB ‘hearth’, 'Eaxia- laxiot, the goddess
of the hearth, which must reflect *ues- rather than */i 2 ues-
Distribution assures PIE status. The underlying semantics may
have derived from a PIE ‘to spend time’ (with an accusative
of time) which variously developed into ‘be’, ‘dwell’ or ‘pass
the night’.
IA.D.V]
DYE see TEXTILE PREPARATION
171 —
*E*
EAGLE
*h 3 or- ‘eagle’. [IEW 325-326 ( *er- ~ *or-)\ Wat 46 ( *or-);
GI 455 ( *He/or-)\ Buck 3.64; BK 406 ( *hur-/*hor-)} . Olr irar
( DIL ilar ) ‘eagle’, Weis eryr ‘eagle’, ON ah ~ gm ‘eagle’, OE
earn ‘eagle’ (> NE eme(e)), OHG aro ‘eagle’, Goth ara ‘eagle’,
OPrus arelie ‘eagle’, Lith erehs ‘eagle’, Latv trglis ‘eagle’, OCS
orllu ‘eagle’, Rus ore/ ‘eagle’, Hit haras (gen. haranas ) ‘eagle’,
Palaic haras (gen. haranas) ‘eagle’ (Anatolian and Germanic
suggest an original paradigm *h 3 erdn, gen. *h 3 (e)mos). Other
terms are derived from the same root with a meaning other
than ‘eagle’: Myc o-ni-ti-ja-pi ‘of a bird’, Grk opvig ‘bird’,
MArm urur (< *h 3 dr-h 3 dr-) ‘a raptor, kite’, Arm oror ‘gull’
and oh ‘crow, raven’. Geographical spread would seem to
insure the PIE status of the word. The IE root for ‘bird’ *h a euei-
yields Grk ccierog ‘eagle’ while Arm arciw ‘eagle’ might be de-
rived from IE *h 2 [gipid- (cf. OInd fjipya-) ‘rising straight up’.
The eagle is regarded highly for its strength, but its
intelligence and swiftness are considerably surpassed by
smaller raptors, the hawk and falcon. The term is used very
loosely by some to refer to almost any large soaring bird. The
eagle and other raptors are widely spread in numerous species
throughout Europe, southwest Asia and India.
In Indie religion, two eagle names, suparna- and syena-
are mentioned in the Vedas with special reference. The latter
term is equally seen to denote the ‘falcon’ or ‘hawk’.
Demonstrable IE myths concerning the eagle are sparse if
not non-existent. The most frequently remarked corres-
pondence is the Old Norse Odinn’s use of an eagle to obtain
the sacred mead which provides some vague parallel to the
Old Indie motif of Indra sending an eagle to fetch the
corresponding sacred drink, soma.
See also Birds; Sacred Drink. [J.A.C.G.]
EAR
*h a 6us- (gen. *h a 6us-s or *h a us6s) ‘ear’. [IEW 785
( *ous -); Wat 46 (*ous-); Gl 688 ( *o(H)s -); Buck 4.22; BK
393 ( *haw-/*hdw-)] . Olr *au ( DIL 6) ‘ear’, Lat auhs ‘ear’, ON
eyra ‘ear’, OE eare ‘ear’ (> NE ear), OHG ora ‘ear’, Goth auso
‘ear’, OPrus ausins ‘ears’, Lith ausls ‘ear’, Latv auss ‘ear’, OCS
ucho (< *o/ausos) ‘ear’ ( usi [pi. , historically dual] ‘ears,
intellect’), Rus ukho ‘ear’, Alb vesh ‘ear’, Grk ovg (Doric cog)
‘ear’ (< *ousos), (Laconian) avg'e ar’, Arm unkn ‘ear’, Av usi
(dual) ‘ears’. Though not attested in either Anatolian (unless
one presumes that Hit aus- ‘see’ is a credible cognate for the
word for ‘ear’, i.e. < * ‘information receptor’) or Tocharian, it
is otherwise widespread and the archaic morphology secures
its PIE status.
See also Anatomy; Hear. [D.Q.A.]
EAR OF GRAIN see GRAIN
EARLY
*h a eier- early’. [IEW 12 (*aier-), Wat 4 ( *ayer-) ; Buck
14.41], ON ar ‘early’, OE £r ‘earlier, before’, OHG er ‘earlier,
before’, Goth air ‘early’, Grk (Homeric) Spiatov ‘morning
meal’, i)epiog‘o{ the morning, in the morning’, Av ayara (gen.
aypn) ‘day’. This root ranges semantically over ‘morning’,
‘early’, and ‘day’. It has a limited distribution among the IE
languages, though its representation in three regional stocks
and its r/n- root status in Avestan suggests an early IE
formation. There is a possibility that *h a eier- is connected
with PIE *h a ei- that lies behind the extended *h a eidh- ‘burn,
shine’, just as with *deiu- ‘to shine’ > *deino- ~ *dino- ‘day’.
*prd- ‘early, morning’. [IEW 814 ( *pro-)\ Wat 49 ( *per);
Buck 14.44; BK41 ( *p[ h }ar-/*pf h ]9r-)\ . OHG fruo ‘early’, Grk
— 173 —
EARLY
jtpcoi ‘early, in the morning’, OInd pra-tar ‘early’. Based
ultimately on the widespread root *per- ‘forward, through’,
from which *prd- is derived, the lengthened form *prd-
developed the meaning ‘early’ independently in a small
number of scattered IE languages.
The early part of the day, the morning, is signified in various
IE languages by the word for ‘dawn’, ‘before’ (cf. Weis cynnar ,
Grk npcoi), light’ (cf. Hit lukat ‘at dawn’, cognate with Lat
lux , Goth liuhap , OInd roc-), and even ‘good’ (cf. Lat mane
‘in the morning’ from manus ‘good’).
See also Dawn. [PB.]
EARTH
*dh6ghdm ‘earth’. [IEW 414-415 ( *ghdem-)\ Wat 14
( *dhghem-)\ GI 720-721 {*d h (e)^om-)\ Buck 1.21; BK 608
(* dag-/* dag-)]. OIr du (gen. don ) ‘place, spot’, Lat humus
‘earth’, OPrus semme ‘earth’, Lith zeme ‘earth’, Latv zeme
‘earth’, OCS zemlja ‘earth’, Alb dhe (< *dhghem-) ‘earth’, Grk
yBcov earth’ , Phryg tjegeXa) ‘man’ or ‘earthly’. Hit tekan , taknas
‘earth’, Av zd, zdm- ‘earth’, OInd ksd, ksam- (gen .jmati) ‘earth’,
TochA tkam ‘earth’, TochB kem. The PIE word for ‘earth’.
The extension of this root to denote human beings, seen in
the Phrygian example above, has many other parallels, e.g.,
OIr duine ‘person’, Weis dyn ‘person’, Lat homo ‘man’, Lith
zmuo ‘person’. The derivation has been variously explained
as ‘human’ < * ‘being who lives on the earth’ or the belief that
humans were created from the earth although here one might
have expected a derivation from one of the words for ‘dirt’,
‘clay’ or, finally, the concept of ‘man’ as a microcosm of the
earth, cf. creation myths involving the carving up of a giant
to form the various parts of the landscape.
*hier- ‘earth’. 1/EW332 (*er-); Wat 17 (*er-); Buck 1.21;
BK 419 ( *ar-/*9r -)]. ON jprd ‘earth’, OE eorde ‘ground’
(> NE earth), OHG erda ‘earth’, ero (< *era ) ‘earth’, Goth
atrpa (Gmc < *erta) ‘earth’, Grk epG ‘earth’. Perhaps also Weis
erw ‘field’ although it may derive from the root for ‘plow’
(< *h 2 erh 3 -u-i). Uncertain is Lith erdve ‘place’, cf. ardvas,
ardvas, erdvas, ertas ‘wide’. Possibly a late dialectal term of
the west and center of the IE world.
See also Cosmology; Earth Goddess; Ground; Man.
IR.S.PB]
EARTH GODDESS
The existence of an IE ‘Earth goddess’, who is juxtaposed
with a ‘Father Sky’, is underwritten by cognate names confined
to the Baltic, Slavic, Thracian and Phrygian (Greek) traditions.
The Slavic Earth(-mother) goddess. Matt Syra Zemlja (‘mother
moist earth’) is linguistically related with Latvian Zemes Mate ,
Lithuanian zemyna , Phrygian and Thracian (Attic Grk)
LepeZri (cf. Indo-European terms for earth: Lat humus', Grk
(Attic) xQmv shows metathesis), Hit tekan, Av zom-, OInd
ksam-, TochA tkam, TochB kem. The emphasis on the ‘Earth
goddess’ being ‘Mother Earth’ is also to be found in other IE
traditions, e.g., OE folde, flra modor ‘earth, mother of men’,
Erce, eorpan modor ‘Earth, mother of earth’, OInd Pfthivf
mata ‘Mother Earth’, bhtimi-matd ‘Mother Earth’.
Among Slavic peasants, Zemlja was Mother Earth and
prophetess. If one dug into the earth and listened at the
opening, the earth would make a particular sound if the
forthcoming crop was to be good, and a different sound if the
crop was to be poor. Peasants settled property disputes by
calling upon Zemlja as witness; when oaths were taken, one
swallowed a clod of earth.
The name of the Greek heroine Semele is etymologically
related to the other IE earth goddesses (though borrowed
from some other IE source rather than inherited in Greek);
however, her mythology strays far from that of Earth goddess.
She bore to Zeus the god Dionysus. Hera was angry with
Zeus’ and Semele’s affair, and she determined to punish
Semele. Hera disguised herself and went to Semele; she
advised the girl to demand of Zeus that he reveal himself in
his true form. Semele did so, and she was cremated by the
celestial fire of Zeus. The god took the unborn child and sewed
it into his thigh, later giving “birth” to Dionysus. Both Semele
and Dionysus were given immortality.
In addition to linguistically cognate earth-goddesses, a
similar function is fulfilled by other deities such as the western
Germanic Nerthus. According to the Roman historian Tacitus
( Germania 40), a statue of Nerthus was led in ritual procession
through a village, and then returned to her temple. Then the
“goddess”, along with her wagon and robes, was ritually
bathed in a lake. The slaves who bathed her were subsequently
drowned. Vestiges of this ritual may be represented by the
well-preserved remains of men, wearing nooses and blind-
folds, found in Iron-age Danish peat-bogs; this provides
graphic evidence of the so-called ‘Threefold death’. Nerthus
is usually connected etymologically to the Roman goddess
Nerio, Grk avr\p, OInd nara- ‘man’ but Edgar Polome has
recently suggested that it is cognate with Grk vepzepoq ‘lower,
belonging to the lower world’.
See also Earth; Goddesses; Threefold Death;
Trans-functional Goddess. [M.R.D.] '
Further Readings
Euler, W. (1987) Gab es eine indogermanische Gotterfamilie?, in
Studien zum mdogermanischen Wortschatz , ed. W. Meid,
Innsbruck, 35-56.
Glob, P.V, (1969) The Bog People. New York, Ballentine.
Polome, E. (1954) A Propos de la Deesse Nerthus, Latomus 13,
167-200.
Polome, E. (1987) Njprdr, in The Encyclopedia of Religion , ed M
Eliade, New York, Macmillan.
EAST
*h a eust(e)ro- ‘east’. \IEW 86-87 ( *aus-tero -); Wat 4
( *aus-)\ Buck 12.45; BK 393 (*haw-/*h9w-)\. Lat auster( gen.
austrt) ‘south wind; south country’, australis ‘southern’
(whence NE Australia ), ON austr ‘east’, OE easteme ‘eastern’
(> NE eastern), OHG ostar ‘to the east’, Latv austrums'e ast’,
OCS ustru ‘summer’, Av usastara- l t ast’. From *h n eus-‘ dawn’
— 174 —
EAT AND DRINK
+ -t(e)ro- a suffix indicating implied contrast with a semantic
opposite (i.e. , ‘east’ as opposed to ‘west’). The shift from ‘east’
to ‘south’ in Latin may result from a conflation of the two
systems of deriving designations for the cardinal directions,
or, since the basic Latin word refers to ‘south wind’, the shift
may reflect a change in the direction of origin of the prevailing
hot, desiccating wind as the ancestors of the Italians emerged
from central Europe into the Italian peninsula.
See also Dawn; Direction. [A.D.VI
EAT AND DRINK
*hi€dmi ‘eat’. [/EW 287-288 (*ed-); Wat 16 (*ed-); Gl
603 (*et Buck 5.11; BK 418 (*at’-/* 3 t’-)]. Olr estar(DIL
ithid) ‘eats’, Lat edo ‘eat’, ON eta ‘eat’, OE etan ‘e&t’ (> NE
eat), OHG ezzan ‘eat’, Goth itan ‘eat’, OPrns Ist‘e at’, Lith edu
‘eat’ (3rd sg. esti ), Latv $du ‘eat’, OCS jaml (< *hiedmi) ‘eat’,
Grk k'Sco e at (up), devour’. Arm utem (< *hidde/o- ) ‘eat’, Hit
etmi ‘eat’, Av adaiti ‘let eat’, OInd admi ‘eat’, TochA natsw-
‘starve’ (i.e. n’ed s tuie/o- ‘not eat’), TochB matsts- (< *natsw-)
‘starve’, yesti (< *hied s -to-) ‘± food, meal’. Clearly the PIE
word for ‘eat’.
*gras- ‘eat, graze’. [/EW40 ( *gras-)\ Wat 24 ( *gras -); BK
2 16 ( *d’ar-as-/*ti’3T-as-)\ . Lat gramen ‘grass’, Grk ypaco ‘gnaw,
eat’, yaovr\p (< *grastar-) ‘belly’, OInd grasate ‘swallows,
consumes’, grastar- ‘swallower’, and with a new lengthened
grade: ON kras(< *gresa-) ‘delicacy’. Perhaps used originally
primarily of herbivores.
*geP- ± eat t masticate’ (usually of animals). [IEW 382
( *geph - ~ *gebh-)\ Wat 19 ( *gep(h)-)\ BK 624 ( *q’ab -/
*q , 3 b’-)\. Olr gop ‘muzzle, snout, beak’, OE ceafl ‘jaw, jowl’
(> NE jowl), NHG kiefer ‘jaw’, Lith zebiu ‘masticate, eat
slowly’, OCS o-zobati ‘maltreat, outrage’, Rus zobatVe at’, zob
‘crop, craw’, Av zafar- (~ zafan-) ‘mouth (of demonic being)’.
The final consonant shows a good deal of variability (-b
p ph bb-), all of which suggests a popular word in
later PIE, albeit a widespread one.
*h^eu- ‘eat’, [cf. Mayrhofer I, 133]. Alb ha (< *h4eue/o- )
‘eat’, Av avaoa- ‘provisions’, Ashkun au (< *avas- <
*h4eues -) ‘bread’, OInd avasam ‘food’, avisyant- ‘gluttonous’,
avaya- (< an iterative-intensive *h4dueie/o~) ‘eat, consume’,
osadhi- ‘herb, (medicinal) plant’. Perhaps a semantic
specialization of *h a eu- (i.e., *h4eu- ) ‘favor’. In any case a
word of the center and east of the IE world.
*ddrk w om ‘evening meal’, [cf. IEW 210 (*derek-)\. Alb
darke ‘evening meal’, Grk dopnov ‘evening meal’. (Alb darke
would be regular from *dork w orrr, ending in -e, a shift to the
attested feminine gender would be unsurprising.) Related are
Bret dibri (< *dribi ) ‘lunch’ and Alb dreke (< *dfk w eh a -)
‘breakfast’. These possibly reflect an earlier unitary *dork w
(gen. *dyk w os). At least a word of the west and center of the
IE world.
*gieuhx- ‘chew’. \IEW 400 ( *g(i)eu-)\ Wat 26 (*gyeu-)].
ON tyggja (with dissimilation from *kyggja ) ‘chew, eat’, OE
ceowan ‘chew, gnaw, eat’ (> NE chew), OHG kiuwan ‘chew’,
OCS zujp ‘chew’, Rus zuju ‘chew’, NPers javidan ‘chew’,
TochAB suwa- ‘eat’; also Lith (pi.) zuiunos ‘gills (of fish)’, Latv
zaunas ‘jaw’, Bulg zuna ‘jaw’. Widespread, but not universal.
Still it is probably the PIE word for ‘chew’.
*mandh-~ *mant- chew’. [JEW 732-733 ( *menth-)] . Olr
mefaLbelly’, Lat mando ‘chew’, ON me/ ‘bite’, OE mlfrl ‘bite’,
OHG mindil ‘bite’, Grk (Hesychius) paOvicti jaws’. Probably
a “popular” word for ‘chew’ and subject to irregular
phonological reshaping. Largely restricted to the west of the
IE world.
*treg- ‘gnaw’. Grk rpcbyw (aorist erpayov) ‘gnaw
(particularly raw fruit)’ > NGrk ‘eat’. Arm Cure ‘jaw’, TochB'
tresk- (< *trog-ske/o~) ‘chew’. Not widely attested but certainly
of late PIE date.
*g w er(h 3 )- ‘swallow’. [ IEW 474-475 ( *g u er -); Wat 25
( *g w ero~) ; Gl 607 (*k v er-)l Perhaps Olr tuar(a)e ‘food’
(if < *to-g w r-iieh a -), Lat voro ‘swallow (up), devour’, Lith genu
‘drink’, Latv dzefu ‘drink’, OCS po-zlrp ‘swallow’, Rus po-
zratl ‘devour’. Alb ngrane ‘eaten’, zorre (< *g w erhineh a -)
‘entrails’, Grk j Sopd ‘meat, food (of a predator)’, Arm eker
‘ate’, Av jaraiti ‘swallows’, OInd girali ‘swallows’. Of PIE date.
See also *grih x ueh a - ‘neck’.
*k w em- ‘swallow’. [/EW640-641 (*k y em-)]. Nice hvoma
‘swallow’. Arm k‘im-k‘ ‘throat’, Av a-sam- ‘sip’, sama- ‘gulp’,
Khot tsam- ‘sip’ (Avestan and Khotanese < Proto-Iran
*ciam-), Oss cumun ‘swallow’, OInd edmati ‘swallows’. It is
possible that we have independent onomatopoeic formations
at opposite ends of the IE world. It is more likely that we
have here descendants of a PIE word, one whose “popular”
character could lead to phonological reshaping as happened
in Iranian.
*srebh- (pres. *srdbhei) ‘gulp, ingest noisily’. [IEW 1001
( *srebh-)\ Wat 64 ( *srebh-)l . Lat sorbeo ‘sup, swallow, absorb’,
MHG stirpfeln ‘slurp’ (as if with *-b- rather than *-bh -), Lith
srebiu ‘sup, spoon’, surbiii ‘suck’, Latv strebju ‘slurp, spoon’,
OCS srubati ‘drink noisily’, Alb gjerb 1 sip, tipple’, Grk potpeca
‘gulp down’, Arm arbi ‘drank’, Hit s(a)rap- ‘gulp’, Pashto
rawdoV suck’, TochB sarp- ‘beat (of the heart)’ (from the noise
of the beating heart). Very widespread, clearly PIE in status.
*hieg*hmi‘ drink’. [Wat 16 (*eg w h-)]- Lat ebrius ‘having
drunk one’s fill, drunk’, Grk vrppco be sober’ (< *n' eg w h-e/o-
‘not drink’), Hit ekuzzi (= ek w tsi) ‘drinks’, Luv aku- ‘drink’,
TochAB yok- ‘drink’. Though not widely attested, this word
would appear to be the oldest reconstructible IE word for
‘drink’. Though often brought into this comparison, Lat aqua
‘water’ is phonologically incompatible because of its initial a-
and the voiceless *-k w -.
*peh 3 (i)~ ~ *pih 3 - ‘swallow’ > drink’ (present *piph 3 ~
e/o-) [IEW 840 ( *po(i »; Wat 52 ( *pd(i)-)\ Gl 607-608
( *p h oH(i )-); Buck 5.13; BK 40 (*pl h ]a-/*p[ h ] 3 -)}- Olr ibid
‘drinks’, Lat bibo ‘drink’ (poho‘ a drink’, poror ‘drinker’), Wakhi
pov ‘drink’, OInd pibati ‘drinks’. Showing different present
formations: OPrus poieili ‘drink’ ( pout ‘a drink’), OCS pijp
‘drink’. Alb pi ‘drink’, Grk (Attic) 7rtvo) (Aeolic kcovo)) ‘drink’
(aorist emov , perfect ketuokci., kogic, ‘a drink’, oivonozrfp
‘wine-drinker’), Arm ompem ‘drink’, Hit past ~ paszi ‘swallows,
— 175 —
EAT AND DRINK
gulps’, papassala- ‘esophagus’, OInd piti ‘drink’ ( patar -
‘drinker’).
It seems likely that Hit ekuzzi preserves the older meaning
here and that after Anatolian separated from the remaining
PIE dialects, those dialects largely replaced *hieg w h- by
*peh 3 (i)~ as the usual word for ‘drink’.
See also Bite; Breast; Feed; Lick; Suck; Taste. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Bader, E (1992) ‘Boire’ et ‘eau’, in Perspectives on I E. Language,
Culture and Religion (Festschrift Polome) . (JIES Monographs 9).
McLean, Virginia, 380-404.
EEL
*h x Vnghel- ~ *h x Vnghur - ‘eel ( Anguilla anguilla)'. [ IEW
43-45 ( *angU(h)i-)\ Wat 2 ( *ang w hi-)\ GI 444], Lat anguilla
‘eel’ (whose form has been influenced by anguis ‘snake’;
presumably before such influence we might have had *angella
or *angulla ), OPrus angurgis ‘eel’, Lith ungurys ‘eel’
(assimilated from *angurys, cf. Finnish ankerias ‘eel’
[borrowed < Proto-Baltic *anguriya -]), OCS Qgulja ~ jpgulja
(often taken as borrowings from Lat anguilla but that is not
what we would expect phonologically, nor is it a particularly
likely word to have been borrowed), Rus ugon ‘eel’, Grk
eyxeXvq ‘eel’ (whose form has probably influenced £%iq
‘viper’). All of these would seem to represent either *h x Vnghel-
or *h x Vnghur- (plus other suffixes). The evidence of Slavic
and Greek would seem to indicate that the first vowel was *e
~ *o. If so, the Latin vowel would be analogical after anguis
‘snake’.
Regarding its underlying meaning, GI argue that the Greek
word means ‘water snake’ and not ‘eel’ because Homer (/7iad
2 1 .203) mentions eyx^Xveq re kcci i/Oveg ‘eels and the fishes’
devouring one of Akhilleus’s victims and hence the contrast
(with the generic word for ‘fish’) suggests that the ‘eel’ is not
a fish. From this they assert that one cannot reconstruct a PIE
sememe ‘eel’ from the ‘snake’ word. That the meaning of the
Greek word must be reassigned is very questionable since
both the appearance and behavior of the eel might well lead
to its classification in a folk taxonomy as a ‘non-fish’, i.e., it is
not only elongated like a snake but it also can be seen moving
on the ground outside of water. In Roman lore the eel was
believed to be purely female and that for the purposes of
reproduction, the eel mated with a male viper on visits to the
sea coast. In Mordvin, the eel is known as the ‘snake-fish’.
Although there is considerable room for semantic confusion,
there are still solid grounds to reconstruct the meaning as
‘eel’ rather than ‘snake’. And whatever its exact phonetic shape,
this appears to be a word at least of the west and center of the
the IE world.
The eel has played a role in IE homeland arguments as it
has been held to have been absent from the rivers draining
into both the Black and Caspian seas. Hence, if one can
reconstruct a PIE word for this fish, it suggests that the
homeland lay outside of the north Pontic region. There is no
archaeological evidence for the eel in this region in the
prehistoric period although this is hardly conclusive evidence
since the recovery of fish remains from archaeological sites is
notoriously difficult and the eel is a fish which has an
extremely variable record regarding its consumption, i.e. in
some cultures it would never be regarded as a consumable
item of food. The present distribution of the eel, however,
does include almost all the rivers of the Pontic region as far
east as the Kuban. The value for the ‘eel’ in terms of the IE
homeland is negligible in any case since this word cannot be
shown to be of PIE status but has both a restricted linguistic
and geographical range.
See also Fish; Snake. ID.Q.A.J.PM.]
EGG
*h a o(v)iom ‘egg’. \IEW 783-784 ( *6(\j)i-om)\ Wat 4
( *owyo-)\ Buck 4.48] . Weis wy ‘egg’, Lat ovum ‘egg’ (curiously
close in form to Lat avis ‘bird’), ON egg'e gg’ (borrowed > NE
egg), OE OHG ei ‘egg’, CrimGoth ada ‘egg’, OCS
ajfce ‘egg’, Grk mov ‘egg’, Av -avaya- ‘eggs’; although
sometimes cited Arm ju ‘egg’ and OInd anda- cannot be
derived from this IE proto-form. It is quite possible that the
word for ‘egg’ is a vfddhied derivative of the word for ‘bird’
( *h a euei -).
In addition to the ‘egg’ as a basic part of any language’s
lexicon, eggs occasionally are found in archaeological contexts,
e.g., eggs and eggshells are known from burials in the steppe
region of the Ukraine and south Russia during the Copper
and Bronze Ages.
See also Animal; Bird; Birds. [J.A.C.G.]
ELBOW
*h 3 elVn- ‘elbow, forearm’. [IEW 308 ( *olina)\ Wat 16
( *el-)\ Buck 4.32], OIr uilen ‘comer’, Weis elm ‘elbow’, Lat
ulna ‘forearm, ell’, ON gin ‘ell’, glnbogi ‘elbow’, OE eln ‘ell’ (>
NE ell), elnboga- ‘elbow’ (> NE elbow), OHG elina ‘ell’,
elinbogo ‘elbow’, Goth aleina ‘ell’, Grk toXevri ‘forearm’,
t hXe.Kpa.vov (< *oleno-kranon) ‘elbow’, (Hesychius) coXXov
‘elbow’, Arm oln ‘spine’, TochA alem (dual) ‘palms of the
hands’, TochB alyiye ‘palm’. Widespread and old in IE, though
subject to irregular phonological changes. Also used as a unit
of measurement, the ‘ell’, in Italic and Germanic.
*h 3 elek- ‘elbow, forearm’. [IEW SOS (*el-eq-)\ Buck 4.321 .
OPrus woaltis ‘forearm, ell’, alkunis ‘elbow’, Lith uolektis‘el \' ,
alkane ~ elktine ‘elbow’, Latv uolekts ‘elbow’, elks ‘elbow’,
glkuon (i)s ‘elbow’, OCS lakull ‘elbow, ell’, Rus lokbti ‘elbow,
ell’, Grk (Hesychius) aXat; ‘forearm’. Arm o/ok“shin, leg’. A
variant of the preceding word used in the central part of the
IE world. Here we also see the elbow extended to a unit of
measurement in both Baltic and Slavic.
See also Anatomy; Arm [D.Q.A.]
ELEPHANT
??*Q)ebh- ‘elephant’. (GI 443 ( *yeb h - ~ *Heb h -)\ Blazek
134-148]. Lat ebur ‘ivory; elephant’, OInd ibha- ‘elephant’.
— 176 —
ELK
These words are not really comparable but, as Blazek suggests,
derive from some third language. Cf. Egyptian 3b w ‘elephant’.
??*lebh- ‘ivory’. [G1 443 ( *leb h ont h -)]. Myc e -re-pa ‘ivory’,
Grk e?L£(pag ‘ivory’, Hit lahpa- ‘ivory’. Cf. Goth ulhandus
‘camel’. Like the previous entry, the words collected here are
related by borrowing of some sort rather than by inheritance.
Neither ‘elephant’ nor ‘ivory’ can be reconstructed for PIE.
The two prehistoric elephants of the Pleistocene, the woolly
mammoth ( Mammuthus primigenius ) and the straight-tusked
elephant ( Palaeoloxodon antiquus) were widely hunted in
the northern hemisphere during the Ice Age. The straight-
tusked elephant became extinct before the end of the
Pleistocene while the woolly mammoth survived until about
11,000 years ago. The only elephants to survive the end of
the Pleistocene were those adapted to warmer climates, the
African ( Laxodonta africana ) and the Asian or Indian ( Elephas
maximus ) elephants. The date of extinction of the pygmy
elephants of Malta, Sicily, Cyprus and other islands is
uncertain. Distant knowledge of the elephant in the Neolithic
is possibly suggested by depictions of what are presumed to
be an elephant on pottery from Adriatic Croatia which has
been attributed to trading links with North Africa.
Although the distribution of the elephant was quite
restricted, its primary purpose outside the area of its natural
range was as a source of ivory which was exploited also during
the Pleistocene. In the context of our lexical evidence, the
Minoan site of Knossos has yielded evidence of an ivory
worker’s shop dating to c 1400 BC (about the time of or slightly
before the Linear B tablets on which we find the earliest Greek
form of ‘ivory’) and elephant tusks have been recovered from
both the Cretan site of Zakro and palace of Mycenae itself.
The source of the ivory is uncertain. It may have been from
India, Africa or possibly Syria where there is iconographic
(e.g., a Hittite seal of the fourteenth century BC depicts an
elephant) and historical (Ashumasirpal II reputedly killed
thirty elephants in Syria during the ninth century BC) but no
osteological evidence for the elephant at this time. In any
event, both the commodity and possibly a name for ivory
should have been circulating around the Aegean during the
Bronze Age. It was also quite popular throughout the Near
East around the ninth century BC and carried westwards to
Italy as part of the Orientalizing style found in Etruscan art.
Later it was very intensively imported from North Africa by
the Romans. The depiction of elephants on art was very
widespread, perhaps the most famous example in Iron Age
Europe being the elephants on the panel of the Gundestrup
cauldron which was discovered in a Danish peat bog (although
probably manufactured in southeast or western Europe) c
100 BC.
Until recently there has been little or no attempt at the
true domestication of the elephant, i.e. selective breeding,
although elephants have obviously been “tamed” for millennia.
Usually, the earliest date for such a process is attributed to
the Harappan culture (c 2500-1500 BC) where seals
frequently depict elephants with what appears to be a covering
on their backs which, it is suggested, would indicate that
they were already under some form of control.
See also Mammals. (D.Q.A., J.PM.J
ELF
?*(a)]bh- ‘± elf’. [ IEW30 ( *albho-)\ Wat 2 ( *alhho-)\ Buck
22.44] . ON a//r‘elf’, OE aelPe If’ (> NE ell), Olnd fbhu- ‘artistic,
learned; artisan, artist; orderer of time; one of a group of gods’.
Perhaps also belonging here is OCS rabu ‘servant’. The
apparent agreement of Germanic and Indie would suggest
PIE antiquity. Etymologically, the word appears to be related
to Lat albus ‘white’ and Hit alpa- ‘cloud’, originally as the
‘shining one’ or the like.
The Germanic elves (ON alfr) are said to live in mounds,
which led to their identification with the dead buried in
barrows. They would receive sacrifice (ON alfablot ) at the
beginning of winter in order to promote fertility. The Icelandic
historian Snorri Sturluson distinguished light elves (ON
ljosalfar), dwelling in the resplendescent Alfheimr and more
beautiful than the sun, sometimes called Ealfrodull ‘ray of
the elves’, and the hideous black elves (ON dlkkalfar ), dark
as pitch, living underground. In the Anglo-Saxon area, an
independent tradition developed, perhaps under Celtic
influence. Old English texts of the ninth and tenth centuries
mention a large variety of elves — bergaelfen , dunaelfen ,
muntaeUen ‘mountain elves’, landselfen , feldaelfen ‘field elves’,
waeteraelfen and saeaelfcn ‘water nymphs’ and wuduaelfen
‘wood spirits’. They were ambiguous, responsible for a number
of illnesses, e g., OE ylfa gesceot ‘elf-shot, i.e., lumbago’, but,
on the bright side, there is an Old English adjective aelfsciene
‘pretty as an elf’, and this term appears in many personal
names, e.g., Alfred, AElbeorht.
The Olnd fbhu are divine craftsmen, described as extremely
skillful; they make a couple of old parents young again, put a
cow back together and call her back to life, build the chariot
of the Asvins, make two horses for Indra, and multiply by
four the magical cup of the artificer god Tvastp
On a deep comparative level, they have been associated
with the yearly cycle and the renewal of the year. Very
important in this conception is their sleep after a long walk
symbolising the duration of the year: they stay for twelve
nights during the winter solstice in the house of Savitf,
marking the transition to the new year like Angerona presiding
over the angustii dies in Rome.
[E.C.R1
Further Readings
Haudry, Jean (1987) Les Rbhus et les Alfes Bulletin des Etudes
Indiennes 5, 159-219.
Moisson, Patrick (1993) Les dieux magiciens dans le Rig-Veda.
Approche comparative de structures mythiques indo-
europeennes. Milan
ELK (AMERICAN MOOSE)
*h](6Uas (gen. *hxlkdis) ‘elk/American moose (Alces alces)' .
— 177 —
ELK
[JEW 3 03 ( *el-)\ Wat 16-17 (*olki-)\ GI 437 (*(e)l-k h -)\ Buck
3.75; BK 452 ( *il-/*el-)\ . Lat alces ‘elk/moose (A Ices alces)’
(borrowed from West Gmc *alxi-), ON elgr (< Proto-Gmc
*alxl- ) ‘elk/moose’, OE eolh ‘elk/moose’ (> NE elk), OHG elho
‘elk/moose’ (Old English and Old High German with new
full-grade, i.e., as if < Proto-Gmc *elx-), Rus losi (regularly
from < *olki-) ‘elk/moose’, Grk aXicrj ‘elk/moose’ (borrowed
from Latin), Khot rus- ‘arghali/Ov/s poli ( Ovis ammon )’,
Wakhi rus ‘wild mountain sheep’ (Iranian < *ysya~), Olnd
fsya- ‘the male of antelope, particularly the painted or white-
footed antelope’ (probably = nilgai [Boselaphus irago-
camelus\). Widespread and old in IE. As with *h jelhien ‘red
deer’, the meanings that the eastern group give to descendants
of *h x olkis presumably reflect their removal into territories
where Alces alces was not native.
The current and Neolithic distribution of the elk ( Alces
alces) extends from Britain (but not Ireland since the time of
human colonization) across Eurasia; however, it is generally
absent from southern Europe, the east Mediterranean and
territories south of the Caspian. For example, while it is found
in very large numbers on sites of northern Russia (where it is
often the most hunted animal), and frequently enough in
Mesolithic and Neolithic faunas of northern Europe and on
the Alpine Neolithic lake-side settlements, it is extremely rare
on Neolithic sites of Central Europe such as the Linear Ware
Culture or on Italian Neolithic sites and it seems altogether
absent from early Neolithic sites of the Balkans, Greece and
Anatolia. The elk is known from the Pontic-Caspian, southern
Urals and western Siberia and it was widely depicted in the
art of the Iron Age Scythians. If the sememe can be regarded
as PIE, then the semantic shift from ‘elk’ to ‘antelope’ and
perhaps then to ‘sheep’ has some possible explanation since
the elk was not known in most Iranian-speaking territories
and not at all in India. Alternatively, the original sememe may
have referred to something like the ‘saiga antelope’ whose
characteristic swollen snout could have prompted its re-
application to the elk while its physique would have motivated
its shift to various types of other antelopes and wild sheep in
Asia. The saiga ( Saiga tatarica) was essentially confined to the
steppeland regions of the Pontic-Caspian to Mongolia,
although previously known as far west as Poland. In addition
to its meat, it was also hunted for its homs which were believed
to be an aphrodisiac. This explanation, which seeks an animal
midway in appearance between the much larger elk and the
much smaller antelope, could only be accommodated if the
PIE homeland were set in the steppe region.
See also Deer; Mammals. [D.Q.A.J. P. M.]
Further Reading
Adams, D. Q. (1985) Designations of the Cervidae in Proto-Indo-
European. JIES 13, 269-282.
ELM
*hi6lem ~ *hi(e)lmos ‘mountain elm ( Ulmus montana)'.
[IEW 303 (*e/em-); Wat 16-17 ( *elmo -); cf. GI 545; Fried
80-87], Mir lem ‘elm’, Weis llwyf(en)'e\m\ Lat ulmus ‘elm’,
ON almr ‘elm’, elmr ‘elmwood bow’, OE elm ‘elm’ (> NE
elm), OHG elmboum ‘elm’, Rus Hem ‘mountain elm’, Pol ilem
‘elm’.The distribution suggests a northwestern dialectal tenn,
possibly the attested forms represent the remains of an old
root-noun *hjelem (*hieldm ? *hielip?), gen. *hdmos.
*]}i(n)g- ‘elm ( Ulmus spp.)'. \IEW 1 177 ( *uing-)\ GI 545
( *weik , -/*wink'-)\ Fried 80-87], OE wlce ‘elm’ (> NE wych-
elm), Lith vinksna ‘elm’, Latv vtksna ‘elm’, ORus vjazu ‘elm’,
Rus vjaz‘e\m\ Alb vidh (< *uingo-) ‘elm’, Kurdish viz' a kind
of elm’. Perhaps Oss wis-qaed ‘maple’. At least late PIE status.
Two overlapping sets of species of elm were denoted by
two (solidly attested) terms that in turn overlap in both their
reference and their geography. To begin, the early *hielmos
is found in Celtic, Italic, and Germanic and is buttressed by
many Slavic forms which most probably do not involve many
independent borrowings from Germanic but, rather, a
Common Slavic original. The referent of the western forms is
the mountain elm ( Ulmus scabra or montana). The second
term is also attested in Baltic and Slavic (as in Pol wi#z), and
is supported by Albanian, Germanic (e.g., NE wych ‘elm’),
and, most critically, Kurdish. In sum, we have a PIE *ui(n)g-
for the ‘common’ or ‘European elm (Ulmus glabra, U. loliacea ,
and U. campestris)’ and another term *hielmo- in western
Europe with Germanic, Baltic and Slavic showing both terms
(presumably with semantic complementary distribution).
*pteleieh a - ~ *pteleijeh a - elm? ( Ulmus spp.)’. [IEW 847
(*ptel(e)ia)\ Fried 89], From *pteleieh a -: Mir teile ‘linden’,
Lat tilia ‘linden’, Arm t'eli ‘elm’; from *pteleqeh a -\ Myc pte-
re-wa ‘elm’, Grk nreXea ‘elm’. Arm t'elos ‘wood’, Oss faerwe
‘alder’. The reconstruction is weak in that the Middle Irish
may or may not be a loan from English (the linden is not
native to Ireland) while the Armenian form has been dismissed
as a Greek loan although more recently this explanation too
has been rejected. The Latin form is phonologically trans-
parent but the motivation for the reference ‘linden’ is not and
both the elm and the linden are native to at least the northern
half of the Italian peninsula. The Ossetic is aboriginally
cognate. The Greek evidence is enhanced by the probably
related form nriXaq ‘wild rowan’ as rowans are a frequent,
symbiotic understory in elm forests. In sum, a PIE *pteleia-
for the elm and metonymically or metaphorically related trees
cannot be ruled out. If included, this might be the southern
(Greek and Armenian) elm word, with overlap in Latin, in
particular, since Latin participates in one of the two elm’ words
which are rather solidly attested in mainly northern stocks.
The genus Ulmus ‘elm’ was found over most of Europe
excepting the Iberian peninsula and the southern extremes
of Greece and Italy. It increased greatly during the relatively
warm Atlantic period with climax forests, often mixed with
linden trees, throughout southern Russia, the Ukraine and
the north Caucasus. Ulmus is also represented in lake core
sediments from prehistoric sites in southwest Anatolia. The
genus retreated drastically during the Sub-Boreal, not so much
because of climate (though disease has been seriously
— 178 —
ENTRAILS
proposed, cf. modern Dutch Elm disease) as because of
extensive use as fodder through the harvesting of leaves, shoots
and branches, its clearance due to its association with good
soils, and because of its utility in making ropes, mats, baskets
and other fiber-constructed objects. This practice has
continued until very recently among Baltic and Slavic peasants.
See also Trees [PEI
Further Reading
Troels-Smith, J. (1960) Ivy, mistletoe and elm. Climate tndicators-
fodder plants. Danmarks Geol. Undersoegelse. Ser 4, vol. 4, no. 4.
EMPTY
*hieu(ha)~ ‘empty, wanting’. [/EW345 (*eu-~ *eua-)', Wat
18 ( *eu-)\ BK 409 ( *hiw-/*hew-)\ . From *hieu- we have Grk
evvig ‘deprived’, Arm unayn ‘empty’; from *hiu(e)h a - we have
Lat van us empty’, ON van r ‘lacking’, OE wan ‘lacking, wan’
(> NE wan), wanian lessen, wane’ (> NE wane), OHG wan
‘lacking’, Goth wans ‘lacking’, Av una- ‘wanting’, Olnd una-
‘iacking’ (lnd-lran < *hiuh a -nd-). Widespread and old in IE.
*yalc-‘be empty’. [7EW345 (*eu-)', Wat 18 (*wak-)]. Lat
vaco ‘am empty’, Hit wakk- ‘fail, be lacking’. Though the
attestations are few, the geographical spread of those
attestations suggests PIE antiquity for this word.
*y (e)haStos ‘empty’. [IEW 346 (*yasto-s); Wat 18 ( *was -
to-)' GI 684 (*wast b o-)\. Olr fas (< *iieh a stos) ‘empty’, Lat
vastus (length of a unknown) ‘empty, unoccupied, waste(d)’,
OE weste ‘waste, desolate, empty, unoccupied’ (> NE waste),
OHG wuosti ‘waste, desolate, empty, unoccupied’. Hit wastul-
‘sin’ has sometimes been put here but in all probability belongs
elsewhere. A western term in late PIE. Although sometimes
so indicated in the handbooks, this word provides no evidence
for a noun ‘desert’. Both this entry and the previous one may
be enlargements of *hieu(h a )- and, if so, should be written
*hiuak- and *hiu(e)h a stos respectively.
*tussIqos ‘empty’. [IEW 1085 ( *teus-)\ cf. Gl 365; Buck
13.22], Lith tuscias ‘empty, poor’, OCS iusfTempty’, Rus toscyj
‘empty’, NPers tuhl ‘empty’, Pashto las ‘empty’, Olnd tucchya-
‘empty’. From *teus- ‘to empty’ as in Av taosayeiti ‘lets fall,
lets go’, tusan ‘they loose’. Lat tesca ( tesqua ) ‘barrens,
wasteland’, an archaic form, has been suggested here but it is
obscure and an unlikely connection. Attempts have also been
made to connect OE post ‘fertilizer’ via a meaning ‘emptying
out’. The Latin and Old English forms are most likely parallel
formations; in Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iraman, i.e., a satam
isogloss, from PIE *teus- ‘to be empty’.
?*Ken6s ‘empty’. [IEW 564 ( *ken-)\ Wat 29 ( *ken-)\ Buck
13.22], Grk Kevog ‘empty’, Arm sin ‘empty’. Perhaps a late
and dialectal word in PIE.
See also Lack. [D.Q.A., J.C.S., R.S.RB.I
ENCLOSURE see FENCE
ENEMY
?*des- ‘enemy’. [GI 400; Mayrhofer 1, 711 —7 1 2 1 Myc do-
e-ro ‘slave’ Grk dovXog (Doric dcoXog) ‘slave’ (Grk <
*dos-e-lo-), Av dahyu- ‘region’, OPers dahyu - (nom. sg.
dahyaus) ‘province’, MPers deh ‘region’, NPers dih ‘town’,
Manichean Sogd ztyw(< Proto-Iran *uz-dahyu -) ‘exiled’, Olnd
dasa- ‘demon, enemy; infidel; barbarian; slave’, dasyu-
‘demon, enemy of the gods, barbarian, impious man’ (< Proto-
Indo-Iran *dasyu- ‘enemy, foreigner, foreign people’, *dasyu-
‘(foreign) land’). Not everyone would agree that the Greek
word belongs with the Indo- Iranian one (many taking it to
be a borrowing from some unknown Asia Minor source). If
these words do belong together, however, then we have
evidence for a word for ‘enemy’ in the southeast of the IE
world (the semantic shift in Greek would be the result of the
pragmatic fact that the usual source of slaves was captured
enemies).
An alternative hypothesis has been proposed by Asko
Parpola who suggests that the word was originally an ethnic
designation which later developed the meanings of ‘enemy’
and ‘slave’, e.g., NE slave < (captive) Slav, Finnish orja
< (enemy?) Aryan. He argues that the Dasas, lumped with
the Dasyus and Panis as enemies of the Aryans in the Ftgveda,
refers to a more distant memory of encounters between Indo-
Aryans and their enemies in Bactria and northern Afghanistan
(the Dasas lived in triple-walled forts which can be more easily
identified with the fortresses of this region rather than
anything in the Indian subcontinent). He argues that the Vedic
Dasas are cognate with the nomadic Persian tribe of the Aaoi
mentioned by Herodotus (1.125) which occurs in later
historical and geographical sources, e.g., Tacitus’s (Ann. 11.10)
Dahae. He suggests that Khotanese Saka preserves the original
meaning of the word in daha- ‘male, man; man of courage’,
i.e., like many peoples of the world, the word originally was
a self-designation ‘men’, e.g., Mari man ‘man’ (Mari is the
self-designation of the Mari), or Bantu ba-ntu ‘men; Bantu’.
See also Freeman. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
Further Reading
Parpola,. A. (1988) The coming of the Aryans to Iran and India
and the cultural and ethnic identity of the Dasas. Stadia
Orientalist*, 195-302.
ENTRAILS
*hien-t(e)rom ‘innards’. [JEW 313-314 ( * enter-), Wat 17
(*en-tero-)\ BK 432 (*in-/*en-)\. ON idrar ~ Or ~ mnr
‘entrails’, OCS jetro ‘liver’, Grk evzepov ‘piece of the gut' (pi.
entrails’), Arm anderk'e ntrails’, Olnd antra- ~ antra- ‘entrails'.
An old compound, at least late PIE in date, of *h jen- ‘in’ + -
tero- a suffix showing contrast, thus the inner part of the
abdomen’ (cf. *ud s -tero/eh a - ‘abdomen’).
*guddm ‘intestines’. [IEW 393 (*gudo-m)\. LowGerm kiit
‘intestine’, Maced yb<5a ‘intestine’, Olnd guda- ‘intestine, anus'.
Possibly from *£ T eu-‘bend, twist’. Though not widely attested,
it may be a late, popular, word for ‘intestines’ in PIE.
— 179 —
ENTRAILS
*ghorh x neh a - ‘entrails’. [IEW 443 ( *gher -); Wat 22
( *ghero-)\ BK 231 (*gur-/*gor-)\. Lat haruspex ‘ent rail-seer’,
ON gQrn ‘guts’, garn ‘yarn’, OE micgern (< *mid-gem )
‘internal fat, suet’, geam ‘yam’ (> NE yam), OHG gam ‘yarn’,
Lith zama ‘guts’, La tv zafna ‘guts’, Grk yop ‘a string of gut;
sausage’, OInd hira- ‘band, strip’, hira ‘vein’. Germanic and
Baltic agree on *ghorh x neh a _ The other languages show
different and independent derivatives, presumably of some
root-noun *gh(e)rh x ~. It would appear that the semantic focus
of this word was on intestines, not in the living animal, but as
useful for sewing or binding, or as in the case of Italic, fortune-
telling.
See also Abdomen; Anatomy. [D.Q.A.]
ESCHATOLOGY
Eschatology is that branch of mythology concerned with
cosmic endings. Members of pre-scientific societies employ
creation and cosmic ending myths to account for the origin
and fate of the physical universe. Since the last century,
scholars in Europe have been fascinated by the ancient Norse
legend of Ragnarok, the “doom of the gods”, as an example
of a cosmic ending myth. More recently, IE eschatology has
attracted the attention of comparative mythologists who have
sought to recover the original IE proto-myth in the vestiges
of related traditions found in the eschatological literature of
ancient Scandinavia, Ireland, Rome, Iran and India.
True to their martial nature, early IE societies believed that
the world would end in a great battle between the traditionally
opposed forces of good arid evil. The reconstructed cosmic
ending or “final battle” myth features events which occur both
in the distant, mythic past as well as the future. Even in reflexes
where this myth has been historicized, it is marked by a sense
of temporal ambiguity and often includes incongruous
predictions about the fate of mankind. Motifs common to
the various eschatological myths include:
1. An archdemon dwells in the community of the gods (or
men, in epic versions) whose paternal relatives are tra-
ditionally inimical to the gods.
2. Through default or guile, the archdemon assumes the
leadership of the community.
3. During his reign, his subjects are unjustly or harshly treated
while outsiders, on whose support the archdemon relies,
are favored.
4. Building projects, especially the erection of fortifications,
are carried out by the archdemon, in which his subjects
are tricked or forced to provide labor.
5. Usually as the result of a particularly heinous act, the
archdemon is exiled by his subjects.
6. The archdemon ultimately takes refuge among his foreign
relatives. Binding the archdemon occurs only in Norse and
Iranian myth.
7. A hero appears who is the nephew or grandson of the exiled
archdemon. This relationship is often that of the PIE
*nep(o)t- ‘daughter’s son’ or ‘sister’s son’.
8. A protracted period of time passes during which both sides
prepare for the final battle. This period is critical because
it represents the “present” in which the bearers of the
religious tradition lived and worshipped. In Norse and
Iranian traditions, a cataclysmic “cosmic winter” presages
the final battle.
9. The final battle occurs on a famous field. In it, many
notables among the community of gods and their
adversaries slay each other in single combat. Associated
with the final battle and its aftermath is widespread death
and destruction, interruption of the cosmic order, and the
end of a temporal “cycle” or era.
Ireland
Irish myth recounts two great battles which occurred on
the plain of Tuired ( Mag TuirecJ). The first represents the Irish
reflex of the IE “War of the Foundation” while the Second
Battle of Mag Tuired is the Irish version of the IE “final battle”.
Accounts of this battle are known from manuscripts dating
from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although other
references to the conflict indicate that the tale is of great
antiquity and the language of the later manuscripts clearly
derives from an Old Irish original. At the center of the myth
is the struggle between the Tuatha De Danann, the gods
worshipped by the ancient Irish, and the Formorians, a race
of giants who were their traditional enemies. Unlike Ragnarok,
the “final battle” theme is better developed in the Irish
accounts, especially events leading up to the conflict. Also
unlike Ragnarok, the Second Batde of Mag Tuired has been
incorporated by its Christian chroniclers into the mythical
history of Ireland. Consequently, it represents not the end of
the cosmos but rather the terminus of an historical cycle
comprising one of the mythical ancestors of the Irish.
In the Irish version, the archdemon is Bres, who has more
in common with the handsome fertility god Baldr of Norse
legend than the demonic Loki. Because his mother is a
member of the Tuatha De Danann, they adopt him. His father
is Elatha, a Formorian king. Nuadu, then king of the Tuatha,
forfeits his kingship because of a physical imperfection: his
hand was severed in the First Battle of Mag Tuired .
Subsequently, Bres is made king. Under Bres, the Tuatha suffer
greatly and are made to perform menial tasks. Guests to Bres’s
house are not treated to their due hospitality and each house
in Ireland is forced to pay onerous tribute to Bres’s relatives,
the Formorians. Bres compels the Dagda (the ‘good [profi-
cient] god’) to build fortifications around Bres’s stronghold.
His parsimonious treatment of a visiting poet incites the
latter to satirize Bres, causing his reign to be unproductive.
For this, the Tuatha exile Bres who flees to his Formorian
kinsmen. Among them he raises an army to regain his
kingdom. Seven years pass during which preparations for the
ultimate conflict are made. Among the Tuatha De Danann, a
new hero appears named Lug who was the son of Baler’s
daughter, i.e., the *nep(o)t- of a leader and primary warrior
of the Formorian host. Lug, known among the Continental
Celts as Lugus, was a prominent if not paramount god of the
— 180 —
ESCHATOLOGY
Celtic pantheon. His “appearance” in this myth fixes it in the
past according to the temporal perspective of his worshippers.
On the famous plain of Tuired, the “final battle” occurred
during which many prominent mythic figures (Nuadu, Ogma,
Balor, Indech, Macha) are slain together with numerous others.
During the conflict, four physicians from the Tuatha revived
their slain by casting them into an enchanted well. Lug slays
his demon grandfather, Balor, and routs the enemy. After the
battle, the Irish goddess, Morngan, predicts the coming era
of agricultural barrenness and social corruption.
Iconographic evidence attests to the active worship by the
Celts of some of these gods who perished in the battle, a fact
which lends a future sense to this “final battle”. Reviving the
slain warriors in a sacred well or cauldron is a common motif
in Celtic mythology and iconography, e.g., the Gundestrup
cauldron, which parallels the Norse myth of the resuscitation
of the dead einherjar by the Valkyries.
Rome
Lacking a coherent body of myth, ancient Rome has
nevertheless provided mythologists rich sources of material
in its extensive ritual tracts and its early legends. Among the
latter is the legend of the overthrow of the Etruscan kings
and the founding of the Roman Republic. This “historical
event” contains the embalmed remains of the Indo-European
“final battle” theme. Livy’s Early History of Rome provides
the primary source. Here, the cosmic ending theme is adopted
to account for the end of the era of dynastic kingships and
the birth of the Roman Republic.
Lucius Tarquin, the archdemon in this version, appears
twice in Livy’s history: as a father and son with identical names.
His parentage is clearly Etruscan, a nation traditionally hostile
to Rome’s territorial ambitions. Tarquin is befriended by and
made the guardian of the royal offspring by the Roman king,
Ancus. When the succession of the kingship is to be decided,
Tarquin disposes of Ancus’s sons and becomes king. As
monarch of Rome, Tarquin behaves in a lawless and tyrannical
manner. During the Tarquin reign the fortifications of Rome,
the temple of Jupiter, and Rome’s sewer system were
completed. Atypically, this work is accomplished by
employing free Romans rather than slaves. Tarquin strives to
strengthen his grip on the kingship of Rome by enlisting
support from foreign peoples.
Tarquin’s son outraged the Romans by his rape of Lucretia.
For this crime, the Tarquins were exiled. Tarquin sought
asylum among his Etruscan relatives, where he organised an
army to subdue Rome. A moratorium of unnamed duration
follows, during which both sides anticipate the impending
conflict. In Rome, the young hero responsible for the Tarquins’
exile was Lucius Brutus, the son of Tarquin’s sister and
Tarquin’s *nep(d)t-. Like the Irish Lug, and the Norse Vldarr,
Brutus was known as the “silent” one.
The struggle between the forces of Tarquin and Rome
culminates in a series of battles, all of which bear
characteristics of the Indo-European “final battle”. The first
is the Battle of the Arsian Woods in which Tarquins son,
Arruns, and the Roman hero Brutus slay each other in single
combat. The outcome is not decisive and Tarquin again returns
to Rome with the army of the legendary Etruscan king, Lars
Porsena. Porsena’s siege of Rome is the setting for the heroic
acts of two of Rome’s great legendary heroes, Horatius Codes
(‘one-eyed’) and Mucius Scaevola (‘left handed’). Codes is
recognised as the Latin reflex of the Indo-European one-eyed
god (e.g., Norse Odinn and Irish Lug). Likewise, Scaevola
represents the Indo-European one-handed god (Norse Tyr
and Irish Nuadu). Their involvement in Rome’s critical War
of the Republic distinguishes the latter as a version of the
“final battle”. Livy noted that the Battle of Lake Regillus, the
final battle of the war against the Tarquins, was fought with
more determination than usual; officers of high rank who
would normally have confined themselves to directing
operations joined personally in the fighting, and with the
exception of the Roman dictator, there was hardly a man
amongst the nobility on either side who escaped without a
wound. Mutual slaughter in single combat typifies this struggle
as it does in other “final battle” reflexes. With the battle, the
old order is forever eliminated and the new republic securely
established.
Scandinavia
Reflexions of the IE eschatological myth are recorded in
both Old Norse myth and Danish historical tradition. The
least narrative of all versions of the “final battle”, the Norse
Ragnarok myth, is preserved in the Voluspa, the
Vafprudnismal , the Grimnismal , the Lokasena , and Snorri
Sturluson’s Prose Edda. An apparently rich body of myth
relating to the “final battle” is alluded to in these highly stylistic
but cryptic lays. Snorri’s is the only extant prose account and
his deals primarily with the actual battle and ensuing
apocalypse while shedding little light on the events which
lead up to the conflict. From the general body of Norse myth,
the main core of the theme can be reconstructed.
Loki is the foreign archdemon among the /Esir, the Norse
gods. His. father was a giant, the traditional enemies of the
HEsir. Unlike the other figures of the Norse pantheon, there is
no evidence indicating that Loki was ever actually worshipped
in pagan Scandinavia. Although the AEsir suffer deprivations
and humiliations at Loki’s hands, he is never “king” of the
HEsir. Instead, he is depicted as a wily trickster whose primary
purpose seems to be to torment the gods. Loki is responsible
for the construction of the walls around Asgard, the realm of
the gods. By manipulating the blind Hodr, Loki causes the
murder of Baldr for which he is exiled by the AEsir. Variant
tales indicate that a) he is chained by the gods, perhaps in the
shape of a wolf, b) he is chained and his son turned into a
wolf, c) his son is chained in the shape of a wolf, and d) Loki
is banished to Otgard, where he is king. Ultimately, he turns
up among the enemies of the gods and is allied with them at
Ragnarok.
Insofar as a sequence can be imposed on mythic time, it is
— 181 —
ESCHATOLOGY
clear that the death of Baldr and the exile of Loki were acts
which occurred in the mythic past. The bearers of the
Germanic mythic tradition considered their recent past and
present as antedating the “final battle”. Folk beliefs associated
with the preparations for that conflict abound, especially
proscriptions against disposing of finger nails and conserving
shoe leather. Famous kings and warriors are selectively
gathered by Odinn into Valhalla to form the einherjar (band
of dead warriors) and bolster the 2Esir’s defences. Wargames
are held in Valhalla after which the dead are revived by
Valkyries and returned to Odinn’s mead-hall for an evening
of feasting.
Vldarr, the son of Odinn, avenges the death of his father at
Ragnarok and rules the new regime in its aftermath. He is
associated with the Vedic god Visnu because of his cosmic
stride which he uses, together with a special shoe, to tear
apart the demon wolf, Fenrir. Vldarr’s relationship with Loki
is uncertain. While Loki is considered Odinn’s foster brother,
there is no evidence to indicate that he is Vidarr’s uncle or
grandfather.
Prior to the battle, there occurs a period of climatic,
geological, astronomic and social cataclysm. A freezing winter
{fimbulvetr) , three years long, is accompanied by the
disintegration of social order, earthquakes, floods, and the
disappearance of the sun. Monsters which have been held at
bay by the forces of order break loose. The “final battle” occurs
on the plain of Vlgrldr. During the fight, prominent figures
on both sides (Odinn, horr, Tyr, Heimdallr, Loki, Fenrir, the
Midgard-serpent) are slain in single combat. The myth’s
hallmark is the cosmic destruction wrought by the battle that
sees the world seared in flame and then submerged beneath
the sea.
Recorded in the Gesta Danorum of Saxo Grammaticus is
the famous battle between the king of Denmark, Harald
Wartooth, and his nephew, Sigurd Ring. Here, ancient myth
has been transposed to legend and subsequently adopted as
history. Similarities have been drawn between the “Battle of
Bravellir” and the Indie Mahabharata. Specific details and the
overall apocalyptic nature of the battle itself has attracted
comparison with the Norse myth of Ragnarok.
Gurid, a Danish princess, bears a son Harald by a
commoner. Because Gurid is the last surviving member of
the Danish royal lineage, Harald becomes king by default. A
mighty warrior, Harald expands his holdings through
conquest. However, his cruelty eventually makes him a burden
to his subjects. Harald recruits many foreign heroes into his
army with whose help he suppresses insurrections. No exile
motif is evident in the legend: the cause of the battle is a
territorial struggle between the king and his nephew, Sigurd
Ring. Harald and Sigurd declare war and then spend seven
years preparing for the conflict. Sigurd Ring is the *nep(d)t-
‘ sister’s son’ of Harald. The final battle occurs on the plain of
Bravellir. The list of slain heroes is unusually extensive, and
Saxo takes pains to stress that the number of the lesser dead
are uncountable. Other “final battle” motifs include references
to the sky falling, the earth suffering, the loss of cosmic order
and the return of chaos.
Iran
Ancient Iran retained the “final battle” as an integral
component of its documented religious belief, a distinction
which it shares with Scandinavia. Unfortunately, many of the
inherited Indo-European elements were seriously distorted
by the Zoroastrian reform in the first millennium BC. As
evidenced in the ancient Avestan texts, the Indo-European
pantheon was massively reorganized, and the gods’ inherent
functions modified and restructured into an extensive array
of apotheosized abstracts and their demonic alter egos.
Amid the systematic transformation of Iranian religion,
most of the details associated with the “final battle” theme
have been lost. Evidence relating to the cosmic ending is found
in the later (200-600 AD) text, the Bundahisn, Preserved is
the motif of the cosmic winter, which may be compared with
the Norse fimbulvetr, and Yimas vara, the place where living
things will be sheltered.
A “final battle” is also recorded in which each of the divine
Iranian abstract deities combats his demonic counterpart,
including a long awaited face-off between MPers Ohrmazd
(Av Ahura Mazdah) and MPers Ahriman (Av Angra Mainyu).
When the forces of evil have been (inevitably) overcome, the
souls of the dead undergo a trial by molten metal to determine
their worthiness. Explicit in this process is the formation of a
new, prosperous world where the righteous enjoy eternity.
India
At the heart of the colossal Indian epic the Mahabharata is
the struggle between the royal cousins, the Pandavas and the
Kauravas. This conflict was resolved in a cosmic battle, which
occurs on the plain of Kuruksetra. Scholars date the evolution
of this work to the post- Vedic period, from 400 BC to 500
AD. Efforts to identify transposed mythic themes from the
Mahabharata have been extremely fruitful and among these
is an epical version of the Indo-European “final battle”.
Dhftarastra, the brother of the king, Pandu, is the son of
the princess Ambika and the wild hermit Vyasa. When Pandu
dies, his sons are too young to succeed him and by default,
Dhftarastra is made regent. The blind Dhftarastra fulfils the
“archdemon” role and his sons, the Kauravas, represent the
transposed “enemies of the gods”. The sons of Pandu, the
Pandavas, are Dhftarastras nephews. They endure endless
cruelties at the hands of the Kauravas. Denied their fathers
palace, the Pandavas build and fortify the city of Indraprastha,
making it their capital.
A final outrage is committed when Draupadl, the Pandavas
common wife, is dishonored by Duryodhana, Dhparastra’s
primary son. This act takes place immediately after Yudhistira,
the eldest Pandava, loses the throne to the Kauravas in a game
of chance. Consistent with the narrative, the exile motif is
inverted and the Pandavas, rather than the Kauravas, are sent
into exile. Thirteen years pass while preparations for the “final
182 —
ESTE CULTURE
battle” are made.
The “final battle” is joined on the field of Kuruksetra, where
many of the most prominent heroes of the age are slain, as
were most of the Kauravas in single combat. From the
perspective of mythical time, the Battle of kuruksetra is
followed shortly by the Kaliyuga, the earth’s last, debased era
before the destruction of the world.
Patterns
By reconstructing a proto-myth, some insights into the
process of its evolution may be gained. It is clear from the.
evidence that the relative importance of specific deities and
their functional significance changed both spatially and
temporally and these factors affected their role in the “final
battle”. For example, Lug is depicted as the savior of the gods
in the Second Battle of Mag Tuired, while Odinn, Lug’s
Germanic counterpart, is slain but revenged by his son Vidarr.
Lug shares characteristics with both Odinn and Vidarr,
implying a convergence of functions in the Irish version or
divergence in the Norse. The occurrence of blind or semi-
blind demonic figures in the “final battle” theme (Balor,
Dhjtarastra, Hodr) suggest that, in a broader mythological
context, this characteristic may have been confused or
conflated with a one-eyed god like Lug or Odinn or their
epic personifications (e.g., Horatius Codes, Cu Chulainn).
Motifs which receive greater attention in one tradition can
provide insights to vague or obscure references in others. For
example, Brutus’s silence was a ruse to avoid the detection of
his true character by his ruthless uncle. Why this epithet was
applied to Lug and Vidarr is not explained, although both,
like Brutus, appear suddenly, displaying surprising skills just
when the gods’ needs are greatest.
Recognizing the structure of a proto-myth does not ensure
a complete understanding of its social significance. All the
known versions show signs of influence from other religious
traditions as well as the accumulated impact of centuries of
social change. For this reason, the outcome and aftermath of
the “final battle” differ in each version. Consequently, little
light is shed on whether the proto-culture’s concept of cosmic
time is cyclic or lineal. What can be affirmed is that a complex,
cosmic ending myth existed in the PIE period. Moreover, in
view of the widespread occurrence of epic versions of the
“final battle” theme and the co-occurrence of an epic and
mythic version in Scandinavia, it is likely that a transposed
epic version had evolved in the Proto-Indo-European period.
See also War of the Foundation. [S.T.O.B]
Further Readings
Gray, E. A. (1982) Cath Maige Tuired: The Second Battle of Mag
Tuired. Naas, Ireland, Irish Texts Society.
O’ Brien, S. T. (1976) Indo-European eschatology: a model. JIES 4,
295-320.
Olrik, A. (1922) Ragnardk. Berlin and Leipzig, de Gruyter.
Wikander, S. (1960) Germanische und indo-iranische Eschatologie.
Kairos 2,83-88.
Este a. Distribution of the Este culture.
ESCULENT ROOT see VEGETABLES
ESTE CULTURE
The Este or Atestine culture was the Iron Age culture (c
900-182 BC) of the Veneti of northeast Italy. It takes its name
from their chief town of Ateste (modem Este). It is divided
chronologically into four main phases: Este I (900-750 BC),
Este II (750-575 BC), Este III (575-350 BC) and Este IV
(350-182 BC). The main centers of the Veneti were the towns
of Este, Padua, Verona and Vicenza. Here there is some
evidence for architecture (both circular and rectangular huts
or houses) but most of our evidence derives from shrines
and, especially, cemeteries. The former include offerings of
bronze figures (warriors on foot and horseback) and other
evidence of votive deposits. Burial was by cremation in an
urn and graves were marked with tombstones and in some
instances were divided into what were presumably family
groups separated by walls. By the fifth century BC inscriptions
begin to appear on stone pillars and then votive objects,
especially bronze pins, and tombstones. Altogether these have
yielded approximately two-hundred inscriptions in Venetic,
an IE language of disputed relationship but generally held to
be close to (if not included within) the Italic languages.
Whatever its precise linguistic ancestry, from an archaeological
point of view the Este culture emerges out of the Proto-
— 183 —
ESTE CULTURE
Este b. Scabbard from Este; c. Decoration from the Benvenuti situla (c sixth century BC): the ornament
mixes motifs from the Near East, e.g., the winged lions and centaurs, with local scenes, generally interpreted
as funeral ceremonies with attendant feasts, races and war-games.
Villanovan culture that spanned much of the length of Italy
and underlies the later cultures of the Italic languages.
In addition to inscriptional evidence, the Este culture
provides graphic representations of rituals. During the sixth
and fifth centuries the Este culture was one of the main centers
in the production of situla art, the decorating of large bronze
buckets. The original purpose of the situlae was as wine
serving sets but they were subsequently employed as urns.
The scenes depicted on the situlae have been interpreted by
some as incidents from funerals which might include games,
feasts, and processions. Este art was not confined to situlae
but is also found on other types of sheet metal.
By the fourth century, Celts had come to dominate the
plain of the Po river and the Veneti adopted much of their
material culture from the Celts. By 182 BC, the Veneti accepted
Roman leadership and were acculturated linguistically within
the Roman state.
See also Golasecca Culture; Italic Languages; Venetic
Language; Villanovan Culture. [J.P.M.]
EVENING
*y 6speros~ *\}6keros ‘evening’. [IEW 1173 ( *uesperos)\
Wat 78 ( *wes-pero-)\ Buck 14.46], Lat vesper ‘evening’, Lith
vakaras ‘evening’, Latv vakars ‘evening’, OCS veceru ‘evening’,
Grk eonepoq ‘evening’, Arm giser ‘evening’. The distribution
of this root suggests a word of the center of the IE world. A
reduced form of the root is seen in Gmc *uest- (< *ues-to-),
e.g., OE west ‘west’ (> NE wesf)(the direction of the sunset).
See also Dawn; Early; Night. [PB.]
EXCHANGE
*mei- ‘exchange’. [/EW710 (*me/-); Wat 40 ( *mei-)\ GI
657 ( *mei-(n)-)\ . Latv miju ‘exchange’, Av fra-mita- ‘changed’,
OInd mayate ‘exchanges’, minati ‘exchanges, deceives’, TochB
mask- (< *mi-ske/o- ) ‘exchange’ ( wes mask- ‘take the guise
of, disguise oneself as’). Cf. also the o-grade nouns *moinos
and *moinis: Olr moin ( DIL main ) ‘value, treasure’, dag-moini
(DIL dag-main ‘benefit’) ‘good gifts’, Weis mwyn ‘value’, Lat
munus ‘duty, charge, responsibility; public office; gift’,
communis ‘common’, OE gemaene ‘common’ (> NE mean),
OHG gimeini 1 common’ , Goth gamains ‘common’, Lith mamas
‘exchange’, Latv maina ‘exchange’, OCS mena ‘exchange,
change’, Av maenis ‘punishment’. Benveniste explains the
derivation of Lat munus ‘duty, charge, responsibility; public
office’ from *mei- as a mark of reciprocity of services expected
for the appointment of a magistrate, whose main duty to the
community was to provide for games and spectacles. Distri-
bution suggests PIE status.
*meit- ‘exchange’. [IEW 715 ( *mei-t(h)-)\ Wat 40
( *mei-)\ GI 657 (*mei-)\. Lat muto ‘change’, ON meidmar
‘gift’, OE madum ‘gift’, Goth maidjan ‘change’, Latv mietuot
‘exchange’, OCS mite ‘exchange’, Av miOd' turned about’, OInd
methati ‘exchanges’. [IEW 710 ( *mei -)]: derivatives in -t-.
Lat muto ‘(ex)change’, Goth maipms ‘gift’, Av miOwara-
‘paired’, OInd mithati ‘exchanges’, Mitra- ‘god of contracts’.
Here we can see, especially in the sense developed in Avestan,
that the exchange is viewed as reciprocal or mutual, hence
balanced as a pair, rather than commercial, i.e. , advantageous
to only one of the parties involved. Similarly, the Germanic
— 184 —
EXCHANGE
forms derived from *maipm- tend to occur in contexts that
suggest archaic usage of the term (e.g., ON meidmar is found
only in the plural and in the Eddas in what may have been
inherited as a fixed phrase of poetic diction [ON fjpld meidma
= OE ( Beowulf) madma tela ‘much treasure’], and the word
occurs but once in Gothic). Thomas Markey has suggested
that the word retained its early semantic field of gift-exchange.
In this context, where gift exchanges cemented personal
relationships between individuals, clans or tribes, one can
understand how the Old Indie (and Iranian) god Mitra- could
mean ‘friendship’ as well as ‘contract’.
*yes-flO- ‘purchase’. [IEW 1 1 73 ( *yes-no-); Wat 78 ( *wes-
no-)\ G1 650 ( *we/os-(n-)-)\ BK 484 ( *wus-/*wos-)\ . Lat (acc.)
venum ‘that which is sold’ (cf. venum Ire ‘to go to be bought’
and venum dare ‘to put up for sale’ > vendere ‘to sell’), OCS
veno ‘bride-price’, Myc o-no ‘price’, Grk covog (with
problematic lack of p) ‘price (usually of a captive)’, (bvEopai
‘buy’, Arm gin ‘price’, Hit wasi ‘buys’, usnyazi ‘sells’, Olnd
vasna- ‘price’, vasnayati ‘bargains, haggles’. Cf. also NPers
bazar ‘market’ (> NE bazar) from a compound *waha-carana
‘market-walk about’. From *ues-‘buy’. Distribution indicates
PIE status.
*k w rei(h a )- pay 1 (pres. *k w rin6h a ti) [LEW 648 (*k u rei-)\
Gl 650-651 (*k ho er-/*k ho r-ei-)- Buck 11.81; BK 321
(*k w [ h ]ar-ay-/*k w [ h jar-ay-)]. OIr crenaid ‘buys’, Weis prynu
‘redeem’ (Celtic < *k w rina~), ORus krlnuti 1 buy’ (with a transfer
from *-neh a - to *-neu -), Grk *npiapai ‘buy’, NPers xarldan
‘buy’, Olnd krlnati ‘buys’, TochB kary- (subj. karna- <
*k w rina-) ‘buy’. Cf. the derivatives; OIr tinnscra ‘bride -price’,
Lith (gen.) krieno ‘of the bride-price’, Latv kriens ‘bride-price’,
Olnd kraya- ‘price’, TochA kuryar ‘trade’, TochB karyor‘trade’.
Distribution indicates PIE status. Derivatives in both Celtic
and Baltic suggest that one of its specifications in PIE was
‘bride-price’. In a non-monetary society it would indicate the
exchange value of things, and in the patriarchal organization
of Indo-European society, it applied in particular to what was
given in exchange for the bride.
The semantic distinction between *ues-no- and *k w rei-
in Greek, where the two cognate forms exist alongside one
another, suggests that *ues - is to be associated with the actual
business transaction, the haggling and purchase, while *k w rei-
indicates the payment made at the conclusion of the
transaction. Although originally separate as two different
aspects of a business transaction, most IE stocks have tended
to retain only one of them.
*cfeii 3 j’(gen. *dih 3 nos) ‘gift’. [IEW 225 (*dd-no-m, *dd-
ro-m); Wat 15 (*do-); GI 656 (*t’oH-r-/n-)\ BK 121 (*Euw-/
*t’ow-) 1 . OIr dan ‘gift’, Weis dawn ‘gift’, Lat donum ‘gift’, Lith
duonis ‘gift’, OCS dan! ‘gift’, daru ‘gift’, Grk Scopov ‘gift’, Arm
tur ‘gift’, Olnd dana- ‘gift’. From *deh3- ‘give’. Distribution
indicates PIE status.
*per- ‘exchange, barter’ (< * ‘transport across’?). [/EW817
( *per-)\ Wat 50 ( *per-)\ Buck 11.82; BK 37 ( *p[ h ]ar -/
*p[ h ]ar~) 1. OIr ren(a)id ‘sells, barters, exchanges’, Lat inter-
pres ‘go between’, pretium ‘price’, paris ‘like, similar’, Grk
KEpvripi ‘sell’, Av pairyante ‘were compared’, perhaps Olnd
panate (< *pfnate) ‘bargain, haggle’ (if this word does not
belong with the following entry). The vocalism of the Greek
verb is problematic as a zero-grade would have been expected
in such a form that reflects an archaic type of present with a
nasal infix. This may be seen in the dialectal (Hesychius) form
Tiopvdpev ‘to sell’ and in the verbal adjective TtopvT) (< *pp
neh a -) ‘prostitute’ (< *‘sold’). The earliest use of the term
applies to sales abroad (cf. Homeric KEppv dXog ‘across the
sea’) and refers to the sale of slaves abroad. It is derived, like,
many Greek verbs meaning ‘transport, cross’ (e.g., nopog ‘river
crossing, passage’, nopEvca ‘transport’, KEipca ‘cross the sea’,
KEpo. beyond, across’, KEpavde ‘abroad’) from *per ‘through,
across’ and its development can be seen in KEipca which
originally meant ‘pierce through’ (e.g., a piece of meat on a
spit), hence ‘open a road, cross the sea’ > ‘transport (across)’;
cf. the related OCS na-perjp ‘pierce’, Olnd parsati ‘may he
cause to go through’, etc. At least of late IE status.
*pel- ‘± sell’. [IEW 804 ( *pel-)\ Wat 48 (*pe/-); Buck
11.82], ON falr(< *polos) ‘to be sold’, OHG fali (< *pehos)
‘to be sold’, Lith pelnas ‘profit’, Latv pplns profit’, OCS plenu
‘booty’, Rus polon ‘booty’ (Balto-Slavic < *pe!no-), Grk kcoXeco
‘sell’, perhaps Olnd panate (< *ppiate) ‘bargain, haggle’ (if
this word does not belong with the previous entry); perhaps
TochB plank- ‘come up for sale’ (if < *pl-enk- as Gmc
*bringan- ‘bring’ is from *bhr-enk-). With the only certain
cognates deriving from the northwest, this has only late
dialectal status, a conclusion consonant also with the
presumption that in primitive systems of exchange, the
transaction was reciprocal rather than specially advantageous
to one side or the other.
Indo-European Exchange
Exchange in pre-state societies is generally seen as an
ongoing social contract between individuals, clans or tribes.
Exchange relationships may vary considerably. In generalized
reciprocity we find the type of constant exchange relationships
that might obtain within a family where food, goods, etc.,
might freely flow from one member to another. Balanced
reciprocity ideally involves exchange relationships where
neither side seeks to gain at the expense of the other although
reality may fall short of the theoretical goal for a variety of
reasons, e.g., discrepancies in the exchange value, social
standing of the individuals involved. Balanced reciprocity is
most often found to exist between families, lineages, clans
and even within tnbes, although the expectation of parity
may decline as one moves further from one’s closer kinship
ties. The semantic connotations revealed at least in Germanic
and Iranian which reflect “commonness” or “parity” for PIE
*mei- suggest that this term may have been associated with a
system of balanced reciprocity. Beyond the tribal level, one
may encounter more frequently negative reciprocity, a system
comparable to modern commercial systems where each party
seeks to profit over the other. Here one is dealing with
outsiders where the moral obligations pertaining to exchange
185 —
EXCHANGE
may no longer be felt compelling.
The exchange may well involve the apparent presentation
of a gift ( *deh 3 [ ) with reciprocation required by the moral
code of the individuals involved (cf. the Old Norse Havamal
[ 145] : ey ser til gildis gipf 1 gift looks for gift’) . This concept of
expected reciprocation may be bound up with the frequent
appearance of opposed perspectives in the meanings assigned
to words for ‘give’ and ‘take’, e.g., yields Grk aivvpai
‘take’ but TochA e- ‘give’; *deh 3 - has Lat do ‘give’ but Hit da-
‘take’. Non-reciprocation may be punished by bad-luck,
illness, etc. The reciprocation, however, need not be simultan-
eous and the receipt of a gift may entail future obligations. In
terms of political theory, the exchange of commodities,
including women in marriage (cf. the semantic ranges of both
*k w reih a - and *yes-), cements contractual friendship and
helps to insure peace in situations that might otherwise result
in either warfare or mutual avoidance. As observed in Marcel
Mauss’s celebrated study of gift exchange, there are three
options for groups of men who come together: hostility,
avoidance or mutual accommodation effected by the exchange
of gifts.
By the Bronze Age there is clear evidence for centralized
exchange or redistribution systems seen, for example, in
Mycenaean Greek where the overwhelming majority of the
Linear B tablets comprise the records of palace-based econo-
mies. Here, chieftains were able to solicit from their subjects
various goods (through taxes) which might then be not only
consumed by the elite but also redistributed among the
population, stored in case of need, or converted into other
commodities by way of exchange systems that could procure
luxury goods abroad (cf. *per- ‘exchange [abroad]’). Although
easily attested among the socially more complex societies of
the later Bronze Age, i.e., after c 1500 BC, such systems of
redistribution are believed to have begun much earlier among
some Neolithic and early Bronze Age societies where they
provided a stimulus to increasing social complexity.
The idea of actual “selling” pertains to a money economy
which would not emerge until millennia after the dispersal of
the IE stocks. Thus, Emile Benveniste explained the meaning
of ON selja ‘deliver, sell’ with reference to Goth saljan ‘bring
an offering to a divinity’ by quoting Tacitus to show that when
someone forfeited his freedom in gambling, the winner would
try to wipe out his feeling of guilt and shame for having
reduced his opponent to servitude by way of an offering. This
concept predated the establishment of commercial relations
and a similar semantic shift is to be found in the meaning of
the Germanic verb *bugjan liberate, redeem someone’ (from
a servile condition) which developed into NE buy. Hence,
both terms were originally associated with religious concepts.
See also Compensation, Give; Take. [E.C.P., J.RM.J
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society.
University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida.
Markey, T. L. (1990) Gift, payment and reward revisited, in When
Worlds Collide: Indo-European and Pre-Indo-European, eds. T.
L. Markey, J. A. C. Greppin, Ann Arbor, Karoma, 345-362
Mauss, M. (1954) The Gift. [L’essai sur \e don, 1923-24; trans. 1.
Cunnison]. London, Cohen and West
Ramat, P (1983) L‘ “ideologia” mdo-europea del dono-obbligo, m
Problemi de lingua e di cultura nel campo indo-europco, Pisa,
85-95.
Sahlins, M. (1972) Stone Age Economics. London, Tavistock.
EXCREMENT
*Ic6k w r (gen. *k(e)k w nds ) ‘excrement, dung, manure’.
[JEW 544 {*keWr-)\ Wat 28 {*kek w -)\ Buck 4.66]. Grk
Kojipoq ‘dung, manure’, NPers sargln (< *sagr-In ) ‘dung’, Olnd
sakft (gen. saknas ) ‘excrement, dung’. From *kek w - ‘defecate’;
cf. Lith siku ‘defecate’. See discussion in next entry.
*s6kf- (gen. *s(e)knds ) ‘(human) excrement’, (cf. IEW
947-948 ( *sker-(d)-)- Wat 60 ( *sker-)\ G1 7 1 7 ( *sk h er/n-(i ’));
Buck 4.66]. ON skam ‘dung, manure, compost’, OE sceam
‘dung, manure’, Latv sarpi ‘slag, excrement, menstruation’ (the
Germanic and Latvian forms represent a conflation of the r-
and n-stems of this noun), OCS sirati ‘defecate’, Rus sor ‘dung’,
seru ‘defecate’, Grk GKtop (gen. OKaxoq) ‘(human) waste,
excrement’. Hit sakkar (gen. saknas ) ‘excrement’,
(reduplicated) za-sgar-ais ‘anus’ (< *‘excrement-mouth’), Av
sairya- ‘dung’. Sometimes connected with the following word
but note the difference in velars, *k vs *k.
Both *kok w f and *sokf would appear to be IE in distri-
bution, with evidence for the latter being somewhat stronger.
The two words may have been distinguished in that *sokf
primarily referred to human excrement while *kok w f denoted
the agriculturally usable animal dung.
*kerd- ‘± defile, defecate’. [ IEW 947-948 ( *sker-(d)-)\ Wat
60 (*sker-)\ G1 717 (*sk h er/n-(t’-))}. Lat muscerda ‘mouse-
dung’, bu-cerda ‘cattle-dung’, su-cerda ‘pig-dung’, NHG harz
(< *kordo- ) ‘resin, rosin, gum’, Khot khargga- (< *xard-ka-)
‘mud’, sam-khal- (< *tsama-xard-) ‘smear, defile’, MPers xard
‘clay’, Shughni sarOk ‘clay’, sard- ‘defecate’, Pashto axeral ‘to
plaster’ (the Iranian all from *kh-), Olnd kardama : ‘mud,
slime, mire; dirt, filth’, TochA kartkal ‘swamp, marsh', TochB
karkkalle ‘swamp, marsh’ (the Tocharian forms are derivatives
of the verb kartk- (< *kfd-ske/o-). This word may not have
meant ‘excrement’ in sensu stricto in PIE but probably
included the notion of excrement as part of a more general
meaning. Certainly of PIE age.
*g w uh xr ‘defecate’, *g w uhxtos dung, muck’. [/FW484
( *^ou-)\ GI 483 (k v 6u-)} . Arm ku (< *guto-l ) ‘dung, manure,
muck’, Av gu9a- ‘dirt, excrement’, Olnd gutha- ‘dung’ (the
Indo-lranian *-th -, rather than *-t- may be due to the affective
nature of the word), guvati ‘defecates’. The Armenian and
Indo-lranian words are certainly related and guarantee an IE
word of the east. Perhaps Lat (im)bubinare defile with
menstrual blood’ belongs here if, as is usually supposed, it is
for *buvinare and borrowed from Osco-Umbrian (in any case
an affective word such as this might very well be subject to
phonological deformation). Also possibly here is OHG quat
— 186
EXTEND
(if < *g w jjehidho-) ‘dirt, excrement’. If one or both of these
latter possibilities belongs here, then we have a word whose
PIE status is guaranteed. GI, following earlier suggestions,
would divide *g w uhx- as *g w u-hx~ , i.e., as *g w u - ‘cow’ plus
some suffix. This is an attractive analysis and would mean
that originally the word must have meant Icow-dung’.
*Ruhxd6s ‘dung’. [JEW 627 dh-)[. Lith sodas ‘dung,
muck’, Latv suds ‘dung, muck’, Grk (Hesychius) vokvOcl ‘pig-
dung’, KvOcodrig ‘foul-smelling’. A word of the center of the
IE world.
*ghed-ie/o- (Albanian, Greek), *ghed-e/o- (Old Indie)
‘defecate’. [IEW 423 ( *ghed-)\ Buck 4.66]. Alb dhjes ‘defecate’,
Grk ‘defecate’, (Hesychius) zoSizevco ‘retire to relieve
oneself’, (Hesychius) ^odavov ‘rump’, Av zadah- ~ zadah-
‘rump’, OInd hadati ‘defecates’, hadana- (only attested in the
work of lexicographers) ‘excretion’. At least an “easternism”
in late PIE and, where the two existed side-by-side, more
formal than the following word.
*kak(k)ehgie/o- defecate’. [JEW 521 (*kakka-)\ Wat 26
(kakka-)\ Buck 4.66]. Mir caccaid ‘defecates’, Weis each
‘defecate’, Lat caco ‘defecate’, Rus kakatl ‘defecate’, Grk
kcckkouo ‘defecate’, Arm k‘akor ‘excrement’. Originally a
“nursery word”.
See also Anatomy; Dirt. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Hamp, E. P (1975) A functional view of bodily functions. Papers
from the Parasession on Functionalism, Chicago Linguistic
Society, 209-212.
EXTEND
*h 3 reg- ‘move in a straight line; extend, stretch’. [IEW 854-
857 ( *reg-)\ Wat 54 ( *reg-)\ BK 59 1 ( *rak , -/*rdk , -)\ . Olr rigid
‘stretches’, MWels ro(d)i ‘give’, Lat rego ‘direct in a straight
line’, ON rekja ‘stretch, spread out’, OE reccan ‘stretch out;
be concerned about’ (> NE reck), OHG rec(c)han ‘stretch out’,
Goth uf-rakjands (pres, part.) ‘reach out, extend’, Lith rpzti
‘stretch’, Latv riezt ‘stretch up’, Grk opeyco ‘stretch’. Hit
harganau- ‘palm, sole’ (cf. Grk yeipaq dpeyvvq ‘stretching out
the hands’), Av razayeiti ‘adjusts, arranges’, OInd ffijati ~
fjyati ‘stretches, stretches out’, TochAB rak- ‘stretch out, cover’.
The root is so widely attested that it may be reconstructed to
PIE with a strong degree of certainty. The attested present-
tense forms, however, do not correspond very neatly: Old
Irish exhibits the reflex of a suffix *-ie/o-\ in Old Indie,
however, the form ffijati with a nasal infix is normally found
(although occasionally fjyati is found); in Greek, the present
is thematic (although in collocations with x £ iP a S the evidence
points to a -vvpi verb as well), and in Avestan and Gothic a
causative form of the verb is found. Two interrelated words
are based on this root: one, a set of forms meaning ‘correct,
right’, and the other, with a lengthened grade form of this
root, provides a meaning ‘king’.
*temp- (< *ten-p-) ‘stretch’. [IEW 1064-1065 ( *temp -);
Wat 69-70 ( *temp-)[ . Lat tempus ‘time’, ON pambr ‘thick.
swollen’, Lith tempti ‘stretch out, pull out’, timpa ‘sinew’, OCS
tppu ‘thick’, ?Arm Vamh ‘saddle’, TochA lampe ‘power’,
TochAB camp- ‘be able to’ (?). The derivatives here all express
the notion of stretching or pulling. A great deal of uncertainly
exists as to whether Lat lempus belongs here; if it does, then
it suggests that time was viewed metaphorically as a linear
object as it is today.
*ten- ‘stretch’. [IEW 1065-1066 ( *ten-)\ Wat 70 {*ten-)\
GI 33 ( *t b en~), Buck 9.32; BK 106 (*t[ i ']an y -/*t[ h Pin y -)\. Lat
tendo(< *ten-do-) ‘stretch’, ON penja ‘stretch out’, OE penian.
‘stretch’, OHG den(n)en ‘stretch out’, Goth uf-panjan ‘stretch
out’, Lith tinti ‘swell’, Latv tit ‘wind, roll up’. Alb ndej ~ nder
(< *hien-ten(i)e/o-) ‘extend, spread, stretch’, Grk xavveo
‘stretch’, Av pairi-tanuya - ‘wish to keep a way’, OInd tanoti
‘expands, extends’. This root is securely reconstructible to
PIE. The present-tense forms exhibit several different suffixes.
Greek and Old Indie show *-u -, Germanic has causative
forms; Latin shows the suffix *-de/o-. A large number of
derivatives, e.g., Lat tenuis, OE pynne (> NE thin) show the
meaning ‘thin’. Cf. also *tp-to-s ‘stretched’: Lat tentus
‘stretched’, Grk xaxoq ‘stretched’, OInd tata- ‘stretched’.
*teng(h)~ ‘puli’, [cf. IEW 1067 ( *tengh-)\ BK 106
(*t[ h Jar^-/*tl h ]any-)[. Lat temo (< *tengh-s-mon-) chariot
pole’, ON pisl ‘wagon-pole, shaft’, OE pixl ‘wagon-pole, shaft’,
OHG dihsila ‘wagon-pole, shaft’ (< Proto-Gmc *pensld), OCS
ras-tpgQ ‘pull apart’, Av Oang- ‘pull’ (with unexpected initial
0- rather than t-). The geographical distribution of the
attestations would seem to guarantee PIE status. An
enlargement of *ten - ‘stretch’.
*ten-s- ‘puli’. [IEW 1068-1069 ( *tens-), Wat 70 ( *tens-)\
BK 106 ( *t[ h Jany-/*t[ h ]any-)\ . OHG dmsan ‘puli’, Goth at-
pinsa ‘puli’, Lith tpsti ‘stretch, puli’, OInd tamsayati ‘draws to
and fro’. The root *ten- is extremely well attested; however,
the extended form *ten-s- is, aside from the Old Indie form,
only found in western IE suggesting the possibility that this
form was created independently in the west and east. From
*ten- ‘stretch’.
*reig- ‘extend, stretch out (a body part)’. [IEW 862
( *reig-)\ Wat 54 ( *reig-)\ . Olr nngid ‘twists, tortures’, OE
rsCcan ‘stretch out, extend’ (> NE reach), OHG reichen reach,
attain’, Lith reizti ‘stretch, tighten’. Distribution suggests a
west IE dialectal form.
*seik- ‘reach for, stretch out the hands’. |/EW 893
(*seik-)\. Lith slekti ‘reach for something’, seiktu measure
capacity’, Grk i'kco ‘arrive, reach’, hcavco ~ ik aveco ‘come;
reach, attain’, TochB sik- ‘set foot’ (< *‘reach out the foot’),
TochA sik ‘footstep’, TochB siko ‘footstep’. The phonological
correspondence between the cognates and the semantic shift
seen here in Greek from ‘reach for’ to ‘arrive’ is similar to that
shown in NE reach. Distribution suggests PIE status.
?*tek - ‘± stretch out to’. [IEW 1057-1058 ( *reA>)|. Olr
ateich ( DIL ad-teich) (< *ad-tech-) entreats’, techtaid
‘possesses’, ON piggja take’, OE piegian ‘take, receive, partake
of, OHG dicken ‘ask about’, Lith tekti 'reach, suffice; stretch
oneself out’. Numerous doubts exist concerning this cognate
— 187 —
EXTEND
set. OIr ateich ‘entreats’ may more easily be derived from the
verbal root tech- ‘flee, run’ which then yielded ‘flee’ > ‘seek
refuge’ > ‘implore, entreat’ rather than this set. The Lithuanian
form may belong with a root *tenk- ‘thrive, make progress’
seen in Goth peihan ‘thrive, succeed’. If we are left with only
Olr techtaid and ON piggja , it is possible to reconstruct a
root meaning ‘stretch out the hand’ which may have then
come to mean both ‘possess’ and ‘entreat’; however, with so
few forms clearly belonging to this cognate set it is impossible
to reconstruct the root with any certainty, even for west IE.
See also King; Leader; Right; Thin. [M.N.]
EXTINGUISH
*g w es- ‘extinguish’. [IEW 479 i*g*es-)\ Wat 25 (*g w es-)\
GI 43]. Lith gesti ‘go out’, Latv dzist ‘extinguish’, OCS ugasiti
‘extinguish’, Grk oPevvOpi ‘extinguish’. Hit kist- ‘go out’, Olnd
jasate ‘be extinguished’, TochA kas- ‘go out’, TochB kes- ‘go
out’. Semantically this set fits very well but, unfortunately,
the Greek argues for a labio-velar *g w - while Hittite supposes
a simple velar *g- (the rest of the set are ambiguous between
these forms). The prefix o- in Greek (< *sg w es-nu- ) is also
unexplained. Aside from these difficulties, the root can be
reconstructed with a moderate degree of confidence.
See also Death. [M.N.]
EYE
*h 3 ok w ‘eye. [IEW 775-777 (*ok y -); Wat 45-46
( *ok w ~) ; GI 688 ( *se/ok ho -)\ Buck 4.21], Olr enech ‘face’,
MWels enep ‘face’ (Celtic < *hjeni-h 3 k w -o/eh a ), Lat oculus
‘eye’, ON auga ‘eye’, OE eage ‘eye’ (> NE eye), OHG ouga
‘eye’, Goth augo ‘eye’, OPrus ackis ‘ eye’ , Lith akis ‘eye’, Latv
acs‘eye’, OCS oko ‘eye’, osi (pi., historically dual) ‘eyes’, Grk
o<TCT£(dual) ‘eyes’, oppa (< 6k w mp) ‘ eye’ , my/ ‘face’, Arm akn
‘eye’, ac‘k‘ (pi.) ‘eyes’, Av asi (dual) ‘eyes’, Olnd aksi- ‘eye’,
TochA ak ‘eye’, TochB ek ‘eye’. Clearly the PIE word for ‘eye’.
It has been suggested that one of the PIE words for ‘see’, *sek w -
is ‘eye’ with a prefix, i.e. *s-(h 3 )ek w - but the resemblance is
most probably completely fortuitous.
*bhrtih x s ‘eyebrow’. [IEW 172-173 ( *bhru -); Wat 9
(. bhru-)\ GI 688 {*b^ruH-)\. Olr forbru ‘brows’, ON brun
‘brow’, OE bru ‘brow, eyelid, eyelash’ (> NE brow), Lith bruvis
‘brow’, OCS bru vf ‘brow’, Rus brovl ‘brow’, Maced dfipov reg
‘brows’, Grk 6(ppvq ‘brows’, Av (dual) brvat- ‘brows’, Olnd
bhrQ- ‘brow’, TochA parwam (dual) ‘brows’, TochB parwane
(dual) ‘brows’. The PIE word for ‘eyebrow’.
In IE cosmology, the concepts of ‘eye’ and ‘sun’ are con-
sistently linked to one another and in at least one case, Olr
suil ‘eye 1 , the word for ‘eye’ derives from the word for ‘sun’.
See also Anatomy; Close (the eyes); Cosmogony;
Face; Sun. [D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Dahllof, N. (1974[751) Some semantic variants of the I.E. radical
morpheme *ok w . IF 79,35-52.
Hendriksen, H. (1981) The words for 'eyebrow’ in lndo-Aryan and
in Indo-European Acla lranica 21, 292-295
EYEBROW see EYE
EZERO CULTURE
Ezero refers to the early Bronze Age (c 3300-2700 BC)
culture of Bulgaria named after the major tell site of Ezero
near Nova Zagora. The Ezero culture overlays the earlier late
Neolithic and Chalcolithic levels of the tells which appeared
to cease occupation c 4000-3700 BC leaving a hiatus of several
centuries between the end of the Copper Age and the
beginning of the early Bronze Age (Ezero) culture. The site of
Ezero was surrounded by two lines of defence — an outer
perimeter which enclosed an area c 160 m in diameter and
an inner stone walled enclosure some 60 m across. The houses,
which are in evidence through nine building phases, were
rectangular with a percentage exhibiting apsidal ends as is
also known in the Baden culture and other contemporary
Balkan and Greek settlements.
Remains of the subsistence economy provide useful infor-
mation about the livestock, wild fauna and agriculture of the
early Bronze Age of the Balkans. The cereals included wheat
(einkom, emmer) and barley which were augmented with
small amounts of lentils, peas and substantial quantities of
broad bean (Vida saliva). There were also some traces of the
grape ( Vitis vinifera). Cattle predominated among the livestock
followed by sheep/goat and pig. Wild fauna included aurochs,
red deer, roe, wild pig and small amounts of fallow deer, hare,
beaver, fox, wolf and bear. The technology exhibited local
bronze working, the earliest showing copper-arsenic alloys
(which are linked with similar material in the neighboring
Usatovo culture). The ceramics reveal numerous stylistic
similarities with Troy to the southeast and the Baden culture
of the central Balkans.
The organization of the Ezero culture is generally regarded
as more ranked than that of the earlier Neolithic cultures since
settlements not only included tell sites but what are regarded
as ancillary dependent settlements. This has prompted the
theory that the fortified Ezero settlements served as citadels
and had begun to approach the level of social complexity
that was emerging in northwest Anatolia at this same time,
e g., at Troy.
The origins and the nature of external influences con-
cerning the Ezero culture are controversial. Some have argued
that it was rooted distinctly in the earlier Neolithic cultures
and merely exhibits a cultural progression. Followers of the
Kurgan hypothesis emphasize the settlement hiatus on the
tells and attribute the culture to an amalgamation of local
Neolithic populations and steppe tribes. Still others, impressed
by its similarities with northwest Anatolia, speak of some
population movement from Turkey while others would reverse
the direction of movement and see Troy and related sites as
extensions of Balkan cultures.
188 —
EZERO CULTURE
Ezero a. Distribution of the Ezero culture.
The significance of the Ezero culture in Indo-European
studies far exceeds its own regional identification as the future
home of Thracian tribes. For theories of IE origins that exclude
Anatolia from the IE homeland, Ezero offers a possible
explanation and cultural link between the steppe, the Balkans,
and Anatolia which may account for the early spread of an IE
stock into Anatolia that still retains genetic connections with
Europe. Alternatively, for those who wish to reverse population
movements, it may offer some evidence for emigration from
Anatolia or, more plausibly, the creation of an interaction
sphere that would have embraced populations all around the
shores of the Black Sea.
See also Baden Culture; Cernavoda Culture;
CotoFENi Culture; Troy. Q.PM’ l
Further Readings
Georgiev, G. 11., N. Ya. Merpert, R. V Katincharov and D. G. Dimitrov
(1979). Ezero: Rannobronzovogo Selishche. Sofia, Bulgarian
Academy of Science.
Sochacki, Z. (1988) The Ezero culture and the invasion of the steppe
people. JIES 16, 185-194.
o
90 ;
* v
Ezero b. Plan of layer 9 at Ezero with defensive walls, outlines
of rectangular and apsidal houses, and stone lined hearths.
* F *
FACE
*hi6ni-h3k w -o/eh a - face’ [7EW311 (*en), 776 (*ok y -)].
OIr enech ‘face’, MWels enep ‘face’, Grk evcanfi ‘face’, Av
ainika- ‘face’, OInd anlka- ‘face, front’. In origin a compound,
‘(what is) in (front of) the eye’. Apparently of PIE date.
*pr 6 ti-h 3 (o)k w o/eh a - face, front’. \lEW776(*ok v -)]. Grk
npooomov ‘face’ , Olnd pratika- ‘face’, TochA pratsak ‘breast,
chest’, TochB pratsako ‘breast, chest’. Another compound of
PIE date, ‘(what is) in front of the eye’. The exact, and
unexpected, equivalence of the Greek and Tocharian
formation, *pr6ti-h}dk w -o/eh a -, is very significant.
5ee a Iso Anatomy; Eye. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Hamp, E. P (1973) Formations indo-europeennes a second element
*(h Q )k w . BSL 68, 77-92.
FALCON
*kap- ‘hawk, falcon’. \IEW 528 ( *kap-)\ Wat 27 ( *kap-)\ .
ON haukChawk’, OE heafoc‘ hawk’ (> NE hawk), OHG habuh
~ habuk ‘hawk’, Rus kobec ‘(type of) falcon’. A western isogloss
offers the only cognate set for the ‘hawk’ or ‘falcon’. The
multivalent *hVr-C- which supplies bird names ranging from
‘crow’ to ‘hen’ also underlies Grk KipKoq ‘falcon’ while iepaE,
was commonly used in early literature for the smaller hawks,
Armenian seems to lack an early term for ‘falcon’ or ‘hawk’
and the eagle word arciw was used as a covering term as it is
still today by the ornithologically uneducated. Av saena- and
OInd syena- are used for both the ‘eagle’ and the ‘falcon’, and
it should be noted that references to falconry are common in
the earliest Indie and Iranian literature. A Slavic term, such
as Rus sokol ‘falcon’ is a loan from Iranian and jastreb ‘hawk’
has no sure IE etymology. Lat accipiter ‘hawk, falcon’ is derived
from pre-Lat *acu-peter ‘sharp-winged’ or, as suggested by
Gl, ‘fast-flying’.
Consistent with the lexical evidence, the term ‘falcon’ is
much confused, but technically refers to any bird of the order
Falconidae , of which the hawks are genus accipiter while the
falcons are genus falco. The falconer uses the term ‘falcon’ for
any bird he trains, whether hawk or falcon or eagle. Popularly,
‘falcon’ is used for any of the smaller birds of prey. The
ornithologist understands it as a small raptor with pointed
rather than broad wings. The term ‘falcon’, when used strictly,
thus refers to only those raptors with pointed wings, long
tails and largish head. They can be described as perfect fliers,
capable of great speed when attacking. But the ancients clearly
made no such distinctions though there was knowledge of
numerous species of hawks in ancient times.
See also Birds ; Eagle . [J . A . C . G . 1
FALL
*kad- ‘fall’. 1 1EW 516 ( *kad-)\ Wat 26 ( *kad-)\ Gl 61
( *K h at'-)\ Buck 10.23]. Olr casar (< *Kad-t-ara-) ‘hail’, Lat
cadd ‘fall’, cadaver ‘corpse’ (< *‘the fallen'), Arm c'acnum (<
*kadio-) ‘fall’, OInd sad- ‘fall off, fall out (of teeth)’. Found at
the extremes of the IE world it is surely old but probably in
PIE a “popular” rather than the normal word for ‘fall’
*phdl- ( *phxdl-l) ‘fall’. [IEW 851 ( *ph6l-)\ Wat 51
( *p(h)ol-)\ Buck 10.23; BK 53 {*p[ h }ul-/*pt h loI-)}. ON falla
‘fall’, OE feallan ‘fall’ (> NE fall), OHG fallan ‘fall’, OPrus au-
pallai ‘finds’, Lith puolu ‘fall’, Latv puolu ‘fall’, Arm p‘u/ fall ,
crush’, planim ‘fall’. A late IE word of the west and center.
*ptehi- ‘fall’, [cf. IEW 825 (*pet-); BK 45 (*p[ h Jat( h /-/
*pl h }at[ h l-)\. Grk (Doric) anzpq ‘not falling’, nzcopa ‘fall,
calamity’, Hit piddai (< *ptdhiei ) ‘flees’, pettinu- (< *puh}-
neu-) ‘cause to run’. Cf. the derivative *ptohjtbs ‘fallen’: Grk
— 191 —
FALL
jirmoq ‘fallen’, Av Lata- ‘fallen (of rain)’. Reasonably
widespread, certainly old in IE. From *pet- ‘fly’.
*ped- 1 fall’. [IEW 791 (*ped-)\ Buck 10.23]. Lat pessum
‘to the ground, to the bottom’, ON feta ‘find one’s way’, OE
gefetan ‘fall’, OCS padg ‘fall’, Av paidyeiti ‘moves down,
plunges downwards’, OInd padyate ‘falls, perishes’, pattave
‘± downward’. Reasonably widespread, certainly old in IE. It
is probably a derivative from *ped- ‘foot’ or a derivative of
the same root that also gives *ped- ‘foot’; cf. some
denominative verbs derived directly from *ped -: Lith pidinu
‘step lightly’, peduoti ‘kick’.
See also Foot. [D.Q.A.]
FAME
*k lilies- ‘fame’. [IEW 606 (*k leu-os-)\ Wat 31 ( *kleu-)\
Gl 732-733 ( *k h lewo-)\ Buck 16.47; BK 260 ( *k[ h ]ul -/
*k[ h ]oI-)}. Olr clu ‘fame’, Lat cluor ‘glory’, OCS slovo ‘word’,
Grk KXe(f)oq ‘fame’, Av sravah- ‘word’, OInd sravas- fame’,
TochA -klyu ‘fame’, TochB -kalywe ‘fame’. From */deu-‘hear’.
The concept is most strikingly preserved in the phrase *kleuos
pdhg w hitom which is attested as Grk icXeog dtpOirov ‘fame
imperishable’, OInd sravas aksitam ‘fame imperishable’. Cf.
the related concept found in Grk ovogd-icZvToq ‘famous in
name’, OInd srutyam nama ‘famous in name’, TochA nom-
klyu ‘fame’, TochB nem-kalywe ‘fame’. Cf. also *kleumptom
‘fame’. [IEW 605-606 ( *kleu-mp-to-m)\ Wat 31 ( *kleu-)\
Buck 19.51, 19.531. OHG hliumunt ‘fame’, OInd sromata-
‘good reputation’.
The Indo-European concept of fame is particularly
associated with the vocabulary of oral tradition where deeds
are recorded in narratives, often epic poems. Even where the
precise lexical formula indicated in Greek, Old Indie and
Tocharian is no longer to be found, the same concepts may
still be nested in the individual elements, e.g., Olr clu means
‘fame’ while Olr ainm, the cognate of Grk ovogee , OInd nama,
etc., ‘name’ also denotes ‘reputation, renown’. In all those
societies preserving a heroic literature, i.e., a literature
specifically devoted to recounting in elevated style the deeds
of warriors, we find a similar development. The goal of the
warrior is to seek ‘fame everlasting’ which is not simply
achieved on the battle-field but must also be recorded orally
by the poets. The imperishable element of fame rests then
with the oral literature in which one’s deeds are recounted; it
is the only means of achieving immortality in early Indo-
European tradition. Hence Akhilleus in the Iliad must ponder
whether to remain at Troy where he will most certainly die
but gain ‘imperishable fame’ or return home, saving his life
but abandoning his hope of achieving ‘fame’. The early Irish
epic tale, the Tain , records similar sentiments when the young
hero Cu Chulainn learns from a druid that he who takes up
arms on a particular day although his life be short, he will
have a ‘name’ (ainm) that would last forever in Ireland. Cu
Chulainn willingly accepts the prophecy, expressing the
sentiment that if he achieves fame, he would be satisfied with
but a single day on earth. Although the sentiments expressed
in the institutions of the various IE stocks from Ireland to the
Tocharians may obviously involve parallel developments
which might be expected of any heroic society, the cognate
formula evident in Greek, lndo-Aryan and Tocharian suggest
that these particular notions of fame and how it is achieved
were already present in PIE society.
See also Hear; Poetry. 1E.C.P, J.PM.)
Further Readings
Nagy, G. (1979) The Best of the Achaeans. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
University.
Schmitt, R. (1967) Dichtung und Dichtersprache in mdogerman-
ischerZeit. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.
FAMILY
*genhies- ‘family’. [IEW 375 ( *genos-)\ Wat 19 ( *gcna-)\
GI 653 (*k’en-)\ BK 275 ( *k'an-/*k’an -)]. Lat genus ‘family’,
Grk y&voq ‘family’, Arm cm ‘birth’, OInd janas- ‘family’.
Distribution supports PIE status. From *genhj- ‘be born’.
?*somo-gQ(hi)-io-s same (kinship) line'. 1/EW 375; BK
184 ( *sam-/*sam -), 275 (*k’an-/*k'dn-)[. OE -cynn ‘kin’ (>
NE kin), Goth samakunja- ‘of the same lineage’, Grk opoyvioq
(but note lack of Sieve r’s Law) ‘of the same lineage’. This may
reflect independent creations in Germanic and Greek.
*ddm (gen. *dims) ‘house(hold), nuclear family’. [IEW
198-199 (*domo-)\ Wat 1 1 (*dema-)\ Gl 645-646 (*t'om)\
Buck 7.12, 7.122; Szem 28; BK 133 (*t’im-/*t’em-)\. Grk 5w
‘house’, Arm tun (gen. tan) ‘house’, Av dam- ‘house’, OInd
dam ‘house’. Though attested only in the center and east of
the IE world, its archaic formation makes it almost certain to
reflect an old PIE term which might indicate both the physical
manifestation of the house and the social unit occupying it
Cf. *dems-poti- ‘master of the house’ in Grk SeGKOTpg ‘master,
lord, owner’, Av dang pati- ‘master, lord, ruler’, OInd dam-
pati- ‘master, lord, ruler’.
*ddm(h a )os house(hold)’. [IEW 198-199 ( *domo-)\ Wat
11 ( *dema-)\ Gl 645 (*t‘om)\ Buck 7.12, 7.122; BK 133
(*t’im-/*tem-)]. Lat domus ‘house’, dommus ‘master of the
household’, Lith namas (with assimilation of *d- to the nasality
of the following -m-) ‘house’, OCS domu house’, Rus dom
‘house’, Grk dopog ‘house; course of bricks’, OInd dama-
‘house’. Directly derived from *dem(h a )- ‘build’ or a
thematicization of the previous word. Whatever the exact
morphological history, clearly of PIE status.
*pil c- ‘extended family, clan’. [IEW 1 1 31 ( *ueik-), Wat 75
( *weik-)\ GI 646 ( *we/oiRh-)\ Buck 2.82; Szem 291 . Grk oiKia
‘house, household’, Doric -(f)iKeg ‘houses, households’, Av
vis-‘clan’, OPers vi9- ‘royal court, residence’, OInd v/s-
‘dwelling; clan’; OCS visi ‘village’; from *ueikes-\ Goth weihs
‘village’, TochB ike ‘place’; from *ue/oiko-\ Lat vicus ‘village,
settlement’, Umb uocu-com ‘building’, Goth weihs ‘village’.
Distribution indicates PIE status.
The family that was established by the Indo-European
marriage, the genealogical descent group, was designated
*genh jes-, a neuter s-stem noun derived from the root *genhi-
i
l
*
t
t
4
1
\
FAR
‘be born’. This word is found in widely separated western
and eastern stocks and is thus unquestionably the principal
IE term for the family as a biological entity. Terms that come
from a compound, ‘of the same kindred’, PIE *somo-gp(h])-
ios , show later phonological developments in the loss of the
laryngeal and emphasize the importance that kinship
reckoning came to have in later post-IE society
With regard to the family as a social entity two terms
compete. A neuter noun *domh a - refers to the members of a
single household as the o-grade *dom(h a )os refers to the
homestead itself, the house; metaphorically the building
comes to represent the inhabitants in Italic and Slavic,
although the archaic situation is indicated by locatives such
as Lat domi ‘at home’ and the use of rare Grk 86) ‘household’
and the Indo-Iranian social locution ‘master of the household’
preserved in Av dang pati- and OInd patir dan. Benveniste
incorrectly inverted this order, taking the o-grade as the social
institution as in classical Latin. In actual fact athematic nouns
designated the social reality and the o-grades the physical
units as can be seen in the parallel situation with *uil '<- ‘clan’
and *uoiRo - ‘settlement’. The first form, which designates
the social unit, reflects the original PIE feminine preserved in
Indo-Iranian (Av vis- ‘clan’, OInd vis- ‘dwelling; clan’) and in
a series of compounds for ‘master of the clan’ (Alb zot ‘lord’ <
*dzwapt < *wtsa + *pdt-, Lith viespatis ‘master’ and OInd
vispati- ‘head of the household’). The second form, *uoiRos ,
is the source of Lat vicus ‘city block’ and Grk oiicoq ‘house’.
The noun *domh a - thus approximates the nuclear family and
*uiR- the extended family.
A deeper etymology for *uiR- has been attempted from
time to time but without great success. Few would accept the
suggestion that it derives from *ueiR- ‘bend’, i.e., a hurdle or
fence encircling a household group. More recently O.
Szemerenyi has sought the origin of the word in a verb *ueiR-
‘go’ (Grk (f)eiK(o ‘give way, withdraw’, Av paiti-visaiti ‘enter,
visit’, Yagnobi vis- ‘to go’, OInd visati ‘comes, arrives, enters’).
In this way, the *uiR- is a nominalization of the verb, a ‘going,
gang, a group of people on the move’, which would attest an
originally nomadic residential structure which was then re-
applied to their later settlements. The restriction of this verb
to Indo-Iranian or, only somewhat more generally, to the
southeast (with the inclusion of Greek), however, makes it
uncertain that it can underly the widespread word for
‘extended family, clan’.
The Proto-Indo-European Family
The precise structure of the PIE family has probably been
more assumed than demonstrated. There are a number of
classification systems that have been applied to family
structures. It has been widely presumed that the PIE
communities were organized into what are variously termed
communal (patrilineal), joint or extended families. In such a
family, wives marry into a family dominated by their husband’s
father, the daughters marry outside their family and move
out of their lineage into that of their husbands. Upon the
death of the father, the property may be divided equally among
the sons, and each may then establish his own communal
family with his sons as they marry. Encountered, although
very rarely, is the matrilineal version of the communal family.
These forms of family can be distinguished from the stem
family where only one child (by way of primogeniture
[inheritance of the first bom] or ultimogeniture [inheritance
of the last bornl) inherits the parents’ property. The other
sons may move out or be prohibited from marriage. The third
type of family is the nuclear family where all children tend to
leave their parent’s household on marriage to establish their
own families elsewhere (there may be a temporary phase
where newly-weds live with the parents before setting up their
own families). A final type is the patrilineal nuclear family.
Here the patrilineal principle, which sees the disinheritance
of women, is not combined with the co-residence of all the
males nor of their forming a communal subsistence unit.
In a survey of Eurasian family types, the most numerous is
the patrilineal communal type (43%), followed by the nuclear
(28%), then stem (15%), patrilineal nuclear (11%) and then
matrilineal communal (2%). The distribution of the patrilineal
communal (extended) family is found from the Baltic to
Vietnam and defines the center of Eurasian types while the
other family systems are dispersed about the peripheries.
Sagart and Todd have suggested that the principles of linguistic
geography, which holds that centers innovate while
peripheries conserve, suggest that the patrilineal communal
type is probably a late innovation that spread over a vast area
of Eurasia (they can trace its late inception, for example, in
China toward the end of the first millennium BC). They also
suggest that the reason for its spread in Eurasia may have
been that it assembled into a single co-operative unit the
fathers, sons, and their brothers which may have served as
an embryonic military unit.
See also House, Kinship. [M.E.H., J.RM.J
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1969) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami, 239-261.
Sagart, L. and E. Todd (1992) Hypothesis on the origins of the
communal family system. Diogenes 160, 145-182.
FAR
*U iteros ‘far’. [IEW 1176 (*uhero-); Wat 78 ( *wi-tero -);
Buck 12.44J. ON vldr ‘against’, OE wider ‘opposite’ (> NE
wither as in withershins ), OHG widar ‘against’ , Goth wipra
‘against’, Av vitara- ‘a further one’, OInd vitaram ‘far away’.
Possibly also Lat vitricus ‘stepfather’ < ‘the one farther away’.
From *ui- ‘in two, apart’ + *-tero-, a comparative form used
both as a preposition and as an adverb denoting direction. A
possible but problematic reconstruction as only Old Indie
refers to ‘far’ and the Avestan and Old Indie forms differ with
respect to the length of the first vowel.
5ee also Apart lA.D.V]
— 193 —
FART
FART
*p6rde/o- fart’. [IEW8 19 {*perd-)\ Wat 50 {*perd-)\ Buck
4.64] . Weis rhech ‘fart’, ON freta ‘fart’, OE feortan ‘fart (> NE
fart), OHG ferzan ‘fart’, Lith perdziu ‘fart’, Latv perdu ‘fart’,
Rus perdeti ‘fart’, Alb pjerdh ‘fart’, Grk nepdopai ‘fart’, Av
paraS- ‘fart’, Olnd pardate ‘fart’. Derived nouns are seen in
Weis rhech ‘fart’, ON fretr ‘fart’, OHG furz ~ firz ‘fart’, Lith
pirdis ~ perdis ‘fart’, Alb pordhe ‘fart’, but they are all rather
banal derivatives of the verb. Though not universally attested,
in part because our texts of such languages as Tocharian and
Hittite have no reason to use such a term, this verb is clearly
of PIE age.
*pesd- ‘fart’. [IEW 829 ( *pezd-)\ Wat 51 ( *pezd-)\ Buck
4.64; BK 42 ( *pl h ]as/-/*p{ h la&-)\ . Lat pedo ‘fart’, podex
‘rump, anus’, perhaps NHG fisten ‘fart’, Lith bezdu ‘fart’, Rus
bzdetl ‘fart’, Grk p5eo) ‘fart’. In origin, a phonetic variant of
the previous word although it has also been claimed that
*perde/o- indicated a louder fart than *pesd~.
See also Anatomy. [D.Q.A.J
FAST
*h 3 eK-us ~ *hxeh 3 K-us fast’ [7EW775 ( *oKu-s)\ Wat 45
( *oku-)\ GI 455 (*oK h u-)]. OWels di-auc ‘not-fast’, Lat odor
‘faster’ (and possibly accipiter ‘bird of prey’ < ‘quick-winged’),
Grk coKvg ‘fast’, Av asu- ‘fast’, Olnd asu- ‘fast’. Good candidate
for PIE status; presumably < *h 3 el c- ‘sharp’.
*h2lg-r6s ‘fast (of animals)’ . [ IEW 64 ( *fg-ro -)] . Grk apyog
‘fast (of dogs, horses)’, Olnd yjra- ‘fast (of horses)’. The
underlying meaning here is ‘white, shining’ and suggests a
particular semantic development of a color term (cf. “the
horses streaked on by”) that might be late Indo-European.
Compare also the cognate expressions: Grk Kvveg ocpyoi 1 fast
dogs’, Olnd yjisvan- ‘having fast dogs’; also Olnd pipy a- ‘rising
straight up’, Arm arciw(< *h 2 lgipios ) ‘eagle’.
?*ttro- ‘quick, fast’. [/EW345 ( *etro -)]. ON adr ‘before,
earlier’, OE sedre ‘quickly, at once’, OHG atar ‘quick’, Lith
otrus ‘lively’, otu ‘fast’, Latv atrs ‘fast’ (with the Baltic apparently
representing *h 2 etro-), Thrac ’AOpvg (river name, presumably
the ‘fast, turbulent’). To be excluded on formal grounds is the
old suggestion: TochA afar ‘hero’, TochB efre ‘hero’. Primarily
attested in the northwest with a possible Thracian cognate
hence not a good candidate for PIE status.
*Keigh- ‘fast’. [IEW 542-543 ( *kei-gh-)\ . OE hlgian
‘hasten’, Rus sigati‘ spring’; the uncertainty of Olnd sighra-
‘quick, fast’, the only non-northwestem cognate, does not
secure this good IE status.
?*h a egi/h x los fast’. [IEW 5 ( *ag-)\ Buck 14.21]. Lat agilis
‘quick’, Olnd ajira- ‘agile, quick’. This pair probably reflects
parallel dialectal formations from the very productive root
*h a eg- ‘drive’. Grk dyeAp ‘herd (of cattle, horses, etc.)’ would
present another parallel, with considerably different semantic
development.
?*bhris- ~ *bhers- ‘fast’. [IEW 143 ( *bheres-)\ Wat 8
( *bhers-)] ■ Mir bras ‘forward, defiant, boastful’, Weis brys
‘haste, speed’ and Lat festino ‘hurry oneself’ are derived from
a zero-grade here while the Balto-Slavic forms Lith burzdus ~
burzgus ‘fast’, OCS bruzo ‘fast’, Rus borzoj ‘fast’ reflect *z
rather than *s, making their connection more doubtful. Not
even secure as a northwest term in late IE.
??*keibh- fast’. [/EW542 (*kei-bh-)\. ON heipt ‘enmity’,
OE hzest ‘violent, vehement, impetuous’, OHG heiftig ‘ardor’,
Goth haifsts ‘conflict’, Olnd sibham ‘fast’. The heritage of the
Old Indie form is not entirely clear and modern sources are
sceptical about its connection to Germanic, thus highly
unlikely as a PIE form.
See also Horse; Sharp; White. [J .C .S.]
Further Reading
Schrijver, P (1990) Latin festlnare, Weis brys. MSS 51, 243-249.
FASTEN see BIND
FAT
*pih x Vf ‘fat(ness)’. [IEW 793 ( *pi-u-er-)\ Wat 47
(*peia-) ]. Grk map'iat, tallow’, kT(ov( fem. 7tteipa) ‘fat, fruit-
ful, rich’, Olnd ptvas- ‘fat’, ptvan- (fem. ptvarl-) ‘fat, swollen’,
payate ‘is swollen, overflows’. The exact equation between
Greek and Old Indie of an archaic morphology would seem
to guarantee PIE status for this word. Possibly also here should
be OIr Eriu name of goddess and ‘Ireland’, MWels Iwerd ‘Irish
Sea, Atlantic’, lwerdon ‘Ireland’ (< Proto-Celtic *Iwerju <
*pih x uerioh x n ) where ‘fatness’ is applied to the land, cf. Grk
flTepia name of a district in Thessaly and Homeric nteipav
apovpav ‘fertile land’; cf. NE ‘fat of the land’.
*s6lpes- (or *s6lph x (e)s- 1 ) ‘oil, fat, grease’. [IEW 901
( *selp-)\ Wat 57 ( *selp-)\ GI 609 ( *selp h -)\ BK 161 ( *s>’il -/
*syel-)\ ■ Alb gjalpe ‘butter’, Grk eh zoq ‘oil, fat, grease’, Olnd
sarpis- ‘melted butter’, TochA salyp ‘unguent, fat’, TochB salype
‘unguent, fat’. Cf. OE sealf ‘grease’ (> NE salve), OHG salba
‘grease’ (Gmc < *solpo-)\ OE sealfian ‘to grease’, OHG salbon
‘to grease’, Goth salbon ‘to grease’. Widespread and old in IE.
*sm6ru- ‘oil, grease’. [IEW 970-971 ( *smeru-)\ Wat 62
( *(s)mer-)\ Buck 5.89; BK 538 (* mar-/* mar-)]. OIr smiur
‘marrow’, Weis mer ‘marrow’, ON smjpr ‘grease’, OE smeoru
‘grease’ (> NE smear), OHG smero ‘grease’, TochB smare (<
*smeruo-) ‘oily, greasy’. Unlikely to be connected, for both
phonological and semantic grounds, is Grk ogvpiq ‘abrasive
for rubbing’. The reflexes of this word are sufficiently
widespread geographically to guarantee its PIE status.
*h\opus (animal) fat’. Lat ad-eps ‘suet, lard’, opimus (if <
*opV-pimus) ‘fat’, Hit appuzzi' animal fat, tallow’, TochB op
‘± fatness’. The geographical spread of this word’s reflexes
strongly suggests PIE status.
See also Anoint; Meat; Milk. [D.Q.A.]
FATHER
*pb a t£r (gen. *pb a tr6s) ‘father’. [/EVV829 { *pate(r))\ Wat
51 (*p9ter-),G\ 667 (*pfiHt h er-), Buck 2.35; Szem 1; Wordick
116-117], OIr athair ‘father’, OWels -atr ‘father’, Lat pater
‘father’, Osc pa hr ‘father’, Umb pater' father’ (in compounds),
194 —
FATHER-IN-LAW
ON fadir ‘father’, OE faeder ‘father’ (> NE father), OHG fater
‘father, Goth fadar ‘father’, Grk narpp ‘father’, Arm hayr
‘father’, Av pta ‘father’ (dat. hdroi), OInd pitar- ‘father’, TochA
pacar ‘father’, TochB pacer ‘father’. The PIE word for ‘father’.
Possibly also of PIE date is *pfr a tr-iios ‘paternal’. [IEW 829
( *pdtrio -)]. Olr aithre ‘paternal’, MWels edry8 ‘(paternal)
dwelling’, Lat patrius ‘paternal’, OE faedera ‘father’s brother’,
Fris federia ‘father’s brother’, OHG fatureo ‘father’s brother’
(Gmc < *p^ a tyio-on-), Grk narpwq ‘paternal’, Olnd pitrya-
‘paternal’, TochB patarye ‘paternal’.
*somo-pb a tdr ‘of the same father’. \IEW 829 ( *somo -
pator)]. ON samfedra ‘of the same father’, Grk upon droop of
the same father’, OPers hama-pitar- ‘of the same father’, TochA
soma-pacar ‘of the same father’. The distribution of this
compound suggests PIE status.
*at-( or *h a e£-or *hiat-l) ‘father’. [ZEW71 ( *atos~ *atta)\
Wat 4 ( *atto-)\ Buck 2.35; BK 430 (*at[ h ](t[ h ])-/
*9t[ h ](t[ h ])-)]■ Olr aite ‘foster-father; tutor, teacher’, Lat atta
‘father’, ON atti ‘father’, OHG atto ‘father’, Goth atta ‘father’,
OCS otfcu ‘father’, Rus ofec ‘father’, Alb ate ‘father’, Grk extra
‘father’. Hit attas ‘father’. Although a word derived from the
language of children, the distribution suggests PIE status.
*t-at- (or *t-hiet-) ‘father’. [IEW 1056 ( *tata-)\ Buck 2.351 .
Weis tad ‘father’, Lat (inscription) fata ‘father’, Grk r ard, terra
‘father’, Luv tads ‘father’, Olnd fata- ‘father’. Perhaps a
deformation of the preceding word which again suggests at
least the possibility of PIE status.
*papa ‘father, papa’. [IEW 789 ( *pap(p)a)\ Wat 47
(*papa)\. Lat papa ‘father’, Grk nanna ‘papa’, Palaic papa
‘father’, Scythian Zevq Hanaioq ‘papa Zeus’. Another child’s
word which is widely enough distributed to suggest IE
antiquity.
*genh i -tor ‘father; procreator’. [IEW 374 ( * gem- ter-)', Wat
19 (*gem-)\ BK 275 (*k'an-/*k’9n-)[. Lat genitor ‘procreator’,
Grk yeveteop ‘procreator’, Olnd janitar- ‘procreator’. Possibly,
even probably, a word of PIE status but it is also possible that
all three words are independent creations in the stocks in
which they occur.
A formal term, PIE *pft a ter, existed beside several informal
terms, most notable of which was *hiat-. The formal term
has been preserved in eight branches, Celtic, Italic, Germanic,
Greek, Armenian, Iranian, Indie and Tocharian. If one can
accept the loss of the vocalic laryngeal, then there may be
some (quite questionable) traces of the word in both Baltic
and Slavic. Szemerenyi proposes to derive Lith tevas ‘father’
from *pte (cf. Av pta) where the laryngeal has been lost and
*pt - > *t- (and the rest of the word is not well explained). In
Slavic we have the divine name Stri-bogu , taken to be ‘father-
god’.
Although Antoine Meillet was fond of pointing out that
Proto-Indo-European ‘father’ was not merely the masculine
equivalent of ‘mother’, his chief argument, that ‘father’ was
used as a divine title in Lat Iupiter, Umb Iuve patre (dative),
Grk Zero jidrep and Olnd Dyaus pitar, is less convincing in
light of titles like Greek Mf\rrip Secov ‘mother of gods’ and
the Irish gloss Ana: mater deorum ‘Ana, i.e., mother of the
gods’. Nevertheless, the fact that the Latin plural patres and
the Indie dual pitriu signify ‘parents’ and legal precepts such
as Lat si pater filium ter venum duuit, filius a patre liber ('if a
father sells his son three times, let the son be free from his
father’) mention only the father indicates that the fndo-
European father possessed considerable legal authority within
the family.
Beside the formal term for father, PIE *plji a ter, there were a
number of less formal terms. One of these, *at- or *h a et-,
may have signified ‘foster-father’, the meaning found in Old
Irish. This word has displaced the formal term in Slavic,
Albanian, and Hittite. A variation *t-at- or *t-h a et-, with a
peculiar but attested reduplication of the final consonant seen
in other childish terms, forms the common term in Welsh,
Baltic and most of Anatolian and is a common affectionate
term in Albanian and Greek as well. Latin, Greek, Palaic and
Scythian also possess a familiar form for ‘father’. The need for
a term for ‘having the same father’ in Germanic, Greek, Iranian
and Tocharian suggests that the Indo-Europeans employed
parent and sibling terms for a wider variety of people than
one’s own biological parents and the children of one’s own
parents, that is, they employed a classificatory rather than
descriptive kinship terminology.
See also Grandfather; Kinship; Master. [M E. H_1
FATHER-IN-LAW
*sy£Zcuros ‘father-in-law, husband’s father’. [IEW 1043-
1044 ( *suekrtL-)\ GI 662-663 ( *s°eI^uro-), Buck 2.61 ; Szem
17-18; Wordick 170-1711. Weis chwegrwn ‘father-in-law’,
Corn whygeran ‘father-in-law’, Lat socer ‘father-in-law’, OE
swehor ~ sweor ‘father-in-law’, OHG swehur ‘father-in-law’,
Goth swaihra ‘father-in-law, Lith sesuras ‘husband’s father’,
OCS svekru ‘husband’s father’, Rus svekor 'husband’s father’.
Alb vjeherr (< *ueskuro-) ‘father-in-law’, Grk etcupog ‘wife’s
father’, Arm skesr-ayr ‘husband’s father’ (lit. ‘mother-in-law’s
man’), Av x v asura- ‘father-in-law’, NPers xusur ‘father-in-law;
mother-in-law’ (New Persian has generalized the inherited
words for both ‘father-in-law’ and ‘mother-in-law’ to both
sexes), Pashto sxar ‘father-in-law’, Olnd svasura- father-in-
law’. Widespread and clearly old in IE.
Oswald Szemerenyi has proposed that *suekuro- be
derived from *sue- and *koru- ‘head’, i.e., head of the joint
family’, arguing that the word was created and employed from
the perspective of the wife (otherwise this derivation would
make no sense since a man’s father-in-law, i.e., the father of
his wife, could hardly be a member of his own lineage). To a
woman who had married into a man’s family, the head of the
family would be (presuming he was still alive), her husband’s
father, i.e., her father-in-law. It would be natural then,
according to this line of reasoning, that the woman would
refer to her husband’s father as the ‘head of the family’. In
addition to purely linguistic problems concerning both
elements of this compound, this theory also rests on the pre-
sumption that PIE ‘father-in-law’ initially (or only) designated
195 —
FATHER-IN-LAW
the wife’s father-in-law (‘husbands father’) and that the
husband did not possess a corresponding term for his wife’s
father (with whom he would presumably have contracted the
marriage agreement and to whom he would have paid the
bride-price).
It is important then to distinguish the point of perspective
of the various terms for ‘father-in-law’. The semantic contexts
of the cognate terms can be divided into two groups. Those
words that designate the ‘father-in-law’ solely from the point
of view of the wife are Baltic, Slavic, Greek and Armenian.
The other stocks (Celtic, Latin, Germanic, and Albanian)
extend it to both the husband and the wife’s in-laws. It has
often been presumed that the extension of kinship terms to
both sides is a later phenomenon but Heinrich Hetterich
suggests that there is evidence of the early use of Av x v asura-
(Yast 10. 116) to designate the ‘father-in-law’ from the
husband’s point of view and there is also some circumstantial
evidence for this meaning in OInd svasura-. This evidence,
he argues, would make it more plausible to reconstruct ‘father-
in-law’ from the perspective of both husband and wife, a
situation which would seem to be predicted by the general
analysis of other kinship systems (for example, Omaha kinship
systems typically do not distinguish the husband’s parents-
in-law from those of the wife), and renders Szemerenyi’s
interesting attempt at a deeper etymology for this term far
less compelling.
?*bhendhpros or *penth a -pros ± relation’. [IEW 127
( *bhendh-)\ cf. G1 23 ( *bend h -); BK 26 ( ^in^-^bet/-)] . Lith
bendras ‘companion’, Grk jtevOepog ‘father-in-law’, Olnd
bandhu- ‘relative’. Some would also place Arm aner ‘wife’s
father’ here (Winter suggested loss of expected *b [for *bb]
by contamination with hayr ‘father’; the recorded form could
then be metathesized from *enar and derived from *penth a -
rro -, a form that might also account for the Greek etymon). If
the relationship between Armenian and Greek is accepted,
we could have a second reconstructed form although this
would be confined to a limited region. The underlying root
of *bhendhfros is generally taken to be *bhendh- ‘join, tie,
connect’ and hence we have here some one ‘connected
(through marriage?)’. The case for anything other than some
late regional IE isoglosses is not particularly strong and the
specific kinship semantics are limited solely to Greek.
The relation between *sijeRuros ‘father-in-law’ and
*sueRruh a s ‘mother-in-law’, is problematic. Most take the
masculine to have been remodeled to avoid an unwieldy
cluster in the expected *sueRruos. Four stocks — Baltic, Slavic,
Greek (?and Armenian) — record a special form for ‘wife’s
father’. The Baltic and Slavic forms, Lith uosvis ‘father-in-
law’, OCS tlstl ‘wife’s father’ and Rus test i ‘wife’s father’ are
related to corresponding feminines, Lith uosve ‘mother-in-
law’ and Rus tesca ‘wife’s mother’, and do not provide any
insight into PIE. The words derived from *bhendhpros are
too general in meaning and the specific kinship semantics of
this word appear to be unique to Greek and not indicative of
PIE. It might be argued that the fact that several early and
conservative languages maintained a distinction between
‘husband’s father’ and ‘wife’s father’ suggests that the distinction
may have been original in PIE and its widespread loss was a
later development, even if no single form for ‘wife’s father’
can be ascribed to PIE. Alternatively, it may have been the
case that PIE had generic terms for ‘father-in-law’ and ‘mother-
in-law’ and where various stocks made distinctions between
the husband’s in-laws and the wife’s it is because of independ-
ent innovations.
See also Brother-in-law; Kinship; Mother-in-law.
[M.E.H.]
Further Readings
Hetterich, H. (1985) Indo-European kinship terminology. Anthropo-
logical Linguistics 27, 453-480.
Huld, M. E. (1979) Albanian vjerr and IE. in-law terms. IF 84, 196—
200 .
FATYANOVO-BALANOVO CULTURE
A variant of the Corded Ware horizon (c 3200-2300 BC),
the Fatyanovo culture is located in the region from Lake Pskov
eastwards to the middle Volga, and takes its name from a
cemetery in the Yaroslav district. Fatyanovo defines the
western part of the culture while in the eastern area of its
distribution it is known as the Balanovo culture. Settlements,
which are few in number, tend to be located in elevated
positions and on Balanovo settlements rectangular semi-
subterranean houses are known. Here also there is some
evidence for sites defended by earthen banks. The general
absence of settlement remains throughout most of the culture,
as with other variants of the Corded Ware horizon, is usually
interpreted as reflecting an essentially mobile economy. The
Fatyanovo culture is seen to introduce an economy based on
domestic livestock into the forest zone of Russia and the degree
of mobility that one may ascribe to it is seriously mitigated
by the fact that the main domestic fauna tends to be (the
non-mobile) pig, which is then followed by sheep, cattle, horse
and dog; there are also the remains of wild species.
Primary information regarding Fatyanovo derives from over
three-hundred cemeteries attributed to the culture, the largest
being on the order of over a hundred burials. Graves were
shafts, sometimes over 2 m deep, and the walls might be
lined with wood and the floor covered with birch bark. The
usual pattern of Corded Ware ritual is reflected with males
deposited on their right sides (heads to SW) and females on
their left (heads to NE). Grave-goods included pottery,
ornaments of animal teeth, polished stone battle-axes (for
males) and occasionally stone mace-heads. Metal resources
from the western Urals were exploited and it is from this region
that one finds simple metal tools and ornaments although
they are manufactured according to types known in central
Europe. That the culture produced its own metal objects is
attested to by the finding of metal-working implements in
graves suggesting the presence of local smiths.
Unlike many of the other variants of the Corded Ware
— 196 —
FAVOR
Fatyanovo b. Stone “battle-ax"; c. Male burial on right side;
d. Clay “wheel”; e Cord-decorated vessel.
li .*.* *;•
— 197 —
Fatyanovo a. Distribution of the Fatyanovo culture.
FAVOR
•h^eu- ‘favor’. [7£W77 (*ay-)]. OIr con-oi ‘guards’, Weis
ewyllys ‘desire’, Lat aveo ‘desire strongly’. Runic auja ‘good
fortune’, Goth awi-liup ‘thanks’, Grk (Doric) aixaq ‘friend,
beloved’, perhaps Arm aviwm ‘inspiration’, Av avaiti ‘cares
for, helps’, OInd avati ‘is pleased, promotes’, £vi- ‘favorable’,
avas- ‘enjoyment, favor, help’. Widespread and of PIE status.
Perhaps *h a eu- is actually *h 4 eu- and ultimately the same as
*h^eu- ‘eat’.
*hjerhaS- be well-disposed to someone’. Grk epochal ~
epao) ‘love’, TochAB yars- ‘be deferential, respectful’. The
apparent agreement of Greek and Tocharian would seem to
be good evidence for at least late PIE status for this word.
horizon, the Fatyanovo culture is found beyond the borders
of the earlier TRB culture and has been regarded as a genuine
folk movement into the forest region of Russia, variously
derived from the Baltic, central Europe or, less likely, the
Russian-Ukrainian steppe (there are similarities between
Fatyanovo and Catacomb culture stone battle-axes). The case
for an intrusive culture is based on the physical type of the
population, flexed burial under barrows, the presence of
battle-axes and ceramics. On the other hand, it has also been
argued that the culture represents the acculturation of the
local Pit-Comb Ware inhabitants of this region through
contacts with Corded Ware agriculturalists to the west. If one
assumes that the Corded Ware horizon does reflect an earlier
IE linguistic identity (which is frequently accepted), it is
unlikely to have persisted as later during the early historic
period this territory appears to have been occupied by Uralic-
speaking peoples before the still more recent expansion of
the Balts and Slavs.
See also Corded Ware Culture; Pit-Comb Ware Culture.
D.pm.1
Further Readings
Kraynov, D. A. (1972) Drevneyshaya Istoriya Volgo-Okskogo
Mezhdurechya. Moscow, Nauka.
Hausler, A. (1976) Zur Ursprung der Fatjanowo-Kultur.
Jahresschrift fur mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 60, 285-297.
FAVOR
*teu- ‘look on with favor 1 . [IEW 1079-1080 ( *teu-)\ Wat
71 (*teu-)[. OIr tuath ‘north, left (when facing east)’ (<
probably a euphemistically used ‘favorable’), Lat tueor
‘observe, protect’, tutus ‘secure’, ON pydr ‘friendly’, OE ge-
piede ‘good, virtuous’, peaw ‘custom, usage’, OHG gi-thiuto
‘publicly, truly’, thau ‘custom, usage’, Goth piup ‘good’, Luv
tawa/i- ‘eye’ (< * ‘looker, observer’). Attested on the western
and southern peripheries of the IE world which suggests PIE
status.
?*h^ens- be gracious to, show favor’. [IEW 47 (*ans-)\ Gl
683 (*wesu-)\ Puhvel 1, 205-206; BK 386 ( *han-/*hdn-)\ .
ON ast ‘affection, love’, OE est ‘favor, grace, bravery’, OHG
anst ‘favor’, Goth ansts ‘favor, grace’ (Gmc < *h^ensti~),
probably Grk npocrpvfiq (Doric npoGavfiq) ‘gentle, kind, soft’.
Hit assu- ‘good’, ass- ~ assiya- ‘be favored, be dear, be good’
have also been put here or, alternatively, derived from *hjesu-
‘good’. If the Hittite words belong here, and it is likely that at
least the verb does (though influenced semantically by the
phonologically similar word for ‘good’), then we have evidence
for the shape *h^ens- and for PIE status. However, certainty
here cannot be achieved.
?*hisu-menes-ie/o- ‘be well disposed to’. [GI 683; Del 286] .
Grk Evpeveco ‘am gracious’, Olnd sumanasyate ‘is favorable’.
Possibly a late dialectal term in IE, but also possibly
independent creations in Greek and Old Indie.
See also Please. [D.Q.A]
FEAR
*bhibhdihxe ‘is afraid’. [IEW 161-162 ( *bhoi~), Buck
16.53]. ON bifa ‘tremble’, OE beofian ~ bifian ‘tremble’, OHG
biben ~ beben ‘tremble’, Olnd bibhaya ~ bibheti ‘is afraid’.
Though attested only on the extreme peripheries of the IE
world, the exact equation of form (the Germanic verbs, like
Olnd bhibheti, reflect the secondary addition of the productive
present endings onto an old perfect) and meaning assure its
PIE status. Other presents appear in OPrus biatwei ‘to fear’,
Lith bijaus ‘is afraid’, Latv bijuos ‘is afraid’ (Baltic < *bhihx~
eh a -), OCS bojati sp (< *bhoih x -eh a - ) ‘is afraid’, Olnd bhayate
‘is afraid’. Cf. also Lat foedus(< *bhoihx-do-) ‘ugly, repulsive’.
*haegh- ‘be afraid, be downcast’. [IEW 7-8 (*agh-)\ Buck
16.53; BK 302 (*hag y -/*h9g y -)\. OIr ad-agathar ‘fears’, ON
agi ‘terror’, ogn ‘fright’, OE ege ‘sorrow’, oga ‘fright’, OHG akl
~ egi ‘terror’, egison ‘shock, terrify’, Goth dg ‘is afraid’, agis
‘fear, anxiety, terror’, un-agands ‘unafraid’, af-agjan ‘be moved,
frightened’, Grk axoq ‘mental pain or distress’, otyopai ‘am
troubled, mourn’. At least a word of the west and center of
the IE world.
*dyei- ‘fear’. [IEW 227-228 ( *duei-)\ Wat 15 ( *dwei-)\
Buck 16.53]. Grk Seidco (< perfect *dedwoia) ‘fear’, Arm
erknc‘im ‘frighten’, perhaps Luv kuwaya- ‘fear’, Av dvaes- ‘be
hostile, provoke’, Olnd dvesti ‘hates, is hostile’, TochAB wi-
‘be frightened’. A verb derived from *dui- ‘two’ and thus
originally ‘be of two minds, doubtful’ or the like. Certainly if
the Luvian word belongs here (and not to *k w ehi(i)- ‘fear’)
we have strong evidence for PIE status.
*neh 2 -‘ be timid’. 1/EW754 ( *na-); GI 705 ( *naH-), BK
563 (*nah-/*ndh-)\. MIrnar(< *neh 2 -sro -) ‘modest, diffident’,
naire ‘shame, modesty’, Hit nah- ‘fear, be afraid’, nahsar- ‘fear,
terror’, nahsariya- ‘fear’. Attested only in two stocks but the
geographical distribution would seem to support PIE status.
*k w eh 1 (i)- ‘fear, revere’. [IEW 636-637 ( */d'ei-); Wat 33
(*kwei3-)]. OCS cajp ‘(a)wait, hope’, kajp' feel remorse’, Grk
rift) ‘honor, revere (of the bearing of men before gods)’, perhaps
Luv k(u)waya- ‘fear’, Olnd cayati ‘reveres, pays attention to’.
Particularly if the Cuneiform Luvian word belongs here (and
not to *duei- ) the geographical extension would appear to
assure PIE status for this word.
*perk- ‘fear’. [IEW 820 ( *perg- ); Buck 16.53; BK 68
( *pfi]ir-/*p[ h ]er-)] . OE forht ‘fearful, afraid’, fyrhto ‘fright’
(> NE fright), fyrhtan ‘frighten’ (> NE to fright), OHG for(a)ht
‘fearful, afraid’, forhta ‘fright’, for(a)htan ‘fear’, Goth faurhts
‘fearful, afraid’, faurhtjan ‘be afraid’, TochAB parsk- (< *pfk-
ske/o-) ‘be afraid’, TochA praski ‘fear’, TochB proskye ‘fear’.
Limited to Germanic and Tocharian but at least dialectally
present in late PIE.
*tres- ‘tremble, fear’. [IEW 1095 ( *tres-)\ Wat 72 ( *tres-)\
GI 207 ( *t h ers - ~ *t h res-)\ Buck 16.53; BK 97 ( *t[ h pr -/
*t[ h ]er-)\. Mir tarrach (< *tpsako~) ‘fearful’, Lat terrere ‘terrify’,
terror ‘terror’, Lith trisu (if < *tfs-ske/o-) ‘tremble’, Grk r peco
‘tremble, flee’, Av tarasaiti (< *tfs-ske/o-) ‘fears’, Oraohayeiti
‘frightens’, Olnd trasati ‘trembles, is afraid’. Here we have a
metaphorical transfer from an outward sign of fear to fear
itself, probably of PIE date.
See also Frighten; Shake. [D.Q.A ]
FEATHER see WING
FEED
*peh 2 - ‘guard, protect, cause to graze’ (pres. *pdi 2 ti ~
*peh 2 s(k)eti) [cf. IEW 787 (*pa-), 839 ( *po(i »; Wat 46
( *pa-)\ GI 600 (*p h aH-/*p tl oH(i)-)', Buck 3.16; BK 52
(*p[ h ]ah-/*p[ h ]3h-)\. OIr ainches ‘bread basket’, Weis pawr
‘meadow’, Lat pasco ‘feed, lead to pasture; nourish’, ON fodr
‘fodder’, OE foddor ~ fodor ‘fodder’ (> NE fodder), OHG fuoter
‘fodder’, OCS pasp ‘protect, guard’, Grk (Doric) nOvis ‘satiety’,
Arm hawran ‘herd’, Hit pah(has)s- ‘protect’, Av paiti ‘guards’,
Olnd pati ‘guards’, TochA pas- ‘guard, protect, practice moral
behavior’, TochB pask- ‘guard, protect, practice moral
behavior’. Cf. Grk kcov (< *pdh 2 iu) ‘flock of sheep’, Olnd
payu (< *poh 2 iu~) ‘protector’, and Grk noigrjv ‘guardian,
herder’, Lith piemuo (< *poh 2 imen-) ‘herder’. This word is
widespread and old in IE. It was the usual word to describe
the herdsman’s activities.
*yes- ‘graze’. [IEW 117 1 (*ues-); cf. GI 601 (*wes-)]. OIr
feis(s)~ fess ‘food’, Weis gwest ‘feast’, ON vist' food’, OE wist
‘food’, wesan ‘feast, cause to graze’, wesa ‘reveler’, OHG wist
‘food’, Goth waila wisan ‘feast’, wizon ‘be self-indulgent’, Latv
vpspls ‘healthy, whole’, OCS veselu ‘joyful’, Hit wesi- ‘pasture’,
westara- ‘herdsman’, wesiya- ‘graze’, Av vastra- ‘food’, vastar-
‘herdsman’ (the -a- is secondary in Avestan, introduced to
— 198 —
FERMENT
distinguish vas- ‘graze’ from vas- ‘wear’), TochA wash ‘grassy
area, pasture’. Widespread and old in IE. This word would
seem to be the intransitive equivalent of *peh 2 - above.
*pen- ‘feed, fatten’. [IEW 807 ( *pen -); BK 58 (*p[ h M-/
*p[ h ]eny-)\. Lat penus ‘store of food’, Goth fenea (= / finja /) ‘a
barley dish’, Lith penu ‘fatten’, penas ‘fodder’ * Palaic bannu
‘liver’ (< *pen-nu- ‘the fattened one’). Clearly old in IE.
See also Eat and Drink; Food; Grass; Plants. [D.Q.A]
FELT see TEXTILE PREPARTATION
FENCE
*gh6rdhos (*ghdrtos ~ *gh6rdhos ) ‘fence, hedge;
enclosure, pen, fold’. [/EW444 ( *gherdh-)\ Wat 22 (*gher-)\
GI 647 ( *g h erd h -)-, Buck 19.15; BK 303 ( *^ir-/*^er-)] . From
*ghortos: Olr gort ‘standing crop’, Weis garth ‘pen, fold’, Lat
hortus ‘garden’, cohors (< *ko-ghft-i-s) (gen. cohortis )
‘enclosure, yard, cattle-pen’ (via French > NE court), Osc
hurtum ‘enclosure’, Grk ^dpTog ‘enclosed place, feeding place’;
from *ghordhos\ ON gardar (pi.) ‘fence, hedge, court’, OE
geard ‘enclosure, yard’ (> NE yard ; ON/OE < *ghordho -),
ortgeard ‘garden’ (lit. ‘fruit-yard’; > NE orchard ), OHG garto
‘garden’ (via Old French > NE garden), Goth gards ‘house,
household; court’ (< *ghordhi~), garda ‘household’, Lith
gardas ‘fence, fold, pen’, OCS gradu ‘town, city’, Rus gorod
‘town, city’, Alb gardh ‘fence, enclosure, hedge’, Phryg -
gordum ‘city’ (cf. Gordion ‘Gordium’); with zero-grade
*ghfdho -: Hit gurtas ‘citadel’, Luv gurta- ‘citadel’, Av goroSa-
‘cave housing demons’, Olnd gfha- (< *gfdha -) ‘house,
habitation, home’. The ensemble of forms assembled under
*ghordhos suggests an earlier root-noun, *ghordhs (or
*gh6rdhs?), gen *ghfdh6s. The word-final *-dhs would have
been pronounced *-ts and it is this pronunciation that may
have led to the creation of the variant *ghdrtos. Certainly
belonging here as well is TochB (pi.) kerclyi ‘palace’ (< *ghort/
dhiioi ‘courts’, cf. Gordium). Widespread and old in IE.
The original meaning of *ghordhos would appear to have
included both the hedge or (wickerwork?) fence that enclosed
an individual yard or a whole settlement and the enclosure
(garden or corral) thus defined. The term is also used with
specific references to the walls surrounding the PIE
otherworld, e.g., ON gardar surrounds the realm of the
goddess of death, Hel, Av gorada- is used with explicit
reference to the cave of demons contaminated by death and
corruption, and Olnd mjnmayam gfham (acc. sg.) ‘house of
clay’, i.e., where one goes after death. From *gherdh- ‘gird’
which, as a verb, exists only in Germanic (cf. NE gird). A
number of IE stocks show semantically similar forms as if
from a palatalized PIE *gherdh -: OPrus sardis ‘fence’, Lith
zardis ‘corral’, zardas ‘drying rack (for grain); fence, enclosure’,
Rus zorod ‘granary’, Phryg -zordum ‘city’. As living areas were
fenced in, it is not surprising to find the semantic shifts to
‘house’ or even to ‘city’, e.g., NE town is cognate with NHG
zaun ‘fence, hedge’. The term was borrowed into Finno-Ugric,
e.g., Udmurt gurt ‘village, settlement’, Komi gort ‘house’.
*yorPo- ‘enclosure’. Hit (pi.) warpa enclosures’, warpa dai-
‘encircle’, HierLuv warpi ‘temple precinct’ (< * ‘enclosure’),
TochA warp ‘enclosure’, TochB werpiye ‘garden’, werpiske
‘garden’. Both Hittite and Tocharian show identical
denominative verb formations ( *uorP-eh 2 -) : Hit (anda)
warpai- ‘enclosure’, TochAB warpa - ‘surround, encircle’. The
double morphological agreement of Anatolian and Tocharian
would seem to guarantee this word PIE status.
*kagh- ‘hedge, enclosure’. [ IEW 518 ( *kagh-)\ Wat 26
( *kagh-)) ■ Weis cae ‘hedge’, perhaps Lat (pi.) caul(l)ae ‘enclo-
sure for sheep’ (if < *kaghleh a -), ON hagi ‘wheatfield’, OE
haga ‘hedge’ (> NE haw as in haw-thom), hecg (< *kaghio~)
‘hedge’ (> NE hedge), OHG hag ‘hedge’. Restricted to the
northwest of the IE world. From *kagh- ‘catch, seize’.
*mand- ‘enclosure, stall’. [IEW 699 ( *mand-)\ . Thrac
pavd&Kiq ‘ring of sheaves’, Grk pavdpa ‘cattle-fold, byre;
horse-stall’, Olnd mandurz ‘horse-stable’, mandira-
‘habitation, dwelling; palace, temple; town’. Possibly late IE
and restricted to the south and east of the IE world, these
words have also, less plausibly, been taken to be borrowings
from some unknown (Near Eastern?) language.
?*Ujto/eh a -~ *uftis~ *uorto/eh a - enclosure’ [7EW1161-
1 1 62 ( *uf-ti-)', cf. Wat 77 ( *wer-)\ BK 489 ( *wury~/*wory-)\ .
From *ufto/eh a -: OE worp ‘court, courtyard; farm; street’,
NLG wurt ‘elevated settlement’, TochA wart ‘forest’, TochB
warto ‘forest’ (Tocharian < *‘what encloses or surrounds a
settlement’? or < * ‘sacred grove’ < * ‘(sacred) precinct’?); from
*ufti-: Olnd \jti- enclosure’; from *uorto/eh a -\ OPrus warto
‘door, gate’, Lith (pi.) vartai ‘gate, gateway’, OCS rata ‘gate’. It
is likely that these all represent independent derivatives of
*uer- ‘enclose, cover, protect’.
See also Fort; Gird, High, House; Wall. [A.D.V.; D.Q.A.}
Further Readings
Della Volpe, A. (1988) Hillfort nomenclature in Indo-European: The
case of Latin urbs.JlES 16, 194-206.
FERMENT
*bhreu - ‘brew’, [cf. IEW 144-145 ( *bh(e)reu-)\ Wat 9
( *bhreu-)\ GI 553 ( *b h reu -); BK 4 (*bar-/*bor-) |. The
underlying verb is attested with the meaning ‘brew’ only in
Germanic: OE breowan ‘brew’ (> NE brew), OHG briuwan
‘brew’. A denvative *bhrutom ‘beer’ (< ‘what has been brewed’)
appears more widely: Lat defrutum ‘boiled must', ON brod
‘broth’, OE ‘broth’ (> NE broth), OHG brod ‘broth’, Alb
bersi (< *bhrutieh 2 -) ‘lees, dregs; mash’, Thrac fdpvxoq a kind
of beer. Cf. also ON braud ‘bread’, OE bread ‘crumb; bread’
(> NE bread), OHG brot ‘bread’ (named after the leavening
agent); and ON Bragi god of poetry. These words suggest that
the meaning ‘brew’ was widespread in at least the west and
center of the IE world. The use of *bhreu- is a specialization
of the *bhreu- that means ‘boil, seethe’.
*kyaf- ‘ferment’. [IEW 627 ( *kuat(h)-)\ GI 28] . Lat caseus
‘cheese’, Goth hvapo ‘foam’, hvapjan ‘foam up’, Latv kusat
‘boil’, OCS kvasu (< *kvat-so-) ‘leaven; sour drink', kyselu
— 199 —
FERMENT
‘sour’, OInd kvathati ‘boils, cooks’. Another word which
originally meant ‘boil’ that was specialized for some kind of
fermentation process in several IE stocks of the west and
center.
While fermentation may appear as a natural process that
might have been discovered quite early, at least during the
Neolithic period, Andrew Sherratt has suggested that this
would presume the unlikely existence of sufficient sources of
sugar to initiate the process. The sugars which one might
expect to be found among Neolithic populations and their
corresponding fermented drinks would comprise glucose from
honey which would yield mead, fructose from fruits to
produce wine, maltose from sprouted grain to yield beer and
lactose from milk which could make kumiss. Of these, Sherratt
suspects that mead was the earliest alcoholic drink produced
in Europe since honey at least contained sufficient sugars and
it has been circumstantially recovered in the form of
presumably honey-associated pollen in a vessel of a Beaker
burial c 2000 BC. Sherratt argues that the fruits of the
Neolithic, including the wild vine, would have had insufficient
sugar to have initiated fermentation (this assumption,
however, this been contradicted by the recent discovery of
the residue of wine from a Neolithic site in Iran dating to c
5400-5000 BC). An alternative method of fermentation, not
requiring the boiling of a mash, involves the chewing of grain,
for example, whereby fermentation is aided by pyalin, an
enzyme in saliva. This technique is known in various parts of
the world, e.g., Polynesia to make kaya beer and is also
recorded in Finland. The lexical evidence, however, does not
suggest this particular semantic scope for any of the words
for fermentation.
The appearance of alcoholic beverages in Europe are usually
dated to c 3500-3000 BC with the appearance of distinctive
sets of drinking vessels in the Ezero, Baden, Corded Ware
and Beaker cultures which have been tentatively associated
with the consumption of mead.
See also Beer; Boil; Cook; Honey; Juice; Pot;
Sacred Drink; Wine. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
Further Readings
McGovern, P E. et al. (1996) Neolithic resinated wine. Nature 381,
480-481.
Sherratt, A. (1987) Cups that cheered, in Bell Beakers of the Western
Mediterranean , eds. W Waldren, R. Kennard, Oxford, BAR
International Ser, 81-106.
FEW
*pau- ‘little, few’. [IEW 842 ( *pdu -); Wat 47 ( *pau~) ] . From
*pauos: Lat pauper ‘poor’ (< *pau-paro- ‘acquiring little’),
ON Far ‘little; taciturn’, OE fea ~ feawe ~ feawa ‘little, few’ (>
NE few), OHG fd ‘little, few’, Goth (pi.) fawai ‘few’; from
*paukos: Lat paucus ‘little’, OHG fdh ‘few’; from *pauros:
Lat parvus ‘small’, Grk Kavpoq ‘little’. At least a word of the
west and center of the IE world.
[D.Q.A.l
FIELD
*h a 6rh3U[~ *h a 6rh3Uos l field’. [7EW63 (*ar(a.)y-); cf. Wat
3 ( *ar9-)\ GI 594; Buck 8.12]. Olr arbor {Dll arbar) ‘grain’,
Weis erw'field’, Lat arvus ‘plowed’, arvum ‘plowed field’, Myc
a-ro-u-ra ‘field, arable land’, Grk apovpa field’, Arm
haravunk ‘ ‘field’. Av urvara- ‘plant’, OInd urvara- ‘fertile soil,
field yielding crop’ are often, probably rightly, included within
this group. They reflect a Proto-Indo-lranian *ur\ r ara- whose
phonological development, whether from *h a [h3uereh a - or
*h a erh3iiereh a -, is somewhat irregular. From *h a erh3~ plow’,
thus originally ‘plowed field’. At the very least late PIE in date
in the west and center of the IE world.
*h a egros field, pasture’. [IEW 6 ( *ag-ro-s)\ Wat 1
( *agro-)\ Gl 600 ( *Hak'ro-)\ Buck 8.12; BK 396 (*hak'-/
*hak’-)]. Lat ager ‘field’, ON akr ‘field’, OE aecer ‘field’ (> NE
acre), OHG ackar ‘field’, Goth akrs ‘field’, Grk ccypog ‘field’,
Arm art ‘field’, OInd ajra- ‘plain’. Widespread and old in IE.
A derivative of *h2eg- ‘drive (cattle)’ and thus originally
‘pasture’.
*lendh- ~ *londh- ‘open land, waste’. [IEW 675
( *lendh- ); BK 586 ( *lamd-/*hmd-)[ . Olr lann open land’,
MWels llan ‘area’, ON land ‘land’, OE land land’ (> NE land),
OHG /and and’, Goth land ‘land’, OPrus lindan ‘valley’, OCS
ljadina ‘weeds, shrubs’, Rus Ijada ‘overgrown field’. Cf. ON
lundr ‘grove’, Swed linda ‘fallow land’. A late word in IE, found
in the west and center.
*polk£h a - ‘± fallow land’. | IEW 807 ( *polka)[ . Gaul olca
‘fallow land’, OE fealh ‘fallow land’ (> NE fallow), MLG falge
‘fallow land’, OCS plasa ‘strip of arable land’, Rus polosa ‘strip
of arable land’. A technical agricultural term found in the
northwest of the IE world.
*Kapos ~ kap£h a - (or *Keh a pos ~ *Keh a p6h a - r ) piece of
land, garden’. [IEW 529 {*kap-)\ Buck 8.13; Bailey 355]. OHG
huoba ‘piece of land’, Grk Krjnog, (Doric Kanoq) ‘garden’,
Pashto sabah ‘grass, vegetables’ (< *‘that l produced] of a
garden’), Roshani sepc ‘cultivated field’, Shughni sapc
‘cultivated field’ (< Proto-Iranian *sapacl-). Alb kopsht ‘garden’
presumably represents an early borrowing from Greek; an
inherited *kapos should have given Alb *thop-. Widespread
and old in IE.
*pdh x iueh a - ‘open meadow’. [IEW 793 ( *poiua)\ BK 52
(*p[ h ]ah-/*p[ h Jah-)\. Lith pieva ‘meadow’, Grk Koa 'grass;
grassy place’. At least a late PIE word in the central part of the
IE world. Perhaps related to *peh2- ‘nourish, herd, cause to
graze’.
?*yelsu- ‘meadow, pasture’. [IEW 1 1.39-1 140 ( *uel-)\ GI
723 ( *wel-)\ BK 612 (*wal y -/*wdl y -) |. ORus Volosd a pagan
god, probably the protector of cattle (and thus possibly the
personified pasture), Grk rjAucnog'Elysian’ (if < *uelsu-tio-),
Hit wellu- ‘meadow’. All of these may reflect a PIE *uelsu- (in
each case there are other possible, and mutually incompatible,
phonological antecedents). If so, we have good evidence for
an ancient PIE word for ‘meadow, pasture’. ON vpllr ‘meadow,
uncultivated land’ has also been put here but phonologically
it reflects the same Proto-Gmc *waljau- ‘forest, uncultivated
— 200 —
FINCH
waste’ seen in OHG wald ‘forest’ and OE weald ‘forest’ (> NE
weald and wold, both of which refer to non-forested terrain).
J. Puhvel has suggested that the *uel- of *uelsu- is basically
the same as *uel- ‘die’ and that we have, then, etymological
evidence for the existence of the concept ‘meadow of the
otherworld’ or the like in PIE. Such a conclusion seems most
speculative and the two words are probably best kept apart.
The words for ‘field’, particularly *h a egros, have long been
cited to illustrate the economic dichotomy between the
European and the Asian or eastern IE stocks where the former
shows consistently a series of cognates for agriculture, includ-
ing ‘cultivated field’ while the latter either lacks any cognate
or, as is the case with *h a egros, shares the form but does not
denote a field employed in agriculture. However, the
recognition that a PIE word for ‘garden’, *k apos ~ kapeh a -,
survives in Iranian greatly reduces the apparent dichotomy
between the European and Asian branches of IE.
See a iso Agriculture; Death Beliefs; Drive; Grass; Plow.
[D.Q.A.J
Further Reading
Puhvel, J. (1969) “Meadow of the Otherword” in Indo-European
tradition. KZ 83, 64-69.
FIGHT
*hgeg- ‘fight’ < * ‘combative activity’. [IEW 4 ( *ag-)\ Wat 1
( *ag-)\ Buck 20.12]. Mir ag(< *agu- ) ‘fight; warrior’s ardor’,
Av azi- ‘avidity, greed’ (pasani az- ‘engage in a contest’), NPers
az ‘avidity, greed’, Olnd ajl- ‘race, fight’, (ajlm aj- ‘put on a
contest’, pftanaj- ‘engage in a contest’), TochB ak ‘zeal’.
Independently derived but ultimately the same meaning is
Grk dycov ‘fight, contest’. The Greek word originally meant
‘assembly, gathering’, e.g., Homeric (Iliad 7.298) dycbvioi Oeot
‘assembled (statues of the city’s) deities’. It became specialized
into gathering for games, hence ‘competition, fight’. From
*h a eg- ‘drive, push’ where its original sense may have been
‘activity’ or ‘drive’ (in the NE sense) which then became
specialized to ‘combative activity’.
*iudh- ‘moved, stirred up; fight’. [IEW 511 ( *ieu-dh-)\
Wat 79 ( *yeudh-)\ Buck 20. 1 1 , 20. 12] . OWels Jud- ‘fight’ (in
personal names), Lat iubed ‘order, command’, Lith judu ‘move,
stir’, Pol judzic ‘incite’, Grk ixjptvr] ‘battle’, Av yuidyeiti ‘fights’ ,
Olnd yudhyati ‘fights’, TochA/utic- ‘be anxious’. Distribution
indicates PIE status.
*katu- ‘fight’. [IEW 534 (*kat-), Wat 27 (*katu-)\ Buck
19.52, 20.12], OIr cath ‘battle’, Weis cad ‘battle’, ON h<?d
‘fight’, OE headu- ‘fight’, OHG hadu- ‘fight’, OCS kotora ‘fight’,
Rus kotora ‘strife, fight’. The Slavic k- (?borrowed from a
centum language) is, of course, not compatible with Olnd
satru- ‘enemy’, which is sometimes placed here and whose
meaning is not so obviously connected. This word appears to
be a northwestern term in IE and is widely represented in
personal names in Celtic, e g., Gaul Catu-rix ‘battle-king’, and
Germanic, e g., Hadu-nh ‘battle-king’ (cf. also ON [Runic]
HaduIaikaR, OE Headulac, OHG Hadubrant). Attempts to
relate this word to Goth hepjo ‘chamber’, Av kata ‘house’,
i.e., a fenced-off area in which one fought a duel, are hardly
plausible.
*\teik- ‘fight’. [IEW 1128-1 129 ( *ueik-)\ Wat 75
( *weik-)\ G1 369; Buck 20.11], Olr fichid 'fights’, ficht ‘military
expedition’, OWels guith ‘anger’ (these two Celtic
< *uikteh a -), Lat vinco ‘defeat’, Osc vmc ter 1 is convicted’, ON
vega ‘fight’, vig ‘strife, war, battle’, OE gewegan ‘fight’, wigan
‘fight’, wig ‘strife, war, battle’, wigend ‘warrior’, OHG wlhan
~ wigan ‘fight’, wig ~ wic ‘strife, war, battle’, wigant ‘warrior’,
Goth weihan ‘fight’, Lith apveikiu ‘defeat’, Latv veikt ‘make
straight’, OCS vekQ ‘force’, Rus vek ‘force’. It has been
suggested that this word is associated with the root *y eik-
‘separate’ > *uoiko/eh a - ‘life force’ (ON veig ‘strength’, Lith
viekas ‘life force’) with its sacral connotations as the terms for
combat might allegedly have since the gods determine the
issue of the fight, e g., ON vapnaddmr ‘judgement by arms’ >
‘fight’. On the other hand, *ueik- ‘separate (from the profane)’
> ‘consecrate’ may be a more logical development and hence
the two roots should probably be kept distinct. The distribu-
tion suggests a northwestern term in IE.
*nant- (noun) ‘combat, fight’. [IEW 7 55 (*nant-)\ Olr neit
(< *nanti- ) ‘battle, combat’, ON nenna ‘to strive’, Goth ana -
nanpjan ‘to take courage’. The Germanic forms appear to be
denominatives. Tocharian forms, i.e., TochA nati ‘might,
strength’ and TochB nete ‘might, strength’ are sometimes
attributed to this root but as the second PIE *-n- should not
have disappeared, they should be excluded. The distribution
of the forms suggests a late northwestern dialectal status.
See also Army; Contend; Drive; Warfare; Warriors. [E C. PI
FILL
*pelh 1 -‘ fill’. [IEW 798-800 ( *pel-)\ Wat 48 (*peb-)\ cf.
GI 190 (*p h ip h (o)lH-), Buck 13.21; BK 54 ( *pl b Jal -/
*p[ h ]dl-)}. Olr linaid ‘fills’, Lat pled ‘fill’, Grk nifaK/tryai ‘fill’,
Arm helum ‘pour’, Av par- ‘fill’, Olnd piparti ‘fills’. Both Greek
and Old Indie show a reduplicated present; the Old Irish
form may be a nasal-infix present or be based on an adjective,
e.g., Lat plenus'fuU’. Distribution indicates PIE status.
See also Abundant; Draw (water); Pour; Satisfy. [M.N .]
FINCH
*(s)pingos ‘finch, especially the chaffinch’. [IEW 999
(*(s)pingo-)\ Wat 64 ( *sping-)\ GI 459-460 ( *(s)pink'o-)\ .
OE fine ‘finch’ (> NE finch), OHG fincho ‘finch’, Grk oTriyyoi;
‘finch’, perhaps Olnd phingaka- ‘shrike’. The Germanic and
Greek terms refer precisely to the ‘chaffinch ( Fnngilla caelebs)'.
Arm sarekik 1 finch’ derives from the polyvalent *kVr- root. A
common Old Indie term for ‘finch’ kukinga- has no relation
to any other bird name, and Lat frmgilla is suspiciously close
to the Germanic and Greek forms and suggests onomatopoeia.
Finches form a greatly varied family of variegated birds,
and there is little doubt that terms for finch were used
indiscriminately for any such small and bnghtly colored bird.
See also Birds. 1J.A.C.G.}
— 201
FIND
FIND
*yer- ‘find, take’. \IEW 1160 (*uer-); Wat 77 ( *wer 9 -);
Buck 11.32]. OIr -fuar (DIL frith ) (< *ue-yr-) ‘found’, Grk
evpicKco ‘find, discover’, Arm gerem ‘take prisoner’. Balto-
Slavic shows an extended *uret- ( *ureh\t-l ) in Lith su-resti
‘catch’, OCS su-resti ‘find, meet’, ob-resti ‘find’. A word of the
west and center of the IE world.
See also Find One’s Way; Know; Seek. [M.N.]
FIND ONE’S WAY
*pent- ‘find one’s way’ (pres. *p6nte/o-). [IEW 808-809
( *pent-)\ Wat 49 ( *pent-)\ Buck 10.74] . The underlying verb
is preserved only in Germanic: ON finna ‘find’, OE findan
‘find’ (> NE find), OHG findan ~ fintan ‘find’, Goth finpan
‘recognize, learn’, OE fandian ‘explore, seek out’, OHG fandon
‘explore, seek out’; OE fundian ‘strive, hasten’, OHG funden
‘strive, hasten’. Widespread and old is the derivative *pdntdh 2 S
(gen. *ppth 2 ds ) ‘untraced path’: Lat pons ‘bridge’, OPrus pintis
‘way’, OCS ppfCway’, Grk Jtovxoq ‘sea’ (< *‘path through the
sea’), Ttdroq ‘path, stride’, nare(o ‘step’, Arm hun ‘ford’, Av
pantS (gen. pa 6 d) ‘path’ (from Iranian come OE paep ‘path’ [>
NE path], OHG pfad ‘path’), Olnd panthas (gen. pathas ) ‘path
(as yet untraveled), route’, TochB amaks-pante ‘wagon-master’
(-pante’ < *ppth 2 -o- ‘he of the way’).
See also Find; Road. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Benveniste, E. (1954) Semantic problems in reconstruction. Word
10, 252-264.
FINGER see HAND
FIR
*dhonu- fir’ (nom. *dhdnou7). [7EW234 ( *dhanu-)\ Buck
8.65; Fried 150-151; BK 141 (*^an-w-)]. OHG tanna (<
*dhonuon-) ‘fir’, Hit tanau ‘fir’. Though supported by only
two stocks, this equation is semantically, phonologically, and
morphologically perfectly regular (Germanic, of course, has
hosts of nouns that have been extended by one sort of an n-
stem or another). The probability of PIE status for this word,
already strong, is even stronger if Av Oanwara (gen. Oanwano)
(with initial influenced by Oang- ‘pull’) ‘bow’, Olnd dhanus
(< *dhanur, gen. dhanvanas ) ‘bow’ is added to the equation.
The Indo-Iranian forms reflect an earlier *dhenuf (gen.
*dhenuenos ) ‘bow’ (granted that the use of fir [saplings] for
bows seems unlikely and needs to be researched; there is some
archaeological evidence for pine in the manufacture of
European prehistoric bows). Exactly the same word, with the
same archaic paradigm, reappears in Lat femur ( gen. feminis )
‘thigh’. In Latin the PIE cluster *-ny- appears as -m-. The
semantic relationship between ‘thigh’ and ‘bow’ is seen again
in Grk okeXoc, ‘thigh’ and cncoXioq ‘bent’.
*h a ebi- fir’. [Fried 150], Lat abies (gen. abietis ) ‘silver fir
( Abies pectinataf, Grk (Hesychius) dpiq ‘fir’. The status of
the form in. Hesychius is debatable as it might be Greek,
Illyrian or some other language, words of which might find
themselves in a Greek text (if the word is not Greek but
Illyrian, we are free to reconstruct *h a ebhi-). In later Greek a
Scythian place-name ’APucff, a district on the Borysthenes, is
glossed as ‘the wooded/wild (place)’. This words occurrence
in Latin, Illyrian (or Greek), and Iranian would appear to be
presumptive evidence of its PIE status.
The distribution of the fir (Abies) is primarily southerly
and pollen indicators suggest that c 3000 BC it was to be
found from northern Spain/southem France across central
Europe and the Mediterranean (it is a dominant tree of
Anatolia) to northwest of the Black Sea and the north Caucasus
and then across Siberia.
See also Pine, Trees. [D.Q.A.]
FIRE
*hxehxti ‘fire’. [IEW 69 (*at(e)r-); Wat 4 (*ater-); cf. GI
690; Buck 1.81]. Lat ater ‘black, dark’, perhaps Arm ayrem
‘bum’, Av atars (gen. adro) ‘fire’. Perhaps also OIr aith ‘furnace’,
Weis odyn (< *ati - ) ‘furnace’ and Palaic ha- ‘be hot' derive
from the same root. Although sometimes cited as cognate SC
vatra ‘fire’ may be a loan from Romanian vafra which may in
turn be from Alb votre, possibly all three of these are loans
from Iranian. Av *atps, acc. atram ( *atfm ) points to an old
neuter in -r. In *hxeh x t- at least one laryngeal was h 2 , perhaps
both, i.e., reduplication. The Olnd atharvan- priest’ may be
unrelated. Geographic distribution of the few certain cognates
still supports PIE antiquity.
*h x Qg w nis fire’. [IEW 293 ( *egnis)\ Wat 16 (*egni-)\ GI
605 ( *nk’ni-)\ Buck 1.81], Lat ignis ‘fire’, Lith ugnis ‘fire’,
Latv uguns ‘fire’, OCS ognl ‘fire’, Rus ogonl ‘fire’, Olnd agnf-
‘fire’. Certain PIE status.
*p 6 h 2 UT fire’. [IEW 828 ( *peuor)\ Wat 53 ( *pur-)\ Buck
1.81; BK 43 (*p[ h ]a-w-/*p[ h ja-w-)[. Umb pir' fire’, ON fyrr ,
furr, funi ‘fire’, OE fyr ‘fire’ (> NE fire), OHG 7/ur‘fire’, Goth
fon, funins (< *pudn) ‘fire’, OPrus panno (< *puon- ?) ‘fire’,
Czech pyr ‘ashes’, Grk nx>p‘ fire’, Arm hur (gen. hroy) ‘fire’,
hnoc‘ l oven’, Hit pahhur, (gen. pahwenas) ‘fire’, TochA por
‘fire’, TochB puwar ‘fire’. Clearly of PIE status. The original
paradigm was *peh 2 ur , *ph 2 uen-s. The secondary zero-grade
*ph 2 ur- > *puh 2 r- through metathesis. There were several
reshufflings, e.g., gen. *ph 2 U-n-es> *punes in Germanic.
The two main competing terms, *h x ng w nis and *peh 2 Uf,
both mean ‘fire’ but have been seen to have originally
constituted an opposition. The first word, regularly masculine
in gender, is seen to represent the concept of ‘fire’ as something
active, hence its deification in Olnd Agni- ‘fire (god)' who is
one of the most invoked deities of the §gveda. In contrast,
*peh 2 ur is neuter in gender and traditionally regarded as the
inactive conception of ‘fire’ as purely a material substance.
See also Ash 2 , Burn; Charcoal; Dry; Fire Cult;
Fire in Water; Hearth. [R.S.PB ]
FIRE CULT
The use of fire in religious ritual is so universal that it is
202
FIRE IN WATER
hardly unexpected that there is considerable evidence for its
employment among the early Indo-Europeans although the
lexical evidence for its deification is minimal. Central to
sacrifice in ancient India was the offering made to the gods
and dispatched by fire which was deified as Agni (fire) who,
consequently, conveyed human offerings to the gods and was
the second most frequent recipient of hymns in the Rgveda.
The elaborate structure of the Old Indie fire sacrifice, the
Agnicayana, although extensively described in Indie religious
literature, is difficult to integrate into a comparative IE
framework as it appears to combine both native Indie
(Harappan?) traditions, e g., it may involve a massive brick
altar constructed along precise geometric plans, and intrusive
Indo- Aryan elements, e.g., fire cult, employment of only hand-
made rather than wheel-made pottery. Furthermore, despite
Agni’s transparent IE etymology, further outcomes of PIE
*h x ng w nis ‘fire’ such as Lat ignis or Lith ugnis lack such
deification and even ancient Iran, which placed great emphasis
on fire-worship, replaced this word with Atar. An underlying
lexical comparison may be more easily found in the names of
the Greek and Roman goddesses associated with fire where
Greek '. EgtiG ( Hestia ) and Latin Vesta may both derive from
*hiu-es - (a byform of *hieus ‘bum’).
Reflections of the IE three “estates” can be found in the
lore of the sacred fires of Iran where in Firdausi’s Shahnameh
(Epic of the Kings), there were instituted the three great sacred
fires: Atur Farnbag (priestly fire), Atur Gushnasp (warriors’
fire), and Atur Bazzen Mihr( the third estate fire).
The most interesting comparisons that may hint at a
common core of IE behavior is to be found in the ritual
treatment of fire of the ancient Indians and Romans. Vedic
India employed three fires, two axial on an east- west line and
one lateral. One of the axial fires was the garhapatya ‘fire of
the gfhapati (master of the house)’. It was the principal fire
from which the others were lit and it was round in shape. As
the familial sacred fire, it was expected to be constantly
maintained and passed from father to son. The other axial
fire was the ahavaniya ‘fire of the offerings’, the fire of the
sacrifice made to the gods. It was quadrangular and oriented
to the four cardinal directions. The third, lateral fire was the
daksinagni ‘fire of the right/south’ which served to protect
the other fires from attack from the dangerous side; it was
semi-circular.
The ancient Romans also maintained distinctions between
the fire of the household and offering fires as well as recognized
distinctions in the shape of the hearth or fire. Their greatest
fire was the aedes Vestae or ignis Vestae, the uniquely round
fire tended by Vestal Virgins that must always have been kept
burning and if extinguished, it was required to be relit
according to a specific ritual not involving another fire. This
fire was housed in the Aedes rotunda Vestae (round house of
the Vestals), the only circular temple in Rome (cf. also the
sacred fire of the Greeks, associated with the goddess Hestia,
which was kept in the prytaneum , a circular building). The
Romans also maintained the distinction between the fire of
the master of the house (a foculus, a portable hearth, brought
to the site as a representative of the domestic fire as its purpose
was to receive incense and the wine, associated with domestic
worship) and the fire of the offerings in a rectangular temple.
The underlying purpose of the different shapes was shared
by both the Vedic Indians and Romans: the square fire or the
temple in which it was housed concerned the celestial world
and had to be ordered to the four directions of the sky while
the round fire was earth-centered from which it drew its
power.
Archaeological evidence from the Bronze Age cemetery at
Tulkhar in south Tadzhikistan, which was presumably utilized
by Indo-Iranians, found rectangular hearths associated with
male burials and round hearths with female, suggesting that
the shape of the fire may also have had a sexual valency, which
might also serve to explain the connection between females
and the circular fire in later Roman religion. Evidence for
hearths, ritual fires and ash pits, associated with both
structures (houses, palaces, temples) and graves is ubiquitous
across Eurasia.
A further item of IE comparanda is the tendency to invoke
the fire deity at the beginning or end (or both) of a litany of
gods or an offering, e.g., in invocations to multiple gods in
the Rgveda , Agni is usually invoked at one end or the other;
in Iran, fire occurs at the end of the list of archangels; and in
Rome, Vesta is at the end of every invocation that involves
more than one divinity.
Elsewhere in the IE world, there is evidence for sacred
fires although without the stnking comparative evidence seen
between India and Italy. Irish sources, for example, emphasize
the close relationship between the druid and fire, especially
the establishment of the ritual fires at the feast of Beltaine
(‘the fire of Bel[enus]’, a surname of Lug), which was held on
the first of May. And in the Baltic world, fifteenth century
Lithuanians were accused of worshipping a fire dedicated to
Perkunas which was tended by virgins who would be executed
if it went out.
See also Bishkent Culture; Fire; Fire in Water; Hearth
U PM ]
Further Readings
Dumezil, G. (1970) Archaic Roman Religion. Chicago, University
of Chicago, 311-326
Maringer, J. (1976) Fire in prehistoric Indo-European Europe. JIES
4, 161-186.
Thapar, R. (1983) The archaeological background to the Agnicayana
ritual, in Agni: The Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar , vol. 2, ed E
Staal, Berkeley, Asian Humanities Press, 3-40.
FIRE IN WATER
?*neptonos ~ *h 2 epdm nepdts ‘grandson/nephew of
waters’. [GI 582-583; Del 74; BK 573 ( *rfipl h l-/*rVep[ h l-)\.
OIr Nechtan (guardian of well), Lat Neptunus (sea-god), Av
Appm Napat , OInd Ap&m Napat. Possibly related here,
mythically if not lexically, is ON soevarnidr' son of the sea’, a
— 203
FIRE IN WATER
kenning (by- word) for ‘fire’.
A number of scholars reconstruct a PIE myth of “fire in
water” based on both the lexical correspondences reflecting a
‘grandson/nephew of waters’ and recurrent mythic elements.
The proposed Celtic reflex derives from early Irish tradition
where Nechtan is possessor of a secret well which may be
approached only by three cupbearers and himself; the
mysterious fire in the water bums out the eyes of anyone else
who approaches it. Nechtan’s wife, Boand (who lends her
name to the river Boyne), attempts to draw water from the
well, walking withershins about it three times and incurring
three mutilations — the loss of her thigh, a hand and an eye —
before being pursued to the sea and drowned by the water
from the well. The path of her retreat marks the course of the
river Boyne.
The Latin reflex, Neptunus , concerns the Lacus Albanus,
the Alban lake, a lake within a deep crater that was supplied
by underwater springs. Inexplicably during the dry season,
at the time of the rising of Syrius (23 July, the time of the
Roman festival of the Neptunalia) the lake rose to overflow
through the mountains and began running toward the sea.
The Romans learned from the Oracle of Delphi and an
Etruscan soothsayer that if the waters reached the sea, their
enemies in the town of Veii would be undefeatable. The
Romans managed to change the course of the overflow so
that it watered the fields rather than reached the sea. The
account in Livy describes how the water ( aquam ) needed to
be ‘extinguished’ ( extinguere ), a verb that generally meant
‘put out a fire’ at the time of Livy.
The proposed reflex in Indo-lranian tradition is most clearly
found in the Avesta ( Yast 19). Here one encounters the
xvaranah, the fiery essence of kingship, which the god Appm
Napat places in Lake Vourukasa for safe-keeping. Only a
member of the airy a (Aryan) may gain the xvaranah and the
tale recounts how a non-Aryan Franrasyan dived into the lake
three times to recover the reward while the xvannah fled,
producing overflows from the lake which formed a series of
rivers. The Indie reflex is devoid of narrative myth but there
are enough descriptive elements to indicate that Appm Napat
was both fiery (it is employed as a nickname of the fire god
Agni) but also dwelt in waters, burnt without fuel, and had
to be approached by priestly water-bearers.
Structurally, a possible Greek version of the myth has been
sought in the figure of Poseidon whose name may possibly
be etymologized as ‘husband/lord of waters’, i.e., < *da-
‘flowing water’, Iran danu ‘river’, etc. It is related (Apollodorus
11, 14, etc.) how Danaus sent his daughter Amymone in
search of water when she was accosted by a satyr who was
driven off by Poseidon who hurled his trident which lodged
in the earth. Instructed to pull the trident out, Amymone
released three springs from each of the holes which
commingled to form the Lerna river.
The structure of the reconstructed myth then points to a
fiery deity resident in water whose powers must be ritually
controlled or gained by a figure qualified to approach it.
Several of the myths suggest that the unsuccessful approach
to the deity resulted in the formation of (three) rivers, real or
mythical.
Whether the structural comparisons are necessarily well
supported by the lexical evidence has been disputed. E Bader
has suggested that the Latin reflex, Neptunus , was originally
‘god of springs and rivers’ and has related his name not to the
kinship term but rather Av napta- ‘wet’. It has also been noted
that there is an Umb nepitu ‘submerged (in a river)’ and an
Etruscan nepuns(< *nep- ‘wet’). Critics of the Celtic evidence
derive Olr Nechtan from OIr necht ‘pure, clean, white’, a
word related to OInd nikta- ‘washed’. If the Celtic and Latin
objections are upheld, the postulated PIE *neptonos would
seem to be excluded, at least in terms of its proposed lexical
cognates, and the only comparisons remaining would be
confined to Indo-lranian.
See also Fire; Fire Cult. [E.C.P, J.PM.]
Further Readings
Bader, E (1986) An IE myth of immersion/emergence. JIES 14: 39-
124.
Dumezil, G. (1962) Le puits de Nechtan. Celtica 6: 50-61.
Dumezil, G. (1973) La saison des rivieres, in My the et epopee 3,
Paris, Gallimard, 18-89.
Ford, P K. (1974) The well of Nechtan and ‘la gloire lumineuse’, in
Myth in Indo-European Antiquity, eds. G. J. Larson, J. Puhvel
and C. Scott Littleton, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of
California, 67-74.
Littleton, C. S. (1973) Poseidon as a reflex of the Indo-European
‘source of waters’ god JIES 1: 423-440.
Puhvel, J. (1973) Aquam extinguere. JIES 1, 379-386.
Puhvel, J. (1987) Fire in water, in Comparative Mythology. Baltimore,
Johns Hopkins University, 277-283.
FIRM
?*pastos firm’. [IEW 789 ( *pasto-)\ Wat 47 ( *past-)\ G1
648]. ON fastr ‘fast’, OE faest ‘fast’ (> NE fast), OHG festi ,
fasto ‘fast, strong’, Arm hast ‘firm’; possibly Olnd pastyam
‘habitation’. Far less likely cognates are Lat postis ‘door post’
and TochB epastye ‘skillful, clever’. The weakness of the
proposed evidence, outside of Germanic and Armenian, hardly
leaves this word as a strong candidate for PIE status.
See also Post. [JCS-1
FISH
The words Proto-Indo-European-speakers used to
designate the various fish they were familiar with are harder
to reconstruct than words for mammals. In part this difficulty
arises because unless one is primarily a coastal dweller fish of
any sort are a less salient portion of the environment than
mammals are — they are ordinarily invisible and usually less
important economically. Fewer members of the society are
likely to have “specialized” knowledge of the relevant
vocabulary and thus it may be easier for an individual item to
be lost or to be transferred to a different referent. As a case in
— 204 —
FLAT
point we may note that the descendants of *ghersos in two
so closely allied languages as Norwegian and Swedish refer
to two quite different (‘pikeperch’ and ‘ruff’ respectively) and
perceptually distinct species (indeed genera) of fish. Our
difficulty is compounded by the fact that the types of fish
found in central, northern, or eastern Europe, the most
plausible places to look for early IE communities, are much
more localized in their geographical distribution than are the
corresponding mammals. IE groups moving into western
Europe, the Mediterranean basin or Central Asia would have
moved into areas with a generally different assortment of fish
or into areas where fresh water fish (the Mediterranean basin)
or fish of any sort (Central Asia) are few in number. Moreover,
we know absolutely nothing about the words for ‘fish’ or
various types of fish in Anatolian. Thus, even if PIE were rich
in its fish terminology, we would expect that Celtic, Italic,
Greek, Armenian, Iranian, Indie, and Tocharian would have
lost, or at best reassigned, many of the inherited words
referring to fish as they moved into their new environments.
IE groups that we would expect to preserve the original fish
terminology would be Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic, three
geographically contiguous groups which are known to share
a sizable number of innovations in other areas of vocabulary
that are not general, pan-IE words. It is sobering to recall that
even in the Uralic family, whose ancestors are believed to have
practised a primarily hunting-fishing-gathering economy,
there are only four, perhaps five, solidly attested names for
different species of fish in Proto-Uralic, i.e., *totka ‘tench
( Tinea tinea )' , *unca ‘sheatfish ( Stenodus leucichthys )' ,
*sampe ‘sturgeon (Acipenser baeri/guldenstadti/sturio )' , *kare
‘sterlet ( Acipenser ruthenus)' and perhaps *key- ‘little
whitefish ( Coregonus lavaretus)'. In the following list of items
are general terms for fish and those words where it is difficult
to assign an original meaning at the level of species or even
genera. More specific designations are to be found as separate
entries.
*dhghuhx- fish’. [IEW 416-417 ( *ghdQ -); Wat 14
( *dhghu-l ; GI 453 {*d h g^u-)\ Buck 3.65; BK 80 (*dig-/
*deg-)]. OPrus suckis ‘fish’, Lith zuvis (dialectal consonant
stem gen. pi. zuvp) ‘fish’, Latv zuvs ~ zivs ‘fish’, Grk iyOvg
‘fish’, Arm jukn ‘fish’. Cf. Latv zutis ‘eel’. Attested only in a
broad band of central IE languages, its archaic shape, both
phonological and morphological, as well as its probable lack
of any root connections within PIE (although GI see it as a
derivative of *dhegh- ‘earth’, i.e., the ‘underground’ or ‘lower’
animal), suggest that this may well have been the PIE word
for ‘fish’ which has been replaced, particularly in the west of
the IE world, by the word for ‘trout’.
*mjjhx- ± minnow; small fish’. [IEW 731 ( *m e ni-)\ Wat
41 (*men-i-)\. OE myne ‘minnow ( phoxinus phoxinus and
similar small cyprinidae)’ (> ME meneu > NE minnow ), OHG
muniwa ‘minnow’, Rus men! ‘burbot ( Lota lota )’, Grk paivri
‘ Maena vulgaris (a small sprat-like fish which was salted)’,
and perhaps OInd mlna- ‘fish’. But the Old Indie word is not
to be separated from a rich collection of similar words in the
Dravidian languages. Whether the Indie word is borrowed
from Dravidian or vice versa is not easily determined but a
Dravidian origin for min ‘fish’ is certainly the more probable
as the ‘fish’ sign, phonetically min , is one of the most plausible
readings for the Indus Valley inscriptions which are widely
although not universally attributed to early Dravidian
speakers. Even if inherited from PIE, it is possible the Indie
word was phonologically influenced by the similar word in
Dravidian. Possibly also belonging here are Lith menke
‘codfish (Gadus morrhua)' , Latv mence ‘codfish’. From *men-
‘small, thin’. At least a word of the west and center of the IE
world; if the Old Indie word is cognate, then we have evidence
for pan- IE status.
?*k dnkus a kind of fish. [IEW 523 (*kank-)\. ON har (<
Proto-Gmc *hanhu -) ‘shark’,. OInd sahku- a certain kind of
aquatic animal or fish, perhaps ‘skate-fish’, sakula- a kind of
fish. Not all authorities would agree that the Indie and Old
Norse words are related; in any case, it is not possible to
reconstruct a more specific meaning. Of doubtful PIE status.
*krek- ‘fish-eggs, frog-spawn’. [7EW619 ( *krek-)\ Wat 32
( *krek -)J. ON hrogn ‘roe’ (borrowed > NE roe), hrygna (<
Proto-Gmc *hrugnjon ) ‘female salmon or trout’, OHG (h)rogo
~ (h)rogan ‘roe’, Lith (pi.) kurkulai ‘frog spawn’, Latv (pi.)
kurkulis ‘frog spawn’, Rus krjak (< Proto-Slavic *kreku or
*7crp7ci3) ‘frog spawn’. Clearly all these words share a single
root, though no particular PIE shape is reconstructible. A word
of the northwest of the IE world.
See also Animal, Carp, Eel; Leech, Perch; Salmon,
Sheatfish, Sturgeon; Tench; Trout. {D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Mallory, J. P (1983) Proto-Indo-European and Kurgan fauna II: Fish.
JIES 11, 263-280.
Napolskikh, V. (1993) Uralic fish-names and original home. Ural-
Altaische Jahrbucher 12, 35-57.
FIST see HAND
FLAT
*pelhak- ‘spread out flat’. [7EW831 ( *pla-k-)\ Wat 48-49
(*peh-)\ GI 581 (*p b el-), Buck 12.71 ; BK 49 ( *p[ h Jal -/
*p[ b ]9l-)]. Lat placed ‘please, be acceptable to’, placo ‘soothe,
calm’, ON fla ‘chunk of a cliff-face’, OE floh ‘flagstone’, OHG
fluoh ‘cliff’, Lith plakanas ‘flat’, Latv place ‘shoulder blade’,
Grk ‘flat surface’, neXayog (< *pelhag-) ‘sea’, TochAB
plak- ‘be in agreement’ (< *‘be level, even’). The root, which
is widely spread and clearly of PIE status, also appears with a
variety of other extensions, eg., *pel-to-m > OE /e7c/‘flatland,
field’ (> NE field), *pleh a -ru- > OE flor ‘floor’ (> NE floor),
*pleh a nos [IEW 806 ( *peh-)\ Wat 48-49 (*peh-)\ GI 683
( *p h (e)l-H-)\ Buck 12.71; BK 48 ( *p[ b ]al-/*p[ b ]?!-)[ : Lat
planus ‘flat, even, plain’, OPrus plonis ‘threshing floor’, Lith
plonas ‘thin’, Latv plans ‘flat’. Numerous Gaulish place and
personal names ending in -lano have been connected here,
most notably Medio-lanum ‘Milan’, but this is uncertain and
— 205
FLAT
some presume a homophonous name element related to the
meaning ‘full’, cf. OIr lan , etc.; cf. also *plh a -meh a > Lat palma
(< *palama ) ‘palm’.
See also Broad; Country. [A.D.V., J.C.S.l
FLAX
*linom (central) ~ *Unom (western) ‘flax ( Linum usitatissi-
mum)\ [7EW691 ( *li-no-)\ Wat 37 ( *lino-)\ GI 568 (*lino-)\
Buck 6.231 ■ Olr lln ‘net’, Weis llin ‘flax, linen’, Lat linum ‘flax,
linen’, OPrus lynno ‘flax’, Lith linas (sg.) ‘flax plant’, (pi.) linai
‘flax, linen’, Latv (pi.) lini ‘flax’, OCS llnenu ‘linen’, Rus len
‘linen’, Grk Xivov ‘flax, thread; linen’. The Germanic set of
OE lln ‘linen; flax’, (adj.) linen ‘linen’ (> NE linen), OHG lln
‘linen; flax’, Goth lein ‘linen’ has often been derived from Latin
linum which is possible but not absolutely required by the
linguistic evidence nor that from archaeology. A word at least
of the west and center of the IE world.
Flax ( Linum usitatissimum ) is well known across Europe
and western Asia where it was the principal plant involved in
textile manufacture and its oil, which constitutes some 40%
of the seed, was employed both as a foodstuff and for lamps.
Domestic flax is derived from Linum bienne or Linum
usitatissimum subsp. bienne (wild flax) which is distributed
locally across southern Europe to the Caucasus and the Near
East. The earliest wild flax in the archaeological record derives
from the Near East in contexts of the ninth millennium BC
onwards and domestic flax has been recovered from sites in
southwest Asia from seventh millennium contexts. Actual
fragments of linen have also been recovered from the seventh
millennium BC in both Israel and somewhat later in Turkey.
Flax is known to occur in small amounts in Neolithic sites in
Europe, first in Greece, but then also in Swiss lakeside sites,
the Linear Ware Culture, the early Neolithic of southern
Britain, and in northern Europe in the TRB culture. Its earliest
occurrence in the pollen record of Ireland is during the early
Bronze Age, c 2200 BC. There does not yet seem to be evidence
for it in India earlier than the Bronze Age nor is it recorded so
far earlier than the Bronze Age in the Caucasus. The attested
word may then be inherited or a borrowing from some central
European language.
See also Agriculture; Textiles. 1D.Q.A., J.P.M.l
Further Reading
Barber, E. J. W (1991) Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of
Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Princeton, Princeton
University Press.
FLEA
*plus- ‘flea’. [IEW 102 ( *blou — *plou-)\ Wat 52
(*plou-) ]. Lat pulex (< *puslek- < *plusek- ) ‘flea’. Arm lu
(< *pluso~) ‘flea’, Yidgha frigo ‘flea’ (< Proto-Iranian
*plusV-), OInd plusi- ‘flea’. Grk y/vXXa (< *psuli(e)h a ~ ) ‘flea’
probably belongs here, metathesized from an earlier
*plusi(e)h a ~) . A variant *bhluseh a - ‘flea’ is found in Balto-Slavic:
Lith blusa ‘flea’, Latv blusa ‘flea’, OCS blucha ‘flea’, Rus blokha
‘flea’. Other variants are seen in OE fleah ‘flea’ (> NE flea),
OHG floh ‘flea’ (the Germanic words, presupposing a putative
PIE *ploukos , may owe their phonological shape to a folk-
etymological relationship with ‘to fly’) and Alb plesht ‘flea’.
In one form or another widespread and old in PIE.
See also Fly 1 [D.Q.A.]
FLEE
*bheug- ‘flee’. [IEW 152 ( *bheug-)\ Wat 8 ( *bheug-)\ GI
150 ( *b h eugh-)\ Buck 10.51; BK 309 ( *baw-ak’>' -/
*bow-ak7-) J. Lat fugio ‘flee’, Lith bQgstu ‘be frightened’, Grk
tpevyco'flee. Sufficiently well-attested to be a word of the west
and center of the IE world.
See also Fear; Frighten; Run. [D.Q.A.]
FLEECE see HAIR, WOOL
FLOAT see SWIM
FLOOR
*dip-pedom ‘floor’. [IEW 198 ( *dip-pedom)[ . ON topt
‘place for a building’, Grk SdjreSov ‘floor’. From *dem- ‘build,
house’ and *ped- ‘foot’.
The absence of a specific word for the ‘floor’ of a house
belies the variety of possible floor types known in the
archaeological record during the period of the Proto-Indo-
Europeans. While most evidence indicates floors made simply
of stamped earth, lime-plastered floors are already known
since the late Mesolithic both in sites in southwest Asia and
in Europe. In wetland regions such as lakeside settlements in
Switzerland and southern Germany, timber floors are in
evidence since the Neolithic period. And while single story
structures are the norm in the Neolithic of Eurasia, two story
structures have been suggested for both the Balkans and the
Tripolye culture northwest of the Black Sea.
See also Ground; House. [A.D.V., J.PM.l
FLOTSAM
?*k opos ‘flotsam’. [ IEW 529 ( *kapo-)\ . Lith sapai ‘what
remains in the field after a flood’, sapas ‘stalk, dry branches,
splinter’, Olnd sdpa- ‘what floats in water’. If Lith sapti ( sampu )
‘disappear, fade away’, or septi ( sempu ) ‘grow a stubble, grow
a beard’ belongs with sapa-, the connection between the Baltic
and Old Indie form becomes doubtful.
See also Swim. [R.S.PB ]
FLOW
As in most modern IE languages verbs for ‘run’ could also
be used of water and other liquids, e g., NE running water.
The words assembled here would appear to have been used
primarily or exclusively of liquids.
*hiers- ‘flow’. [IEW 336 ( *ere-s-), Wat 17 (*ers-)|. Lat
errd{< h lersehgie/o-) ‘go astray’, error ‘error’, OE eorre ‘angry,
embittered’, eorsian ‘make angry’, OHG irri ‘perplexed’, irran
‘confuse’, irron ‘be confused’, Goth airzeis ‘deceived’, airzjan
— 206 —
FLY
‘mislead’, Grk ccKepdo) ‘pour out’, Arm eram
(< *hiersehaie/o-) ‘seethe, be disquieted, Hit arszi Hows’, OInd
arsati ‘flows’. Reasonably widespread, certainly old in IE. In
the west of the IE world this verb has been restricted to
metaphorical meanings, such as ‘go astray’.. Perhaps an
enlargement of *h ier- ‘set in motion’.
*hireihx~ ‘move’ (pres. *hirin6h x ti). [IEW 330-331
(*erei-); Wat 54 (*rei-)]. OInd rinati ‘lets flow’. Cf. the
derivative *hirih x tis\ OE rid ‘stream’, OInd riti- ‘stream, run’;
and also OIr riathor ‘waterfall’, OWels reatir ‘waterfall’, Lat
rivus ‘brook’, OCS r£jg ‘flow’, Alb rife(< *rinete) ‘moist, damp’.
Both *hirei- and *hireihx- are enlargements of *h\er- and
are further attestations to the latter’s antiquity in IE.
*g w el(s)- ‘well up, flow’. [IEW 471-472 (*g?el-)\ cf. VW
201 ; BK 362 ( *q iw al-/*q w al-)] . OHG quellan ‘well up, swell’,
Grk PaXavevg ‘bathmaster’, pkvo) ~ pkv£(o ‘well up’, OInd
galati ‘drip, ooze, trickle’, TochB kals- ‘± trickle’. The
geographical distribution suggests a likely candidate for PIE
status.
*h a el- ‘well up, flow’. [Mayrhofer 1, 120). OInd arma-
‘spring’, TochB alme ‘spring’, yolme ‘pool, pond’
(< *h2elmo- ). Formally related are Lith almes ‘serum, pus’,
almud ‘pus’, and certain European river names, Almus , Alma.
Semantically related is Latv aluogs 1 spring’. The geographical
spread of these words suggests considerable antiquity within
IE.
*del- ‘now’. [IEW 196 (*del-)\ Wat 11 (*de/-); BK 118
(*t’ul y -/*t’oE-)}. Mir delt ‘dew’, ME tal(u)gh ‘tallow’ (> NE
tallow), MHG talg ‘tallow’ (Gmc < * ‘drippings’), Arm tel ‘heavy
rain’, telam ‘rain, irrigate’. If all these words belong together,
then we have at least a word of the west and center.
*ser- ‘flow’. [IEW 909 (*ser-); Wat 58 ( *ser-)\ GI 196
( *ser-); BK 163 ( *s y ur-/*s y or-)\ . The underlying verb is seen
only in MIr sirid ‘wanders through’. Otherwise attested in a
few nominal derivatives: Lat serum ‘whey’, Alb gjize
(< *sfdio-) ‘whey, cheese’, Grk opog ‘whey’. Certainly applied
to ‘whey’ in the west and center of the IE world.
*sreu- ‘flow’ (pres. *si£ye/o-). [JEW 1003 ( *sreu-)\ Wat
64 ( *sreu-); GI 196 ( *sr-ew-)\ Buck 10.32] . Lith sraviii ‘ooze’,
Grk pea) ‘flow’, pcoopai ‘move with speed or violence, rush
at’, Arm atoganem ‘moisten’, OInd sravati ‘flow’. Cf. *srouo/
eh a -\ Lith srava ‘what flows; menstruation’, OCS ostrovu
‘island’, Grk poog ‘flow’, OInd srava- ‘flow’. Cf. also OIr sruaim
‘stream’, ON straumr ‘stream’, OE stream ‘stream’ (> NE
stream), OHG stroum ‘stream’. Widespread and old in IE.
Presumably an enlargement of the previous word which it
had largely supplanted even in late PIE times.
*dhg w her- ‘flow (away)’. [/EW487 (*g^hder-), GI 129],
Grk (pOeipco ‘ruin, waste’, (pOeipopai ‘perish’, Av yzaraiti
‘flows’, OInd ksarati ‘flows, perishes’. Archaic in shape,
certainly an IE word of the south-east.
*leg-‘ drip, trickle’. [IEW 657 (*leg-)-, Wat 35 {*leg-)\. OIr
legaid ‘perishes, melts’, do-lega ‘destroys’, Weis dadleithiaf
‘melt’, ON lekr ‘leak’, leka ‘let water through’ (borrowed >
NE leak), OE hlec ‘leak’ (with secondary h ), leccan
(< *logeie/o-) ‘moisten’ (> NE leach). Arm lie (< *legieh a -)
‘bog’. At least a word of the west and center.
*stag- ‘seep, drip’. [IEW 1010 ( *stag -); Wat 65 (*sfag-)j.
Weis taen ‘sprinkler’, OBret staer{< *stagreh a -) ‘stream’, Lat
stagnum ‘standing water: lake, pool, swamp, fen’, Grk cnrafcD
‘drip’, <7T ayvcov ‘a drip’. A late word of the west and center of
the IE world.
*yeis- ‘ooze out, (of a liquid) spread slowly’. [IEW 1134
( *ueis-)\ Wat 75 (*weis-)\. The underlying verb is preserved
only in Old Indie, e.g., aorist avesan ‘they flowed’. Cf. the
root noun *uiss ~ *uis ‘poison’, OE wase ‘mud, ooze’ (> NE
ooze), and a number of river names, e.g., the Weser
(Germany), the Wear (England), the Vistula (Poland). Old in
IE.
See also Poison; Pour; River. [D.Q.A.]
FLOWER
*h a 6ndhes- ‘± flower’. [IEW 40-41 ( *andhos)\ Wat 2
( *andh-es-)\ GI 770 ( *Hand h -); Buck 8.57], Fris Andul
‘marshgrass’, Alb ende ‘flower’, Grk dvOog ‘flower’. Arm and
‘field’, OInd andhas- ‘an herb, the soma-plant; grassy ground’.
The geographic distribution and the exact morphological
equivalence of the Greek and Old Indie words seem to assure
PIE status although its exact meaning remains difficult to
determine. GI have sought to derive this word from Proto-
Semitic *hint-(at)~ ‘wheat, grains’ but this seems rather distant
semantically.
?*bhlohxdhos flower’. [IEW 122 ( *bhlo-)\ GI 389
loH-), Wat 7 ( *bhlo-)-, Buck 8.57; BK 11 ( *bul-u -/
*bol-u-)}. MIr blath ‘flower’, Weis bla wd ‘flower’, OHG bluot
‘flower’. Dialectally restricted to the western fringe of the IE
world. From *bhel- ‘± blossom, bloom’. Cf. also Lat fids
‘flower’, Flora goddess of plants, ON blomstr ‘flower’, OE
blostma ‘flower’ (> NE blossom), OHG bluomo ‘flower’, Goth
bloma ‘flower’.
See also Leaf; Plants. [D.Q.A.]
FLY 1
*musAijc ‘fly; gnat, midge, mosquito’. [IEW 752 ( *mu-),
Wat 43 ( *mu-)\ GI 452 ( *mu(s)-) y Buck 3.83], From *mus-.
Lat musca ‘fly’, OPrus muso ‘fly’, Lith musis (gen. pi. musQ)
~ musi ~ musia ‘fly’, Latv musa ‘fly’, OCS muslca ‘gnat, midge’,
Rus mdska ‘gnat, midge’, OCS mucha ‘fly’, Rus mukha (<
*mouseh a -) ‘fly’, Grk jimcCfly’, Arm mun (< *mus-no- ?) ‘gnat,
midge, mosquito’; from *muh x -\ ON my ‘gnat, midge,
mosquito’, OE mycg'gnat’ (> NE midge), OHG mucka ‘gnat,
midge, mosquito’, Alb mize ‘fly’. It is probable that *mus- is
the more original form, and that possibly of imitative or
onomatopoeic origin. *muh x - was the result of sound-
symbolic substitution of *-h x - for *-s- in certain parts of the
IE-speaking world. The Lithuanian genitive plural musQ
strongly suggests an original consonant stem (as does the
formation of Lat mus-ca) and, with *-h x - rather than *-s-, so
does Alb mi-ze. Homophonous in its root shape with *mus-
— 207 —
FLY
‘mouse’, it is probably of different origin, though there may
well have been a secondary association as ‘vermin’ or the like.
However, the potential semantic clash has been obviated by
the generalization of a long vowel, i.e., *mus- in the ‘mouse’
word and/or extensions of one sort or another in the ‘fly’ word
(the substitution of *-h x - for *-s- may also have been partly
motivated by a desire to separate more clearly ‘mouse’ and
‘fly’). Certainly a word of the west and center of the IE world.
Cf. the derivative: *k un-musieh a - ‘dog-fly’ [/JBW633J inLith
§un-musi ‘dog-fly’, Grk Kvvdgvia ‘dog-fly’ (abusive epithet).
If an ordinary fly is annoying, one that would annoy a dog
(rather than a person) must be a real low-life.
See also Insects. [D.Q.A.]
FLY 2
*pet- ‘fly’ (pres. *p6te/o-\ intensive pres. *pot6ie/o- ~
*poteh a }e/o- ~ *pdteh^e/o-). {/£ W82 5-826 (*pef-); Wat 50-
51 ( *pet-)\ GI 455 ( *p h et h -)\ Buck 10.37; BK 45
(*p[ h ]at[ h ]-/*p[ h ]9t[ h ]-)]. Weis hedeg ‘fly’, Lat peto ‘fly at,
attack’, Latv petit ‘search after’, Grk nhogai ‘fly’, noxeogai ~
noxaogai ~ nandopai ‘flutter’, Arm t‘rc‘im (< *pter-i-ske/o~)
‘fly’, Hit peri?- ‘fly’, Av pataiti ‘flies, hastens’, patayeiti ‘flies’,
OInd patati ~ patayati ‘flies’, patayati ‘lets fly, lets fall, slings,
throws’. Cf. the derivative *potmos ~ *potmen-: Grk noxgoq
‘lot, fate’, OInd patman- ‘flight, path, road’. Widespread and
old in IE.
*peth a - ‘fly’ (pres. *p6tfr a tof). [IEW 825 (*pet-); Wat 50-
51 ( *pet9-)\ BK 45 ( *p[ b ]at[ h ]-/*p[ h ]3t[ h ]-)] . Grk n hagai
‘fly’, Koxagoq ‘river’ (< * ‘rushing [torrent!’), OInd patisyati
‘will fly’. A derivative of the previous entry.
*dihi- ‘fly; move swiftly’ (pres. *dihiie/o~). [IEW 187
( *dei9-)\ . OIr dlan ‘fast’, Latv diet ‘dance’, Grk Siegai ‘hasten’,
5 i(o ‘run away, flee; am afraid’, dfogai ‘chase away; am afraid’,
dlveo) ‘whirl about’, OInd diyati ‘flies, soars’. Widespread and
old in IE.
See also Wing. [D.Q.A.]
FOAM
*spoh x i-no/eh a - foam’. [IEW 1001 ( *(s)poimno-)\ Wat 64
( *(s)poi-mo -)1 . Lat spuma ‘foam’, pumex ‘pumice-stone’, OE
[am ‘foam’ (> NE foam), OHG feim ‘foam’, OPrus spoayno (<
*spaina ) ‘foam (of beer)’, Lith spaine ‘foam (of beer)’, OCS
pena ‘foam’, SC (s)pjena ‘foam’, Sogd pym’kh ‘foam’, Oss fink
~ finkae (< *fina-ka~) ‘foam’, OInd phena- ( sphena -) ‘foam’.
The reconstruction is uncertain in many details. The alteration
between *-m- and *-n- in the cognate forms is due to
assimilation rather than an original *-mn~. If Av spama-
‘spittle, slime’ belongs here, then the underlying form would
be *spoh x mos. The Baltic and Slavic forms with acute accent
require a laryngeal. The word may originally derive from a
root *speh x i- ‘to spit’. The Indo-Iranian *ph was generalized
from *ph x i- in other forms. Despite problems of detail, this
does appear to be the PIE word for ‘foam’.
See also Smoke; Wet. [R.S.P.B.]
FOLLOW
*sek w - ‘follow’ (pres. *s6k w etor). [IEW 896-897
(*sek u -)\ Wat 57 ( *sek w -)\ Gl 602 ( *sek ho -)\ Buck 10.521.
OIr sechithir ( D1L seichithir) ‘follows’, Lat sequor ‘follow’,
Lith seku ‘follow, keep an eye on’, Latv seku ‘follow’, Grk
enogai ‘follow’, Av hacaite ‘follows’, OInd sacate ‘follows’.
Cf. the widespread derivative *sdk w ti 2 oi (gen. *s e k w h 2 ios )
‘follower, companion’: ON seggr 1 follower’, OE secg' follower’,
Av haxa ‘friend, companion’, OInd sakha- ‘friend, companion’.
Perhaps further connected with ON sja ‘see’, OE seon ‘see’ (>
NE see), OHG sehan ‘see’, Goth saihan ‘see’, Alb shoh (<
*sok w -eh i-ske/o-) ‘see’, from *‘follow with the eyes’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*vei(hx)~ ‘go after’. [IEW 1123-1124 (*ue/-); Wat 74
( *wei-)\ Buck 10.531 . Lat vis (< *uei-s ) ‘thou wantest’, Lith
veju ‘chase, drive, pursue’, vajoju (< originally iterative
uoi(hx)eh a ~) ‘drive, chase, pursue’, OCS po-vi-nQti ‘pursue’,
Grk xegai ‘move oneself forward, strive, desire’, Hit wiya-
‘hunt’, Av vayeiti ‘follows, hunts’, OInd veti ~ vayati ‘follows,
strives, leads, drives’, TochA wa- ‘will drive, lead’, TochB waya-
‘will drive, lead’ (Toch < *yoi(h x )eh a -). Widespread and old
in IE.
See also Companion. [D.Q.A.]
FOOD
*gdr(h x)gs(gen. *uffhx)g6s) ‘nourishment, strength’. [IEW
1169] . Grk opyfj ‘natural impulse, mood, anger’, opycuo grow
ripe, well, am eager’, Hit wargant- (< *yorhxgo- + later
-ant-) ‘fat’, Av varoz- ‘power’, varazi.casman- ‘strong-eyed’,
Sogd wrz'yw ‘haughty’, OInd Qrj- ~ urja- ‘strength, nourish-
ment’. OIr ferg ‘wrath’ may also belong here as a denvative
with new e-grade. Only Indie seems to require a laryngeal,
while Iranian seems to require that one not be present (since
vardz- cannot be from *uyh x g-). The semantic development
would be similar to that seen in Greek or Sogdian and on the
natural association of being ‘swollen’ or ‘puffed up' with
‘anger’.
?*hiedonom food’. [IEW 287 (*ed-ono-)\ Wat 16 (*ed-);
cf. GI 32; BK418 (*at’-/*9t'-)}. Grk edavov' food’, Hit adanna-
‘food’, OInd adanam ‘food’. Banal and not quite identical
derivatives of *hjed- ‘eat’ that may have been made
independently in all three stocks.
?*p/riJS‘food’. [IEW 793-794 ( *pei-tu-)\ Wat 47 (*pe?»;
Buck 5.12; BK 40 (*p[ h )a-/*p( h }d-)]. OIr ith ‘grain’, OWels it
‘grain’, Lith pietus ‘meal’, OCS pisla ‘meal’. From *peih x - ‘be
fat’. Another word where the resemblances are as likely to be
the result of independent creation as common inheritance.
See also Bean; Berry; Broth; Chick-pea; Cook; Fat; Feed;
Grain; Meat; Milk; Pea; Porridge; Strength; Vegetables.
[D.Q.A.l
FOOT
*p6ds (acc. *p6dip , gen. *ped6s) ‘foot’. [IEW 790
( *ptd-)\ Wat 47 ( *ped-)\ GI 688 ( *p h et’-)\ Buck 4.37; BK 44
( *pf h ]at’-/*p[ h ]9t ’-)]. OIr Is ‘lower part’, Lat pes ‘foot’, ON
— 208 —
FORK
fotr ‘foot’, OE fdt ‘foot’ (> NE foot), OHG fuoz ‘foot’, Goth
fotus ‘foot’, Lith padas ‘sole of foot’, Rus pod ‘ground’, Alb
per-posh ‘down, under’, below, poshte ‘down (below)’, Grk
novq (Doric ntbq) ‘foot’, Arm otn ‘foot’, Hit pata- ‘foot’, Av
pad- ‘foot’, OInd pad- ‘foot’, TochA pe ‘foot’, TochB paiyye
‘foot’. This word is essentially pan-IE and clearly the PIE
designation for ‘foot’.
*leh a p-eh a - ‘foot, paw’. [IEW 679 ( *ldpa ); Wat 36
(*/ep-)]. ON lofi ‘palm’, OHG laffa ‘palm’, Goth lofa ‘palm’,
Lith lopa ‘paw’, Latv lapa ‘paw’, Rus lapa ‘paw’, Kurdish lapk
‘paw’. Probably a later word than *pdds , normally designating
an animal’s paw rather than a human foot.
See also Anatomy; Hand; Heel; Hock; Hoof. ID.Q.A.]
FORCE
*h a 6uges- ‘strength’. [/FW 84-85 ( *aueg-)\ Wat 4 ( *aug-)\
cf. GI 53]. Lat augustus (< *augus < *auges- < *h a eug-
‘increase’) ‘sacred’, Av aojah- ‘strength’, OInd ojas- ‘strength’
(< Proto-Indo-Iranian *aujas-). Derived from *h a eug-
‘increase’. With rhotacism, this root yielded in Lat augur , the
priest in charge of the interpretation of divine signs (beside
the flamen and the pontifex , connected more with the sacrifice
and paving the way to ritual acts). The distribution suggests
PIE antiquity and the word lies in the semantic sphere of the
sacred. Like the Indo-lranian forms, Lat *auges- was originally
neuter, which Georges Dumezil interpreted as ‘the fullness of
muscular strength that enables the warrior or the hero to
perform his deeds’, i.e., the underlying concept would appear
to refer to the maximum in accrued potential (rather than
kinetic) energy that might be expended. Thus, OInd ojas- is
linked with physical force in the warrior function (e.g.,
applying to Indra) and also with the cosmic actions of the
Vedic deities; it indicates the increment that results from
praise. In the Latin usage, *auges- denotes the fullness
conditioning future action, an action that is not yet manifest,
and therefore not yet objectively verified (cf. Lat in-augur-
atio ‘inaugurate’ < ‘to hallow with auguries, take omens from
the Right of birds’). The field it covers is wider than in Old
Indie; it innovates in essence and in sign. The plenitude of
power of the augur is a gift of the gods (cf. Romulus who is
endowed with quasi miraculous power in his [Firstl function
as king and priest). Being augustus is a religious endowment,
the recognition of the fullness of (sacred) power: this is why
the title was given to Octavius.
*U<Zih x s ‘vital force’. [IEW 1124 ( *uei-)\ Wat 74-75
( *wei3-)\ cf. GI 39 1 ; BK 508 ( *wuy-/*woy-)[ . Lat vis ‘strength’,
Grk ig ‘strength’, OInd vayas- 1 force’. From *ueih x -‘be strong’.
Distribution indicates PIE status. This word has been related
to *uih x ros ‘man’.
*i6hig w eh a - ‘power, youthful vigor’. [IEW 503 {*ieg^a)\
Wat 79 (*yeg w a-) ]. Lith jega ‘strength, power’, Latv jpga
‘strength, power’, Grk p/jri ‘youth, vigor, puberty’. A word of
the center of the IE world. The Greek form often designates
the sex of men or women, in particular eyijpaiov ‘pubic hair’
(of a sixteen-year old youth), hence ‘ardor’, and it also supplies
the name of the daughter of Zeus and Hera, Hebe.
See also Make; Man; Sacred. [EC. PI
Further Reading
Dumezil, G. (1969) Idees romames. Paris, NRF-Gallimard, 80-102
FOREHEAD
*h 2 ent- ‘forehead’. [/FW48-50 ( *an-s)\ Wat 3 ( *ant-)\ GI
713 ( *Hant h -)\ BK 414 (*haij-t[ h J-/*h9i]-t( h ]-)\. OIr ef an
‘forehead’ (< *antono), Lat ante ‘in front of, before’, Grk
eiadvTcc ‘right opposite’ ( *eis + *antrji), avri ‘in front of,
opposite’, Hit hant- ‘face, forehead, front part’, OInd anti ‘in
front of, opposite’, anta- ‘end, limit’, TochA ant ‘surface,
forehead’, TochB ante ‘surface, forehead’. Cf. the derivative
*h 2 entio/eh a - : ON enni ‘forehead’, OHG andi ‘forehead’; also
Lat antiae ‘hair falling on forehead’. Clearly the PIE word for
the ‘forehead, front’, the forehead being apparently for IE
speakers the ‘front’ par excellence (truer for animals than
humans).
*bh6lom ‘forehead’. [IEW 1 18-1 19 ( *bhel-)\ Buck 4.2051.
OPrus ballo ‘forehead’, Alb balle ‘forehead’, OInd bhalam
‘forehead’. Probably from *bhel - ‘shine’ and, in age, a word
of the center and the east.
See also Anatomy; Face; Head. ID.Q.A ]
FOREIGN LANGUAGE see STAMMER
FOREST see TREE
FORGET
♦mere- ‘forget’. [IEW 737-738 (*mer-); Wat 42 ( *mers-);
GI 110; Buck 17.32]. OE mierran ‘disturb, confuse, hinder’
(> NE mar), OHG merren ‘give offense, prevent, injure, mar’,
Goth marzjan ‘offend’, Lith mirstii ‘forget, overlook’, Latv ais-
mirstu ‘forget’. Arm moranam ‘forget’, OInd mfsyate ‘forget,
neglect’, TochAB mars- ‘forget’. Cf. the derivative *morsos:
Lith marsas ‘oblivion, forgetfulness’, Av Marsavan- name of a
demon, OInd marsa- ‘patience’. From *mer- ‘disturb, forget’.
The Germanic words are not always considered a part of this
group because of the divergence of meaning. With or without
them we have a word of PIE date.
See also Remember. [D.Q.A.]
FORK (OF TREE)
*ghabhlo/eh a - ‘fork, branch of tree’. [IEW 409
( *ghabh(o)lo-)\ Wat 20 ( *ghabholo-)\ . Olr gabul ‘fork’, Weis
gafl‘ fork’, OEga/b/‘fork’, OHG ga ba la ‘fork’. The word, which
appears to be confined to the extreme west of the IE world,
would appear to have originally referred to a forked branch
which might have a variety of uses. The semantic sphere of
the Old Irish word ranges across any forked structure be it
tree (gallows, gibbet, beam), part of the landscape (river, valley,
paths) and even the bifurcation of the body, e g., the thighs.
When in reference to a tree, probably its original meaning, it
describes a main branching (bough from trunk) rather than
— 209 —
FORK
something smaller. Although fork-like instruments have been
occasionally discovered since the Neolithic and instruments
known variously as flesh-forks have been recovered from later
prehistoric sites, the actual table utensil (from Lat f urea
‘pitchfork’) only emerged in modem Europe (the Romans also
had forks) in Italy in the eleventh century and against
considerable social resistance slowly spread across Europe
achieving widespread popularity only in the eighteenth
century.
See also Plants; Tree; Trees. [D.Q.A., J.RM.]
FORT
*pelhx- ‘fon, fortified place’. [IEW 799 ( *pel-)\ Wat 49
( *peh-)\ GI 648 ( *p h el-)\ Buck 19.15; BK 55 ( *p[ h Jal -/
*p[ h ]dl-)]. Lith pilis ‘fort’, castle’, Latv pils ‘fort, castle’, Grk
noXig ~ nxoXig ‘city; citadel; state or country’, ocKpoKoXig
‘citadel’, OInd ptir ‘wall, rampart, palisade’, puram ‘wall,
fortress, city’. Possibly belonging here also is Arm k‘alak‘ ‘city’.
The existence of Grk nxoXig and Arm k‘alak‘ suggests that
the initial may have been *tp- rather than just *p- ( *pu- and
*pi- have also been suggested). At least a word of the center
and east of the IE world.
*bhergh- ‘height = fort’. [GI 648 {*b h (e)r^-)\ BK 19
( *burgy-/*bor-g y -)] . OHG burg ‘fortress’, Goth baurgs ‘city,
town’. Certainly belonging to this are Grk (Homeric) nvpyog
‘town, fortress’ and Arm burgn ‘town’, however, both are
phonologically unexpected, i.e., the Greek form should have
been **napxog and the Arm **barjn and it has been widely
assumed that these have borrowed the term from a poorly
attested IE language such as Pelasgian which was credited to
the inhabitants of Greece before the arrival of the ethno-
linguistic Greeks. Cf. also OLat fortus ‘strong, hard’, Lat fortis
‘strong, hard’, Olnd bfmhati ‘fortifies’, TochA prakar ‘hard,
solid’, TochB prakre ‘hard’. The alternative possibility that
this word has been borrowed from a non-IE source is
suggested by similar words in Near Eastern languages, e.g.,
Urartian burgana- ‘bulwark, fortress’, Syriac burga ‘tower’.
*dhtlnos (*dhuh x nos>) ‘fort’. [IEW263 ( *dheu-)\ Wat 15
( *dhuno-)\ GI 649 ( *d h eun-)\ Buck 20.35]. OIr dun ‘fort’,
Weis din ~ dinas ‘fort’ (< *‘hill’), OE dun ‘down, moor, height,
hill, mountain’ (> NE down(s)), MDutch dune ‘sandy hill’
(borrowed > NE dune). Germanic borrowed Celtic *dhuno-
before the phonological changes wrought by Grimms Law
and thus it appeared in Proto-Gmc as *tuna- and is attested
in OE tun ‘enclosed place, homestead, village’ (> NE town),
OHG zun ‘fence, hedge’. A northwestemism confined to Celtic
and Germanic. Cf. also Lat funus ‘burial’ (?< *‘burial hill’).
*yri- ( *\}riio/eh a ~ *\jrijen-) ‘fort’. [IEW 1152 (*uer-)].
Thracian fipia ‘fort’, Myc ri-jo ‘promontory’, Grk piov
‘promontory’, TochA ri ‘town’, TochB riye ‘town’. At least late
IE. Possibly from *uer- ‘high (place)’.
The various words for fort denote an enclosed place, wall
or protected area but the specific appearance of the PIE fort
is not recoverable. Old Indie offers the earliest attestations of
*pelh x - in the Vedas and other early Indie literature, the
contextual analysis of which suggests that the OInd pQr
consisted of one or several concentric ramparts of round or
oval plan; it might be built of mud or stone (but not brick),
and included a combustible component (gate, wickerwork,
prickly shrubs); enclosed wooden sheds as shelters; was
stocked with provisions for man and beast; was occupied in
times of danger; and probably required repair after the rainy
season. Earlier suggestions that the par indicated the citadels
of the Harappan culture which were destroyed by the Indo-
Aryans hold little currency today as the Vedic and other
descriptions make a very poor fit with the archaeological
evidence for massive rectangular brick citadels and all the
other aspects of urbanism attendant in the Indus citadels. It
has even been suggested that the Old Indie descriptions are
accommodated far better by the evidence of Bronze Age forts
in Central Asia, an area which has been regarded as the staging
area for later Indo- Aryan movements to the south. In Homeric
Greek the term KoXig ~ nxoXig means ‘city’, e g., koXiv Tpoir\v
‘the city of Troy’ which in both Homer and in the
archaeological record was clearly a fortified citadel. Baltic forts
were built of earth and timber palisades.
A fortified enclosure has been argued to be a diagnostic
feature of Proto-Indo-European culture which spread through
Europe with the expansion of the Indo-Europeans at the end
of the Neolithic, i.e. c the fifth-fourth millennium BC. This
argument, an integral part of the “Kurgan solution” to the
Indo-European homeland problem, presumes that the Indo-
Europeans were a warlike society who formed military
aristocracies over the populations upon whom they imposed
themselves. But as the reconstructed forms are ambiguous
about the precise construction of the PIE ‘fort’ it is difficult to
read all attestations of enclosing fortifications as evidence for
Indo-Europeans. The enclosing of a settlement (permanent
or otherwise) by a ditch, earthen bank or palisade is widely
known since the Neolithic over much of Eurasia and before
any putative Kurgan dispersals, e.g., stone enclosures around
Greek settlements of the later Neolithic; timber palisades about
Balkan tell settlements of the Neolithic; ditched enclosures
surrounding Linear Ware and later settlements across central
(Lengyel culture), western (Michelsberg culture) and northern
(TRB culture) Europe; causewayed enclosures in the British
Isles; concentric ditches around Neolithic settlements of
southern Italy; and ditched fortifications surrounding the
settlements of the Tripolye culture of the northwest Black Sea
region. They are, of course, also known in the staging area of
Kurgan expansions, e.g., timber fencing around the site of
Dereivka of the Sredny Stog culture of the middle Dnieper
region; stone fortifications about some Yamna settlements.
Considerable discussion has been expended as to whether
some of these enclosures were primarily defensive or were
erected to mark territories or ceremonial precincts but
evidence from several British Neolithic enclosures clearly
indicates that such sites were attacked whatever their initial
intention. It has been suggested that the evidence from the
Linear Ware culture and its successors in central and western
— 210 —
FORTUNE
Europe particularly match the descriptions of forts in Old
Indie literature which are similarly curvilinear and concentric.
That such constructions might be found in many parts of the
world, however, warns against presuming that there must be
a genetic connection between the literary evidence and that
of Neolithic settlements.
The specific evidence for the spread of Kurgan fortifications
rests with the appearance of stone-built citadels that are found
from north of the Black Sea, west around the eastern Balkans
and on into Anatolia, e.g., Mikhaylovka, Ezero, Troy, which
has been presented as a circum-Pontic development under
the aegis of IE chieftains. The lexical evidence, however, only
posits some form of fortification and not a specifically “stone-
built fort” although it may have originally indicated such.
The earthen and timber-built fortresses such as Sintashta that
appear in the Bronze Age in the Asiatic steppe and forest-
steppe may be ancestral to the types of forts indicated in Indo-
Aryan literature.
In the west the earliest likely referent to the *dhunos found
in the Insular Celtic languages are the hillforts which appear
by the later Bronze Age (c 1200 BC) and continue through
the Iron Age and, in some regions, into the early medieval
period. A borrowing from Celtic into Germanic during the
Later Bronze Age or at the beginning of the Iron Age would
predate the commonly accepted dates for the first Germanic
sound shift.
See also Ezero Culture; Fence; High; Kurgan Tradition;
Troy; Wall. [A.D.V, J.RM.)
Further Readings
Della Volpe, A. (1988) Hillfort nomenclature in Indo-European: the
case of Latin urbs. JIES 16, 194-206.
Hockmann, O. (1990) Fruhneolithische Einhegungen in Europa.
Jahreschrift fur mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 73, 57-86.
Makkay, J. (1986) Angaben zur Archaologie der Indogermanenfrage,
I: ldg. *pel und die Grabenanlagen. Acta Archaeologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38, 13-29.
Rau, W (1976) The meaning of purin Vedic literature. Abhandlungen
der Marburger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Jahrg. 1973, 1, 1-54.
FORTUNE
*bhehagos ‘apportioned. [1EW 107 ( *bhag-)\ Wat 5
( *bhag-)\ GI 121 (*b h ak’-)\ Buck 22.121. Phryg Bayaiog
(epithet of Zeus), Av baga- ‘good fortune, share’ (borrowed >
Slav bogU ‘god’), OInd bhaga- ‘the apportioned, TochA pak
‘share, part’, TochB pake ‘share, part’. From *bheh a g-
‘apportion’. The lexical correspondence between the
underlying forms is secure to PIE.
*kobom ‘success’. [IEW 610 ( *kobo-m)\ Wat 32 ( *kob -)] .
Olr cob ‘victory’, Gaul ver-cobius (personal name), ON happ
‘luck’ (borrowed > NE hap ‘chance’), OCS kobl ‘divination’.
A northwestern word in late IE. From *kob- ‘suit, fit, succeed’.
??*bhftus ‘bearing, winning’. [GI 193 {*h^er-)\ Del 72],
Lat Fortuna ‘the goddess Fortune’, OInd Pjthu- (the first king).
This comparison is linguistically insupportable. The name of
the Old Indie god is a substantivization of the adjective pfthu-
‘broad, wide, extended’ < Indo-Iran *p rath- ‘extend, expand’.
It reflects a *p\th a -u-, zero-grade of *pleth a -, all of which can
have nothing to do with the IE root *bher- that underlies the
Latin form Fortuna (< zero-grade *bhftu)-, beside *bhftis ,
cf. Olr breth ‘bearing, winning (< ^carrying off’)’, Lat fors
‘blind fate’.
??*dheugh- ‘fortune’. [IEW 271 ( *dheugh-)\ Wat 14
( *dheugh-)\ GI 486 ( *d h eug ^-)], Grk TvxB ‘the goddess
Fortune ’, OInd kama-duha (wish-granting wonder cow). This
comparison between Greek and Old Indie presumes a
common IE stem *dheugh- ‘squeeze, milk’ and presumes a
specific mythic complex of an underlying “wonder cow” that
yields enormous quantities of milk which stands as a metaphor
for wishes, as indeed is the case with the Old Indie form. But
the comparison with Greek cannot stand as the Greek term
cannot be separated from the verb zvyxdvo) ‘succeed, happen
by fate’, which, in turn, is clearly linked with zevxu) ‘make’.
Cognate with the latter are Olr dual ‘convenient’, OE dohtig
‘competent, good, valorous’ (> NE doughty), OHG toug ‘be
useful’, tuht ‘value, power’, Goth daug‘ it is useful, profitable’,
Lith daug ‘much’, Rus duzij ‘strong, robust, powerful’. On
the other hand, the second element of the Old Indie
compound kama-duha is obviously derived from the Indo-
Iranian root *dogh - ‘milk’, whose connection with the Greek
term remains most problematic, especially as it would imply
the improbable semantic evolution: ‘touch’ (< * ‘obtain [by
fate]’) > ‘press’ > ‘milk’.
Fortune Gods
Unlike “Fortune” as “chance”, which appears to be rather
consistently represented by a series of goddesses, deities
associated with the assignment of either wealth or the correct
apportionment of goods tend to be personified as males. In
the $gveda, it is Bhaga ‘portion’ who is responsible for insuring
the just distribution of things (RV7. 4 1.2). In the Indian epic,
the Mahabharata , Bhaga is reflected in the blind Dhftarastra
who dispenses goods as blind fortune. According to Georges
Dumezil, Bhaga is closely associated with Mitra who
determines that people get their proper share. The dualism
reflected in Mitra and Varuna’s realms of activities is carried
over into that of their assistants where Varuna is assisted by
Ariisa who is concerned with the distribution of fate rather
than wealth. The actual god of wealth in the sense of merely
‘goods, riches’ is Vasu.
In Iranian religion very little is left of the Old Indie Bhaga
except the name baga which is generalized to mean ‘god’ but
a hint of his more specific duties may be found in the Avestan
Asi which means ‘redistribution’.
The Iranians (as Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans) were in
direct contact with the early Slavs in the steppe regions north
of the Black Sea and one of the terms possibly adopted from
Iranian into Slavic was baga which is reflected in the OCS
bogu ‘god’ (and the other Slavic languages). In addition to
the word, the semantic sphere of this deity was also passed
— 211 —
FORTUNE
on (if not inherited) and the chronicles recount the erection
of various images outside Kiev in 980 AD which included
Dazibogu (< *dadhi-bhagos ) ‘give fortune’ and Stribogu
?scatter (or ?father) fortune/god’.
The closest structural equivalent to the Indo-lranian deities
in Roman religion was the god Terminus who was charged
with the equitable distribution of goods among people (Ovid
Fasti 2.642).
Fortune Goddesses
Various IE groups also possessed a goddess of fortune or
fate. Although certain common themes are in evidence, they
are not so similar as to require a common origin nor is there
any linguistic evidence upon which to posit a PIE goddess of
fortune. Moreover, many of the thematic comparisons are with
divinities who filled other functions. Among the most
representative are the Latin Fortuna, the Baltic goddesses
Laime and Laima, the Indie Laksmi, and perhaps the Iranian
Spenta Armaiti.
Fortuna, the Roman goddess of fortune, wealth, and
abundance (Greek Tyche) is portrayed holding a cornucopia
filled with all good things (e.g., Plutarch, Moralia 318 A-B).
To the Romans, she was fickle, giving her gifts to a person
one day, and withholding them the next. Fortuna Pnmigenia ,
‘first-born Fortuna’, is the subject of many Roman inscriptions
and the recipient of dedicatory gifts. In Rome, fortune and
fate were distinguished, as Fortuna and the Parcae; in other
mythologies, such as the Baltic, the Germanic, and the Indie,
the two aspects were synchretized into one goddess.
The Baltic goddess of fate and destiny, associated with the
day and the sky, was called Laime in Lithuanian and Laima in
Latvian. As a goddess of fortune and destiny her functions
were similar to those of the Iranian Armaiti, Roman Fortuna
and the Parcae, Greek Tyche and the Moirai, Germanic Noms,
and Indie LaksmI. Along with Dievas, the sky-god, Laima
determined who was to live and who was to die. Laima aided
women in childbirth, and she determined the course which
the child’s life would take. Like the Roman Fortuna, she could
grant an unhappy fate, but she was not decried for her
“fickleness” to the same extent as Fortuna. Further, she was a
more personal goddess than Fortuna; she could be embodied
in mortals, while the remote Fortuna always remained an im-
mortal. At times the Laimas are viewed as multiple goddesses
(cf. the Parcae, Moirai, and Noms); each person is given a
Laima, but not all recognize her. Laima sometimes appears as
a bird-maiden. While Laima was goddess of life and the sky,
her counterpart, Lauma, was goddess of the earth and the
underworld, a shape-changer who was similar to a witch.
LaksmI was the Indie goddess of fortune, beauty, and love.
The term laksmi originally indicated a ‘token’ or ‘sign’; the
personification, Laksmi, did not exist in the IZgveda. In the
Atharvaveda , the term indicated ‘luck’, good or bad; in the
Mahabharata, it indicated ‘beauty’, ‘splendor’, ‘loveliness’, and
also the goddess, the personification of beauty, fortune, and
love. Sri Laksmi was composed of all good things, and the
Hindu gods therefore desired her. Agni therefore took her
food, Soma her royal power, Varuna her universal sovereignty,
Mitra her noble rank, Indra her strength, Bfhaspati her holy
lustre, Savitr her dominion, Pusan her wealth, Sarasvatl her
prosperity, and Tvasty the builder, took her beautiful forms.
Laksmi was thus the embodiment of the cornucopia; through
her came all good things. (Cf. the Indie Devi who was given
all good things by the Indie deities.) In this respect Laksmi
synchretizes the functions of two Greco-Roman goddesses,
Fortuna with her cornucopia, and Pandora, the ‘gift of
everything’, or the ‘all-endowed’. Laksmi had a son,
Kamadeva, a Love god similar to Eros/Cupid. Further, Laksmi
was born from the foam of the primeval sea of milk as it was
churned by the gods and the Asuras, much as the Greek
Aphrodite (Roman Venus) was born from the foam of the
sea. Laksmi represented the two poles of fortune: Laksmi as
good luck, and AlaksmI, ‘not-Laksmf, as misfortune. (The
Slavic Sreca and Nesreca are functionally equivalent
goddesses.) It was understood that the one goddess had two
polar forms. Laksmi was married to the god Visnu; she was
his sakti, his energizing consort. One of her epiphanies was
as RukminI, the principal wife of Lord Kfsna, the avatar of
Visnu in the Mahabharata.
Sponta Armaiti, ‘holy devotion’, was a goddess of the
Iranian Zoroastrian religion, considered to be an aspect of
the ‘wise Lord’, Ahura Mazdah, rather than an autonomous
deity. Armaiti is invoked in several Yasnas, dating from c 660
to 583 BC. She granted wisdom, and she taught the path of
truth. She personified the earth and the fruits of the land,
and through her destiny was invoked; she is thus comparable
to destiny goddesses such as the Roman Fortuna. She granted
wisdom and advice about the spirit ( Yasna 31.12) as well as
great strength ( Yasna 33.12), and she was born
androgenetically of Ahura Mazdah. She may thus be compared
to the Greek wisdom and warrior goddess Athene, who was
born androgenetically from the head of Zeus.
See also Love Goddess. [E.C.P, M.R.D.I
Further Readings
Dexter, M. R. (1997) Born of the Foam, in Studies in Ancient
Mythology in Honor of Jaan Puhvef ed. E. Polome and J. Greppin,
Washington, Institute for the Study of Man.
Dumezil, G. (1952) Les dieux des Indo-Europeens. Pans, PUF
FORWARD see BEFORE
FOX
*y l(o)p- ‘(red) fox ( Vulpes vulpes)' ?+ ‘corsac fox ( Vulpes
corsacj. [1EW 1 179 ( *y/p-); Wat 78 ( *wlp-e% GI 432-433
( *wlp h -)\ Buck 3.74]. Lat volpes ‘fox’, volpecula ‘little fox’,
Lith lape ‘fox, vixen’, vilpisys ‘wild cat’, Latv lapsa ‘fox’, Grk
aXtbjirf^- aXconogfox , Arm alues ‘fox’, Hit ulip(pa)na- ‘wolf’,
Av urupis ‘dog’, raopi- ‘fox, jackal’, MPers ropas ‘fox’, Khot
rruvasa- ‘jackal’, OInd lopasa- ‘jackal, fox’. Widespread and
obviously old in IE. However, reconstructing the PIE form of
— 212 —
FRESH
this word is extremely difficult. The attested forms would
appear to presuppose a bewildering number of PIE ante-
cedents: *y lope- (Baltic), *y olpe- (Latin), *l(o)upi- (Iranian),
*loupek- (Indo-Iranian), *a-lopek- (Greek, Armenian),
*ujpik- (Baltic). Clearly this word has been subject to
phonological deformation, perhaps because of some sort of
cultural taboo, in many, if not all, traditions in which it is
attested.
The distribution of the fox is widespread across Eurasia
(Atlantic to Urals), including the Near East, and south to
central India. Although it might be presumed that the fur of
the fox was highly prized, most Neolithic and Copper Age
sites yield the remains of less than five individuals which
suggests chance encounters or vermin extermination 'rather
than selective trapping. Even in areas of northern Europe such
as Russia where the beaver was hunted in great quantity, the
fox is only marginally attested. More relevant to some of the
theories concerning the IE homeland, fox-hunting is attested
to some degree in the Usatovo culture (Usatovo had eighteen
foxes, Mayaki had fifteen) and in the Yamna culture
(Mikhaylovka with twelve foxes). Fox remains have also been
recovered from Yamna burials and may include the teeth
(pendants), bones, and on several occasions, the mandibles
of a fox. The fox is also known from the Neolithic of Central
Asia.
See also Mammals; Tail; Wolf. [D.Q.A., J.PM.J
FRAMEWORK
*k red- ( *Krehid-l ) ‘framework, beams’. [IEW 617-618
( *kred-)\ Wat 32 ( *kred-)\ . ON hrot ‘roof, attic’, OE hrdst (<
*krdd-s-to-) ‘woodwork of roof, roost, attic’ (> NE roost),
OHG rost ‘pyre’, MHG raz ~ raze ‘honeycomb; pyre’, Goth
hrot ‘roof, house’, OCS krada (< *krddeh a with a centum
development of the initial palatal stop — perhaps a very early
borrowing from Germanic or some other western IE stock)
‘funeral pile’, Shughni xad (< Proto-Iranian *srad(y)a-)
‘summer pen for cattle’. Possibly belonging here, and with
the same centum development of the initial palatal stop, are
such Baltic words such as OPrus creslan ‘armchair’, Lith kreslas
‘chair’, Latv krgsls ‘chair’ (if < *kred-st-lo-). With or without
the Baltic words we have evidence for a term which referred
to structures or substructures of interlocking wood and which
is without any known root relations. Widespread and old in
IE.
See also House; Post. [A.D.V, D.Q.A.]
FREE see PEOPLE
freeman’, Lycian arawa- ‘free (from)’, arus- ‘citizens’; from
*h 4 erios\ OIr aire ‘freeman (whether commoner or noble);
noble (as distinct from commoner)’ (the latter meaning may
be rather from *pfios , a derivative of ‘first’; the Gaulish
personal names with Ario-, e.g., Ario-manus , presumably
contain ‘noble’), Av airya- ‘Aryan’, (i.e., ‘Iranian’ in the larger
sense), OPers ariya- ‘Aryan’, Iran Alani (< *aryana ) (the name
of an Iranian group whose descendants are the Ossetes, one
of whose subdivisions is the Iron [< *aryana - )), *aryanam
(gen. pi.) ‘of the Aryans’ (> MPers Iran), OInd art- ‘attached
to, faithful; a faithful devoted person, ± kinsman’ (and distinct
from the homophonous an- ‘enemy’), arya- ‘kind, favorable;
attached to, true, devoted’, arya- ‘Aryan; one who is faithful
to the Vedic religion’. From *h^er- ‘put together’. Oswald
Szemerenyi’s suggestion that it derives from an Ugaritic word
meaning ‘kinsmen’ is hardly compelling.
Clearly supposed in the original meaning is an emphasis
on in-group status as distinguished from the status of the
outsider, particularly those outsiders forcibly incorporated
into the group as slaves. In Anatolian the base word has come
to emphasize the personal relationship between individuals
while the derivatives continue the more general focus on social
status, as remains the case in Old Irish. In Indo-Iranian,
presumably because the unfree were typically captives taken
from other (ethnic) groups, the word has taken on a more
purely ethnic meaning. Less likely, but still possible, is the
assumption that this word was originally an ethnonym, the
self-designation of (at least parts oO the Indo-European
people, that was revalued as a term of social status.
An independent derivative of the same verbal root is *h a ero/
eh a - ‘fitting’ seen in Hit ara ‘(what is) fitting, right, proper,
fas ' , natta ara ‘it is not right, it is forbidden/illegal, nefas', Av
aram ‘fittingly, enough’, armaiti (< *ara-mati-) ‘right thought’,
OInd aram ‘fittingly, enough’, ara 7 mati ‘right thought,
devotion’, ev&ra ‘truly fitting, just right’.
See also Booty; Friend; Kinship; Master; People; Physical
Anthropology. [D.Q.A.J
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami, 300-304.
Dumezil, G. (1941) Le nom des ‘Arya'. Revue de I'histoire des
religions 124, 36-59.
Szemerenyi, O. (1977) Study in the kinship terminology of the Indo-
European languages. Acta Iranica 7. Leiden, Brill, 125-149.
Thieme, P (1938) Der Fremdling im Rgveda. Leipzig, Deutsche
Morgenlandische Gesellschaft
FREEMAN
*h 4 erds ~ *h^erios ‘member of one’s own (ethnic) group,
peer, freeman; (Indo-Iranian) Aryan’. [IEW 67 (*ario-?)\ Wat 3
( *aryo-)\ GI 657 ( *ar(y)o-)\ BK 387 ( *har-/*har-) , 429 ( *ar-/
*9r-)\ . From *h 4 eros comes Hit ara - ‘member of one’s own
group, peer, companion, friend’, with further derivatives
arawa- ‘free from’, arawahh- ‘set free from’, arawanni- ‘free;
FRESH
*ken- ‘fresh’. [ IEW 563-564 ( *ken-)\ Wat 29 ( *ken-)\ Buck
14.13]. Mir cana ~ cano ‘young animal (of wolf, dog, etc.)’,
Weis cenau ‘young dog or wolf’, Lat recens (if re + cens) ‘fresh,
just arrived’, OCS zacgti ‘begin’, Grk Kaivog ‘young’, OInd
kanfna- ‘young’. The sometimes cited Germanic examples
such as OE hindema ‘the last (newest)’, OHG hintana ‘behind'.
— 213 —
FRESH
Goth hindana ‘from beyond’ are more likely from *kei- ‘here’.
Even rejecting the weaker elements (the Celtic and Old Indie
forms have been alternatively connected with a root *kan-
‘small’), the broad geographical distribution points to probable
PIE status.
See also Number. [J.C.S.]
FRIEND
*prihxds ‘of ones own’, thus ‘dear’ and ‘free’. [ IEW 844
( *priio -); Wat 53 ( *priy-o-)\ Buck 16.28]. Weis rhydd‘ free’,
ON fri ‘beloved, spouse’, OE freo ‘woman’, freod ‘love’, freo
‘free’ (> NE free), OHG fri ‘free’, Goth freis ‘free’, Av frya-
‘dear’, OInd priya- ‘dear’, priya ‘spouse’, priyata ‘desire’. Also
the name of the Germanic goddess ON Frigg, OE Frig , OHG
Frija. It has been argued that *prih x os ‘of one’s own’ may be a
derivative of *per ‘house’ (attested in Hit per ‘house’, thus ‘of
one’s household’ although this word may be of non-IE origin).
Attested in the west, center and east of the IE world, this
word is surely of PIE date. In Celtic and Germanic, the term
means ‘free’ which points to parallel socio-political
organization though borrowing from Celtic to Germanic has
also been suggested. As is the case of Lat liber ‘free’ and Grk
ekevOepoq ‘free’ (< ‘*of lawful birth’), it indicates the legal
position of an individual who is a full-fledged member of the
ethnic community in contrast to outsiders or people subdued
into servitude by war. The specific meaning probably
developed originally among members of a particular social
class as a mutual term of affection.
*keh a ros~ *kp a ros ‘friendly’. [/EW515 (*ka-ro-); Wat 26
( *ka-ro-)\ Buck 16.28]. Olr cara ‘friend’, Weis car ‘friend’,
Lat earns ‘dear’, ON horr ‘adulterer’, OE hor ‘adulterer’, hore
‘whore’ (> NE whore), OHG huor ‘adulterer’, huora ‘whore’,
Goth hors ‘whore’, Latv kars ‘greedy’. Parallel derivatives of
*keh a f (gen. *kp a ros) ‘love’, itself a derivative of *keh a - ‘to
love’.
*K6iyos ~ *kiytds ‘belonging to the household’ (hence >
‘friendly, intimate, dear’). [/EW539-540 ( *kei-uo-)\ Wat 27-
28 ( *kei-wo-)\ Buck 7.122]. Lat civis ‘citizen’ (i-stem on the
analogy of hostis ‘host’), Osc ceus ‘citizen’, ON hjon ~ hjun
‘one of the household; (pi.) married couple’, hyski ‘household,
family’, OE hi wen ~ hiw-rseden ~ hiwisc ‘household’, hiwan
(pi.) ‘members of a household’, hiwcup ‘domestic, familiar’,
OHG hiun ‘married couple, parents; family members’, hi(w)o
‘husband’, hi(w)a ‘wife’, hiwiski ‘family’, Goth heiwa-frauja
‘master of the household; host’, Latv sieva ‘wife’, OInd seva-
‘dear, intimate’, siva- ‘kind, friendly, auspicious, dear’ (whence
Siva- ‘Shiva’). Lurking behind these words is either a root
noun *kei- or a u-stem *Reiu-/*Riu- ‘household, village as
social unit’ from *kei- ‘lie’, either from *‘± those that sleep
together’ or, since *kei- + *hjen may mean ‘depend upon’,
from *‘± collective dependants’. These words are widespread
and old in IE. The change of meaning from ‘member of the
household’ to ‘dear’ is possibly paralleled by *prihxds ‘dear’
from *per ‘house’. The OInd seva- ‘dear, intimate’ and siva-
‘kind, friendly, auspicious, dear’ emphasize the sentimental
relations between individuals or groups, unlike sakha-
‘companion’. Similar notions of intimacy lie behind the
meanings ‘family, spouse’ seen in Germanic and Baltic. On
the other hand, the particular semantic development that led
to the Italic meaning may be explained by the use of this
term as a form of mutual address among members of the
same community, cf. the use of ‘comrade’ among citizens of
the former Soviet Union.
See also Companion; Freeman; House; Love; Village. [E.C.P]
FRIGHTEN
*gheis- ‘frighten’. [IEW Ml ( *gheis-)\ Wat 21 (*gheis-)\.
ON geiska- (in compound geiska-fullr) ‘fear’, Goth (past part.)
us-gaisips ‘frightened’, Av zaesa- ‘horrible’; as *ghoisd-
( <*gheisd -): OE gaestan ‘frighten’, gast ‘spirit, ghost’ (> NE
ghost), OHG geist ‘spirit, ghost’, OInd heda- ‘anger’. Both the
root and the extended form can be reconstructed to PIE with
a moderate degree of confidence.
*terg w - ‘scare’. [IEW 1076-1077 (*terg^‘-)\. Weis tarfu
‘hunt’, Lat torvus ‘piercing, wild (of the eyes)’, ON pjarka
‘reproach, scold’, OE pracian ‘fear, feel dread, shudder’, Grk
t appeco ‘scare’, OInd tarjati ~ tarjate ‘threatens, scolds’.
Sufficiently widespread to guarantee its PIE status.
See also Fear. [M.N., D.Q.A.]
FROG
*yorhxd-i/o- frog’. [Fraenkel 1200]. Lith varle (with
secondary -/-) ‘frog’, Latv varde ‘frog’, Arm gort ‘frog’. At least
a word of the center of the IE world. A homophonous word
for ‘wart’ ( *uorhxdo~) is reflected in Germanic (e.g., OE wearte
‘wart’ l> NE wart]), Baltic (e.g. Latv ap-virde ‘abscess’), Slavic
(e.g. Rus vered ‘abscess, ulcer’), and Iranian (NPers balu
‘wart’), suggesting that the popular connection between warts
and the handling of frogs is of great antiquity. Alternatively, it
may be that the frog derives its designation from its skin, the
texture of which may resemble a series of warts.
See also Animal; Skin Disease; Spawn. [D.Q.A.]
FROM see AWAY
FROST see ICE
FRUIT see BERRY
FULL
*p\h 1 nds ‘full’. [IEW 799-800 (*p/-no-); G1 684
( *p h lH-(no-))-, Wat 48 ( *peh-)\ Buck 13.2 1 ; BK 54 ( *p[ h ]al-/
*p[ h ]ol-)]. Olr lan ‘full’, OWels laun ‘full’, ON fullr 1 full’, OE
fulFhxW (> NE full)-, OHG /o/ ‘full’, Goth fulls ‘full’, Lith pilnas
‘full’, OCS plunu ‘full’, Av porana- ‘filled’, OInd puma- ‘full’,
TochB pallew(< *plno-uent-) ‘full (of moon)’. Cf. the similarly
constructed *plehino- ‘full’: Olr linaim (a denominative verb
presupposing a *lin ‘full’) ‘fill’, Lat plenus ‘full’, Arm U ‘full’,
Av frana- ‘filling’, OInd prana- ‘full’.
See also Abundant; Emfh; Fill. [D.Q.A.]
— 214 —
FURTHER
FURROW
*pfEeh a - ‘furrow’. [7£W 821 ( *perk-)\ Wat 50 ( *perk-)\
GI 595 (*p h erk b -)\ Buck 8.212]. Weis rhych ‘furrow’, Gaul
rica ‘furrow’, Lat porca ‘ridge between furrows’, ON for
‘furrow’, OE furh ‘furrow’ (> NE furrow), OHG furuh ‘furrow’.
Cf. also Lith pra-persa ‘unfrozen patch of water in ice-covered
surface’, pra-parsas ‘ditch’, Olnd pirsana- ‘chasm, rift’. The
word for the specifically agricultural ‘furrow’ would appear
to have been confined to the western edge of the IE world.
Cf. also PIE *porkos ‘pig’ (as one who creates a furrow-like
track while rooting in the earth).
*l(o)iseh a - ‘furrow’. [JEW 671 ( *loisa)\ Wat 36 (*leis-)].
Lat lira ‘furrow’, de-llrus ‘insane, off the track’, OE liste ‘fringe,
border’ (> NE list), OHG leisa ‘track’, lista ‘border, hem’, OPrus
lyso ‘field bed’, Lith lyse ‘garden bed’, OCS lecha ‘field bed,
furrow’, Rus lekha ‘field bed’. A technical agricultural term
found only in the west and center of the IE world. From *leis-
‘leave a trace on the ground’.
?*yoryos furrow’. [BK 489 ( *wur y -/*wor y -)]. Lat urvare
‘mark out a boundary with a furrow’, Osc uruvu ‘boundary-
ditch’, Myc wo-wo ‘boundary-ditch’, Grk opoq (Ionic ovpog)
‘boundary’, (pi.) ovpoi ‘trench or channel for hauling up or
launching ships’, ovpov ‘limit, range (of area that could be
plowed by a mule in a day); boundaries’. Lat urvum ‘the
curved part of a plow’ is usually included here but the semantic
distance invites caution. Though reflected in only two stocks
this word still seems a likely candidate for PIE status, at least
in the west and center of the IE world.
See Border; Plow. [D.Q.A.'l
FURTHER
*h\eti ‘and, in addition’. \1EW 344 ( *eti-)\ Wat 17
(*eti-)]. Gaul eti ‘also, further’, Lat et ‘and also’, OHG it(a),
ith- prefix indicating repetition, addition, Goth ijy ‘but’,
(perhaps) Messapic -0t‘and’, Grk rn‘yet, further’, Phryg eri-
‘again’, Av aiti - ‘over’, Olnd ati ‘over, towards’. PIE status.
See also And; Far. [A.D.V.l
— 215 —
GALL
*gh6ln- ~ *ghiln- (Latin, Germanic) ~ *ghdlos (Greek,
Avestan) ‘gall’. [IEW 429 ( *ghel-)\ Wat 21 ( *ghel-)\ GI 715
(*g^el-)]. Lat fel (with dialect f- rather than expected *h -)
‘gall, anger’, ON gall ‘gall’, OE gealla ‘gall’ (> NE gall), OHG
galla ‘gall’, Grk ~ x°^\ ‘gall anger’, Av zara- ‘gall’. Both
attested forms are independent derivatives of *ghel- ‘yellow,
brown’, and were, at best, regionalisms in late PIE. OCS zluci
~ zlQci ‘bile’, Rus zelcl ‘bile’ also presumably belong here,
presupposing a late PIE *ghlkis, but the palatalized initial in
the Russian and second Old Church Slavonic form are not
altogether well-explained.
See also Anatomy; Yellow. [D.Q.A.J
GAMEBIRD
*teter- ‘gamebird’. [1EW 1079 ( *tef(ej>r-); GI 459
( *t h et h (e)r-)] . Mir tethra ‘hooded crow’, ON pidurr
‘capercaille’, OPrus ta tarwis ‘capercaille’, Lith teterva ~ tetervas
‘capercaille’, Latv teteris ‘capercaille’, OCS tetrevt ‘pheasant’,
Rus teterev ‘capercaille’, Grk rerpdcov ‘capercaille’, NPers
tadharv ‘pheasant’, Olnd tittira- ‘partridge’. Arm tetrak ‘turtle-
dove’ is a loan word. These are all large and well-fleshed game
birds. The capercaille is a northern bird while the pheasant is.
also found farther south, in the sub-Caucasus and northern
Iran and India. The Irish cognate, the ‘hooded crow’ is
normally of little interest to hunters and diners. The Arm
tetrak ‘turtle dove’ is little hunted though it does have food
value.
See also Birds; Quail. Q.A.C.G.]
GARLIC see VEGETABLES
GATHER
*ger- ‘gather; herd, crowd’. \IEW 382-383 ( *ger-)\ Wat
19 ( *ger-)\ BK 286 ( *k’ar-/*k’ar -)]. Mir graig ‘horse herd’,
Latgrex(< *gre-g-) ‘herd, company’, Lith gurgulas ‘thickening,
knot’, OCS grustl ‘handful’, Grk dysipco ‘gather’, ydpyapa
‘crowd’. Middle Irish, Latin, Lithuanian and Greek all show a
reduplicated nominal form, suggesting that it may be
reconstructed to the proto-language as ‘herd, crowd’. The
precise relationship between the nominal formation and Grk
dyeipo) is unclear; the initial a- may, however, reflect an old
prefixal *hjg-‘ in’.
*kr(e)u-bh- gather, amass’, [cf. /EW616-617 ( *kra(u)-)\
Wat 32 (*krau-)\ Buck 12.27; VW 235J. Grk Kpvjrrco ‘hide’,
TochA krop- ‘gather, amass, herd’, TochB kraup- ‘gather,
amass; herd’. The geographical distnbution of this word is a
strong argument for PIE status. With another enlargement,
we have PIE *kr(e)u-h x - in Lith krauju ‘pile up, stack’, kruva
‘pile’, Latv kfaut ‘heap up, load’, OCS kryja ‘cover, hide’, krovu
‘roof’. Olr cro ‘enclosure, shed’, Weis crau ‘shed’ have been
sometimes adduced here but they have also been associated
with *kropos ‘roof’ which is the more likely connection. Also
dubious are attempts to link the forms cited here with the
words for ‘round’, e.g., Olr cruinn ‘round’, Lat curvus.
See also Assembly; Herd; Roof. IM . N . ]
GAUDO CULTURE
Gaudo is a Copper or early Bronze Age culture (c 3500-
2700 BC) of south-west Italy. Sites are almost entirely limited
to burials in rock-cut tombs. These consist of an entrance
shaft (which would later be blocked up with stone rubble)
leading to a kidney-shaped chamber which might contain
— 217
GAUDO CULTURE
Gaudo b. Bronze dagger; c. Jointed-bowl; d. Gaudo grave
Gaudo a. Distribution of the Gaudo culture
two to twenty-five burials, accompanied by pots, flint daggers
(sometimes copper), and arrowheads. Both males and females
were found in the graves and there is some evidence for social
stratification, e.g., the Chieftain’s Tomb at Mirabello Eclano
where a single male burial was accompanied by three copper
daggers, two flint daggers, forty-two flint arrowheads, pottery
and other stone tools. A dog was buried at the foot of the
deceased. The physical type of those buried in the Gaudo
tombs is more round-headed than what has been presumed
to be the native Mediterranean population and this has led to
the suggestion that the Gaudo culture was a product of
immigrants. These have been variously derived from the
eastern Mediterranean (Anatolia) or north or east of the Alps
where they have been identified as an early wave of IE-
speaking groups. Much of current opinion dismisses the
concept of foreign intrusions and seeks the explanation for
any correspondences between the Gaudo and other non-
Italian cultures through exchange relations. If so, some
connection between the very peculiar “joined bowls” of the
Gaudo culture and distant parallels in Anatolia are among
the more problematic. As “exchange” relationships may well
disguise small movements of people, one cannot entirely rule
out some form of foreign intrusions into Italy. The pattern of
such a movement, at least one seen emanating from the eastern
Mediterranean, would not provide much of a “fit” against the
linguistic evidence for no one, including those who specifically
advocate an IE homeland in Anatolia, suggest that Indo-
Europeans entered Italy in the fourth millennium BC from
the eastern Mediterranean by way of the sea. Other than
satisfying, perhaps, a few of the proponents who derive the
Etruscans from Anatolia (and who also believe, against the
common opinion, that Etruscan was an IE language), such a
model linking Italy and Anatolia does not explain the
historically attested Indo-Europeans of Italy. Intrusions from
the north, however, might accord better with interstock
contacts between Italic and both Celtic and presumably the
IE languages of the Balkans. But as the Gaudo culture is the
most southerly of the major Copper Age cultures of Italy, one
might require that some form of intrusion be established for
the other Italian cultures as well.
See also Italic Languages; Remedello Culture; Rinaldone
Culture. (J.PM.l
GERMANIC LANGUAGES
On their entrance into history in the last centuries before
Christ, Germanic-speaking peoples inhabited what is now
southern Norway and Sweden and a broad strip of the North
European plain from Flanders to the Vistula. It is the consensus
among linguists that in the middle of the first millennium BC
their continental holdings had been more restricted.
GERMANIC LANGUAGES
comprising southern Sweden, Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein,
Mecklenburg and immediately adjacent areas. In the western
part of their area their expansion had probably come at the
expense of Celtic-speaking peoples. Other groups, whether
Indo-European or not Indo-European, that may have been in
the area that was later Germanic vanished without any certain
linguistic trace though some such precursor language(s) may
have been the source of that part of the Germanic vocabulary
not shared with other IE groups. Some 28% of the core
vocabulary of Germanic has been estimated as of non-IE
origin.
Linguistically Germanic-speakers were divided into three
groups: North Germanic in Norway and Sweden, East
Germanic from approximately the Oder eastward, and West
Germanic to the west of the Oder (including Denmark).
North Germanic speakers, originally at home in southern
Sweden and Norway, moved into Denmark very late in the
prehistoric period and repopulated an area that was largely
depopulated by the movement of the original West Germanic
speakers to the British Isles. At a somewhat later period (800-
1050 AD), as Vikings, their raids were the scourge of both
western Europe (Vikings largely from Norway and Denmark)
and eastern Europe (largely from Sweden). North Germanic
speakers settled in large numbers in the British Isles,
Normandy and Russia. In all of these places they were sooner
or later assimilated linguistically to the surrounding popula-
tions. In England, however, they were sufficiently numerous
to have left a permanent linguistic mark on their earlier West
Germanic cousins, the English.
The earliest linguistic remains usually attributed to North
Germanic speakers are brief inscriptions in a special Runic
alphabet, found mostly in Norway and Denmark but also in
scattered locations elsewhere. These inscriptions are in some
cases datable as early as the third century AD. The language
represented on these early inscriptions is sufficiently archaic
that it is not even specially North Germanic and may be taken
as the common ancestor of West and North Germanic and
only little differentiated from the East Germanic that appears
a couple of centuries later in Gothic. Classical North
Germanic, Old Norse, appears, written in the Latin alphabet,
in the twelfth century. North Germanic is divided into two
groups on a rough east- west basis. In the east we have Swedish
and Danish. In the west we have the very conservative
Icelandic and also Norwegian (heavily influenced by Danish)
and Faroese,
East Germanic speakers were the first to trouble the later
Roman Empire in a major way. A number of East Germanic
tribal groups wandered through Europe: Vandals,
Burgundians, etc. However, of these it was the Goths who
left us with the only linguistic record of East Germanic. The
Goths moved first from the lower Vistula to what is now the
Ukraine. Pressed in their new home by the onslaught on the
Huns, they moved into the Balkans and then into western
Europe. One group, the Visigoths, ended up in Spain, where
they formed the basis of the post-Roman state there and
another, the Ostrogoths, became caretakers for the last Roman
emperors in Italy. The Goths of Spain and Italy were
linguistically absorbed by the Romance-speakers surrounding
them by the eighth century. The chief Christian missionary
and later bishop of the Visigoths, one Wulfila, translated the
Bible into Gothic while the Visigoths were in the northeast
Balkans and it is this translation that forms the overwhelming
portion of our linguistic record of Gothic, and of East
Germanic as a whole. A small subset of the Ostrogoths, left
behind in the Crimea, emerge linguistically in the sixteenth,
century in the form of a short wordlist (some eighty-six words)
compiled by Oguier de Busbecq, the ambassador of the Holy
Roman Emperor to the Sublime Porte. The Crimean Gothic
speakers disappeared linguistically soon after de Busbecq
recorded his vocabulary.
The West Germanic groups were also expansive though in
general they wandered less far than the East Germanic groups
did. The eastern flank of the West Germanic group, those
living roughly in the former East Germany, moved to the south
and west, ending up in southern Germany, Austria, and
Switzerland. Because in medieval and modem times these
West Germanic speakers lived in the more elevated parts of
the German-speaking areas their speech is collectively called
High German. Various High German dialects are attested in
written sources from the eighth century AD. Old High German
(OHG) is dated to c 750-1050; Middle High German (MHG)
to c 1050-1350. Modem (standard) or New High German
(NHG), which dates from c 1350 onwards, is based on certain
dialects of the northeast of the High German area, dialects
brought to prominence by the imperial chancery in Prague
and Luther’s translation of the Bible.
The western portion of the West Germanic group, those
along the middle and lower Rhine, moved so as to straddle
the Rhine and further, on into northern France. The leading
group politically of these western West Germanic speakers
were the Franks who gave their name to France and in the
person of their greatest king, Charlemagne, founded the Holy
Roman Empire. The Frankish (Franconian) dialects of the
lower Rhine, rather strongly influenced by the emerging High
German standard, gave rise ultimately to Dutch (with its South
African outlier, Afrikaans). North of the Franks, in modern-
day Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein were the Saxons.
Dialects from this area are collectively known as Low German
and, while now reduced to the status of a local patois, they
formed in medieval and modern times the dominant written
language of northern Germany and were extremely influential
in Scandinavia.
The West Germanic speakers originally living in Denmark,
Schleswig, and along the North Sea coast provided the
Germanic settlers who invaded Britain in the fifth century in
the confusion following the withdrawal of Roman troops from
the island. The Angles (from Angeln in Schleswig), the Saxons,
the Jutes (from Jutland), and their neighbors formed the bulk
of the new non-Celtic population of Great Britain whose
language eventually came to be called English, attested in
— 219 —
GERMANIC LANGUAGES
Old Norse
ILow German!
High German!
Gothic
Germanic Distribution of the Germanic languages. Shaded area marks the Jastorf culture which is closely associated with the Germanic
homeland.
written documents from the eighth century. The earliest three PIE genders but only two of the PIE numbers (singular
period, Old English (OE), dates to c 700-1100 BC. It is and plural). The dual, save in personal pronouns, is lost and
followed by Middle English (ME) which runs c 1100-1450 the distribution of dual and plural personal pronouns breaks
and then New English (NE; c 1450-). English’s closest relative down in the Middle Ages. The adjective shows a similar system
is Frisian, the speakers of coastal West Germanic who were of inflection to that of the noun but it has, in addition, an
“left behind” as it were by the migration of the ancestors of innovative distinction between indefinite (“strong”) and
the English. definite (“weak”) forms. The indefinite forms represent the
inherited PIE endings while the definite represent n-stem
Description extensions of the underlying adjectives. The distinction of
From the morphological point of view Germanic shows strong and weak adjectives persists in all Germanic languages
both conservative and innovative tendencies. The noun except English (which lost the distinction in Middle English,
preserves five of the eight cases (with traces of a sixth) traces only remain in Chaucer’s language), though the
reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. It also preserves all distinction is very much reduced except in German and
— 220 —
GERMANIC LANGUAGES
Icelandic. It is of interest to note that neighboring Baltic and
Slavic have also created new definite forms for adjectives, but
they have created them from very different morphological
material.
The verb has been handled considerably less conservatively.
The dual has been lost (except in Gothic) as has the medio-
passives (again save in Gothic where it exists in the present
only). The rich late PIE set of tense and aspect distinctions
has been reduced to a present and a past. The latter, when
inherited, mostly from the PIE perfect with vowel change (e.g.,
NE sing vs. sang). Distinctive for Germanic is the innovative
past tense in *-d- for (originally) derived verbs (e.g., NE tow
vs towed). Germanic preserves the distinction among
indicative, imperative, and optative (> Germanic subjunctive)
but has lost the PIE subjunctive. The Proto-Germanic verbal
system is largely intact in German and Icelandic but much
reduced in all other contemporary languages, including
English. However, English and most other Germanic
languages have innovated in the creation of a new set of
compound tenses such as the English perfect and progressive
tenses.
Germanic is distinguished from other Indo-European
groups by the manner of articulation of the PIE obstruents.
Where Indie, for instance, has t, d, and dh, and Greek has t,
d , and th for what is conventionally reconstructed as PIE *t,
*d , and *dh, Proto-Germanic normally had *9, *t, and *d ,
and likewise for all places of articulation. Thus where PIE
had voiceless stops, Proto-Germanic had voiceless con-
tinuants; where PIE had voiced stops, Proto-Germanic had
voiceless stops, and where PIE had voiced aspirated, Proto-
Germanic had simple voiced stops (probably originally voiced
continuants, the various Germanic languages differ on this
point). This relationship is usually called “Grimm’s Law” (after
Jakob Grimm [1785-1863] its discoverer) or the First
Germanic Sound Shift and it is the single most dramatic
characteristic by which Germanic is distinguished from other
IE stocks. Apparent exceptions to Grimm’s Law, particularly
cases where PIE *p , *t, and *k became Proto-Germanic *b,
*d, and *g rather than the expected *f, *9, and *x, were
explained by the Danish linguist Karl Vemer ([1846-1896]
hence “Verner’s Law”) as reflecting the influence of PIE stress
(itself nowhere preserved in Germanic). His explanation says
that PIE voiceless stops gave Proto-Germanic voiceless
continuants, as Grimm had stated, when initial or after the
PIE stressed vowel. However, they gave voiced continuants
(or voiced stops) when non-initial and before the PIE stress.
Thus PIE *p/i a f£r ‘father’ gives Goth fadar while PIE *bhreh a ter
‘brother’ gives Goth bropar. (The identity of the medial
consonants in these two words in contemporary English is
the result of later changes in English only.) The fact that cases
which were irregular by Grimm’s Law (such as the Germanic
word for ‘brother’) could be seen as regular when Verner’s
Law was added to the description was perhaps the single most
important building block to the notion that phonological
change was exceptionless (if one knew all the rules) and that
in turn made the reconstruction of unattested languages, such
as PIE, a genuine possibility. Germanic is also characterized
by the development of all vocalic resonants, whether or not
followed by a laryngeal, to *u followed by a resonant. Thus
*r(hx), etc., give Proto-Germanic *ur, etc.
High German is distinguished from the other Germanic
languages, including Low German, its closest relative within
Germanic, by a second consonant shift which is very
reminiscent of the changes described in Grimm’s Law. Proto-
Germanic voiceless stops become voiceless continuants after
a long vowel or diphthong within a word and voiceless
affricates elsewhere (in most varieties of High German Proto-
Gmc *k remains a k except after a long vowel), Proto-
Germanic voiced stops become voiceless stops (though both
*gand *b usually remain in most varieties of High German),
while Proto-Germanic voiced continuants became voiced
stops. Thus a PIE *dheubos ‘deep’ gave Proto-Gmc *deupa-
(OE deop, Goth diups) which in Old High German is tiof or
PIE *treies ‘three’, gave Proto-Gmc *pri(,OE prie, Goth preis)
which in Old High German is dri.
The rather radical changes, particularly the phonological
changes subsumed under Grimm’s and Verner’s laws, that
separate Germanic from its sister stocks and the large number
of Germanic words that do not seem to have good IE
etymologies, have led a number of investigators to assume
that Proto-Germanic was heavily affected by a linguistic
substrate (that is, a population of non-Indo-European speakers
who were linguistically assimilated by the pre-Germanic
speakers who were themselves a relatively small proportion
of the resultant population of Proto-Germanic speakers).
Probably the best evidence for such a substrate is the large
number of apparently non-Indo-European words relating to
the sea, sea products, and ships. The assumption is that the
pre-Germanic speakers, coming from somewhere in the
interior of Europe, first became acquainted with the sea
somewhere on the Baltic and borrowed the words related to
the sea from a more original population which was
subsequently linguistically assimilated to the Indo-European
newcomers. Since the linguistic substrate(s) disappeared
without a trace other than these putative loanwords, their
presence cannot be independently confirmed. In any case, it
is important to point out that Celtic loanwords into Germanic
during the latter half of the first millennium BC undergo the
first Germanic soundshift and thus the attribution of the
phonological changes subsumed under the shift to some
substrate which must have disappeared a thousand or perhaps
two thousand years before is impossible.
Within Indo-European Germanic is most closely related
to Baltic and Slavic. With them it shares many vocabulary
items, as well as the morphological peculiarity of certain case
endings in *-m- , where other Indo-European languages have
*-bh- (e.g., Goth wulfam , Lith vilkams , OCS vuikomu , but
OInd vfkebhyah , all ‘to the wolves’), and the phonological
peculiarity of o-stem nouns with mobile stress (nominative
and accusative on the first syllable, other cases on the last
221
GERMANIC LANGUAGES
Proto-Indo-European and Germanic Phonological Correspondences
PIE
Gmc
PIE
ON
OE
Goth
OHG
*P
>
f ~ B
*ph a ter ‘father’
fadir
faeder
fadar
fater
*b
>
P
*dheubos ‘deep’
djupr
deop
diups
tiof
*bh
>
b
*bhere/o- ‘carry’
bera
beran
bairan
beran
*t
>
~d
*tuh x ‘thou’
pu
pu
pu
t(h)u
*d
>
t
*deiyds ‘god’
Tyr
Tig
tyz (name of rune) Ziu ‘Mars’
*dh
>
d
*dhurom ‘door’
dyrr (pi.)
dor
daur
tor
*E
>
h
*kiptom ‘hundred’
hundrad
hund(red)
hunda (pi.)
hunt
*g
>
k
*genu ‘jaw, cheek’
kinn
cinn
kinnus
chmne
*gh
>
g
*gheud- ‘pour’
gjota
geotan
giutan
giozzan
*k
>
h
*kap- ‘seize, hold’
hafa
habban
haban
haben
*g
>
k
*h a eug- ‘increase’
auka
eacian
aukan
ouhhon
*gh
>
g
*ghordhos ‘enclosure’
gardr
geard
gards
gart
*k w
>
hw
*k w 6d ‘what’
hvat
hwaet
lva
(h)waz
*g w
>
kw
*g w eneh a -n- ‘woman’
kona
cwene
qino
quen
* gWh
>
gw ~ w
*g w hn-to/eh a - ‘striking’
gunnr ~ gudr
gap
-
gund-
*g w hermos ‘warm’
varmr
wearm
warmjan
warm
*s
>
s
*sehi- ‘sow’
sa
sawan
saian
sa(w)en
*i
>
y
*iugom ‘yoke’
ok
geoc
juk
joh
*u
>
w
*\fehintos ‘wind’
vindr
wind
winds
wint
*m
>
m
*meh a ter ‘mother’
modir
modor
-
muoter
*n
>
n
*nu ‘now’
nu
nu
nu
nu
*1
>
1
*lese/o- ‘pick out’
lesa
lesan
lisan
lesen
*r
>
r
*hjroudhos ‘red’
raudr
read
raups
rot
*ip
>
um
*K ifitom ‘hundred’
hundrad
hund(red)
hunda (pi.)
hunt
>
un
*di}g w heh a -n- ‘tongue’
tunga
tunge
tuggo
zunga
*1
>
ul
*u]k w os ‘wolf’
ulfr
\vulf
wulfs
wolf
*r
>
ur
*ufdhom ‘word’
ord
word
waiird
wort
*i
>
i
*uidmes ‘we know’
vitom
witom
witum
wizzo
*1
>
I
*suih x nos ‘swine’
svln
swln
swein
swln
*e
>
e
*hiekuos ‘horse’
fir
eoh
afha-
OSax ehu-
*e
>
e
*seh\- ‘sow’
sa
sSwan
saian
sa(w)en
*a
>
a
*h a egros ‘field’
akr
aecer
akrs
achar
*a
>
a
*bhreh a ter ‘brother’
brodir
brodor
brdpar
bruoder
*o
>
a
*ghordhos ‘enclosure’
gardr
geard
gards
gart
*6
>
a
*dhohimos ‘setting down’
dOmr
dom
ddms
tuom
*u
>
u
*dhug(h a )ter ‘daughter’
dottir
dohtor
dauhtar
tohter
*u
>
u
*nQ ‘now’
nQ
nQ
nu
nQ
*hi
>
0
*hjesti ‘is’
es
is
ist
ist
*h 2
>
0
*h 20 uis ‘sheep’
aer
eowu
awistr
ouwi
*h 3
>
0
*h 3 ok w -on- ‘eye’
auga
eage
augo
ouga
*h 4
>
0
*h 4 drghos ‘(sexually) mounted’
argr
earg
-
arg
syllable). This latter feature is witnessed for instance by ON
hestr ‘stallion’ but OE hengist ‘stallion’, the former reflecting
PrOto-Gmc *hanxista- while the latter reflects (with Vemer’s
Law) *hangista-. Later Germanic seems to have come in
contact with pre-Italic and later yet, not long before both
groups enter recorded history, with Celtic.
The accompanying phonological chart puts OHG last in
the list of representative languages, so as to make clearer the
operation of this second sound shift (in those words which
were affected by it).
Origins
The earliest ethnographer to leave an account of the ancient
Germans, Julius Caesar describing his Gaulish campaign in c
58-50 BC, positioned the Germans to the east of the Rhine.
By this time the Germanic peoples and language had clearly
developed as an independent stock but not for long if the
estimates based on the close affinity of the earliest Germanic
texts to reconstructed Proto-Germanic is anything to go by
The inscriptional evidence and loan words between Celtic
and Germanic such as *isama- ‘iron’ suggest that the Germanic
— 222 —
GIRD
stock may have formed quite late, the first sound shift often
being set to around 500 BC. In short, the formation of Proto-
Germanic is generally set to the Iron Age of western Europe.
Caesar’s positioning of the early Germans on the east bank
of the Rhine has long been suspected to have been a product
of his political agenda and, in archaeological terms at least,
the Rhine has been usually dismissed as an important cultural
border at this time. Rejection of Caesars assertion has
prompted archaeologists to seek the early Germans in a more
northerly culture. Traditionally, the starting point for locating
the earliest historical Germans is the Jastorf culture of
Denmark and north and central Germany as far south as the
Aller and the Weser. The problem with this identification,
one which is based to a large extent on establishing an
archaeological dichotomy between La Tene Celts and Jastorf
Germans, is that it does not account for the peoples in
between, some of whom at least should have also belonged
to the early Germans if the positioning of classical authors is
anything to go by On the basis of this approach, the Jastorf
culture would be a major component of the early Germans
but this ethno-linguistic group would also find other archaeo-
logical reflections in various Iron Age cultures around its
periphery (e.g., the Hunsruck-Eifel culture of the middle
Rhine), including La Tene groups which might variously be
described as final Celtic or early Germanic, the two being
indistinguishable .
Any attempt to retreat further into the prehistoric period
carries us beyond the temporal definition of Proto-Germanic
suggested by the linguists into the vague realm of northwest
Indo-European or late Indo-European. It is widely held that
there is considerable continuity in both the archaeological
and physical anthropological record of northern Europe from
the earliest appearance of the Germans back into the Bronze
Age. The Jastorf culture, for example, is regarded as a direct
continuation of the local northern Bronze Age after the
introduction of some iron metallurgy. The line of continuity
extends throughout the entire course of the Bronze Age down
to the transition between the middle and later Neolithic in
south Scandinavia, i.e., between the earlier TRB culture and
that of the Corded Ware horizon. The appearance of the
Corded Ware culture (c 3200 BC) in this region is associated
by many archaeologists with the earliest appearance of the
Indo-Europeans in the north European plain. There is
evidence for a new physical type in some regions at this time
although the archaeological evidence for discontinuity is very
hotly debated. As the Corded Ware horizon also expands over
territories that would appear ancestral to both Baltic and Slavic
ethnogenesis, it might also provide a reflection of the cultural
sphere in which the Germanic-Baltic-Slavic isoglosses arose.
The temporal definition of these isoglosses, however, might
have been achieved later and as the Corded Ware horizon
does extend south as far as Switzerland, it may also have
included distant ancestors of the Celtic and Italic stocks. In
this way, the Corded Ware horizon would have provided the
linguistic arena for the earliest of those cognate sets described
in this Encyclopedia as northwest Indo-European.
See also Corded Ware Culture; Indo-European Languages;
Jastorf Culture. (D.Q.A., J.PMJ
Funher Readings
Language
Jasanoff, J. (1994) Germanic, in Langues indo-europeennes , ed. F
Bader, Paris, CNRS, 251-280.
Musset, Lucien (1975) The Gennanic Languages: The Making of
Europe, A.D. 400-600. Translated by Edward James and Columba
James. University Park, Pa., Pennsylvania University Press.
Prokosch, Eduard (1938). A Comparative Germanic Grammar.
Philadelphia, Linguistic Society of America.
Robinson, Orrin W (1992) Old English and its Closest Relatives: A
Survey of the Earliest Germanic Languages. Stanford, Stanford
University Press.
Sausverde, E. (1996) “Seeworter” and substratum in Germanic, Baltic
and Baltic Finno-Ugric languages, in The lndo-Europeanization
of Northern Europe , eds. K. Jones-Bley and M. E. Huld.
Washington, Institute for the Study of Man, 133-147.
Schwarz, Ernst (1956) Germanische Stammeskunde. Heidelberg,
Winter.
Witczak, K. T. (1996) The Pre-Germamc substrata and Germanic
maritime vocabulary, in The lndo-Europeanization of Northern
Europe, eds. K. Jones-Bley and M. E. Huld. Washington, Institute
for the Study of Man, 166-189.
Etymological Dictionaries
De Vries, J. (1962 ) Altnordisches etymologisches Worterbuch. 2nd
ed. Leiden, Brill
Kluge, F (1975) Etymologisches Wonerbuch derdeutschen Sprache.
Berlin and New York, Walter de Gruyter.
Lehmann, W P (1986) A Gothic Etymological Dictionary Based on
the Third Edition of Vergleichendes Worterbuch der Gothischen
Sprache by Sigmund Feist. Leiden, Brill.
Origins
Ament, H. (1986) Die Ethnogenese der Germanen aus der Sicht der
Vor- und Friihgeschichte, in Ethnogenese europaischer Volker ,
eds. W Bernhard and A. Kandler-Palsson, Stuttgart and New York,
Gustav Fischer, 247-256.
Bernhard, W (1986) Die Ethnogenese der Germanen aus der Sicht
der Anthropologie, in Ethnogenese europaischer Volker, eds. W
Bernhard and A. Kandler-Palsson, Stuttgart and New York, Gustav
Fischer, 257-284.
Kruger, B. (1983) Die Germanen. 2 vols. Berlin, Akaderme Verlag.
Owen, Francis (1960) The Germanic People. New York, Bookman.
Todd, M. (1975) The Northern Barbarians. London, Hutchinson.
GIFT see EXCHANGE
GIRD
gird’. [ IEW 5 1 3 ( *id[u Js~) ; Wat 79 (*yos-)\ G1 610;
Buck 6.57; BK 472 ( *ya-/*yd-)\ . Lith juosiu ‘gird, girdle,
buckle on (a sword)’ (Lith 3rd sg. juosti), OCS po-jasp ‘gird’,
— 223 —
GIRD
Alb n-gjesh ‘gird, fasten on, buckle on’, Grk f covvvfii ‘gird’,
Av yfohayeiti ‘girds’. The root-noun appears in Av yah- ‘belt’
and, extended by the addition of the thematic vowel, in OCS
po-jasQ ‘belt’. Nominal derivatives include: (1) *ieh3sm- ‘belt’
in Lith juosmuo ‘waist’, Grk C,&fia ‘belt’; (2) *ieh3s(m)no/
eh2- ‘belt’ in RusCS pa-jasni (< *ieh3sni-) ‘belt’, Grk
‘belt’, Olnd rasna (crossed with rasana ‘belt’); and *ieh3Sto/
eh2- ‘belt’ in Lith juosta ‘girdle, belt; sash, scarf’, Grk C,coGx 6 q
‘belt’, Av yasto ‘belt’. The wide distribution of both verb and
certain nominal derivatives makes this lexeme a strong
candidate for PIE status. The nominal derivatives provide a
name for one of the very few specific types of PIE clothing,
one moreover with strong cultural connotations for both men
and women. For the latter we might particularly note the
string skirt, widely traceable in Europe from the Upper
Palaeolithic and subsequent periods. It appears to have
symbolized the nubile status of a woman, and was probably
a badge of considerable honor. Distant, and a bit confused,
echoes of the string skirt are probably to be found in Book 14
of the Iliad where Hera sets out to seduce Zeus and belts on ‘a
girdle crafted with a hundred tassels’. As an accoutrement
over other clothes, it survives to this day as part of the woman’s
folk costume of many parts of the Balkans. Non-fringed belts
were, and in some IE cultures still are, important in men’s
costumes as a sign of virility.
*gherdh- ‘gird, surround’. [IEW 444 ( *gherdh - ~
*gherdh-)\ Wat 22 ( *gher-)\ BK 303 ]. The
underlying verb is preserved only in Germanic: ON gyrda
‘gird’, gjprd ~ gyrdill ‘girdle’, OE gyrdan ‘gird’ (> NE gird),
gyrdel ‘girdle’ (> NE girdle), OHG gurten ‘gird’, gurtil(a)
‘girdle’, MHG gurt ‘girdle’, Goth bi-gairdan ‘gird’, galrda
‘girdle’. What demonstrates that this word is a retention in
Germanic, rather than an innovation, is the practically pan-
IE distribution of the related root-noun *ghordhs ‘fence,
enclosure’.
*kenk - ‘gird, wrap around’. [IEW 565 (*kenk-)\ Wat 29
( *kenk-)\ GI 85 ( *k b en-k h -)\ Buck 6.57]. Lat cingo ‘gird,
surround’, Lith kinkau ‘bridle a horse, harness’, perhaps Grk
(Hesychius) kolkolXov (if < *knkalo-) ‘wall’ (if< *‘[that] which
surrounds’), Olnd kancate ‘bind’, kancuka- ‘cuirass, jacket,
skin of snake, husk’, kancl- ‘girdle’. Certainly of PIE date,
though probably more general in meaning than just ‘gird’.
?*kerd- ‘belt’. OIr cris ‘belt’, Weis gwregys ‘belt, girdle’
(< Celt *kfd-su~), Rus ceres ‘leather belt’ (< Slav kerd-so-)\
cf. OIr fo-cridigedar (< *upo-kfd~) ‘girds’. A possible Celtic-
Slavic isogloss.
The belt may be associated with the attire of both males
and females in IE tradition, e.g., Hera’s belt alluded to above
but also the belt of Herakles (Herodotus 4) which Scythes,
the ancestor of the Iranian Scythians, must be able to put on
in order to claim his inheritance. That the belt itself was
invested with certain symbolic power is evident, for example,
from the anthropomorphic stelae of both western Europe and
the Pontic-Caspian region during the late Neolithic and early
Bronze Age. In the Pontic-Caspian region we encounter the
image of individuals in which the sole garment depicted is
the belt while sexual organs and breasts clearly indicate that
the individual is otherwise naked.
See also Fence; Stelae. [D.Q.A., E.J.WB.]
GIRL see DAUGHTER
GIVE
*h a ei- ‘give’. [IEW 10-11 (*ai-); Wat 1 (*ai~); Gl 656
( *ai -)]. Lat ae-mulus ‘emulator, rival’, Grk ai'vvpai ‘take,
seize’, cetera ‘portion, fate’, Hit pai (< *pe-ai) ‘give’, Av aeta-
‘fitting portion, penalty’, TochA e- ‘give’, TochB ai- ‘give’.
Whether or not the Latin form belongs here is debatable. The
inclusion of the Greek verbal form here has been challenged
on the basis of its semantics but it is frequently the case in IE
that words meaning ‘give’ or ‘take’ often develop the opposite
meaning.
*deh 3 - ‘give’. [7EW223-225 ( *do-)\ Wat 1 5 ( *do-)\ Gl 37
(*td-)\ Buck 11.21; BK 121 (*t'uw-/*t’ow-)\. Lat do ‘give’,
OPrus dasi ‘give’, Lith duoti ‘give’, Latv duot ‘give’, OCS dati
‘give’, Grk diScapi ‘give’, Arm [am ‘give’, Hit da- ‘take’, Av
dadaiti ‘gives’, Olnd dadati ‘gives’. This word may be un-
problematically reconstructed to PIE. The reduplicated present
stem, seen in Greek and Indie and also Latin compounds
such as reddo (< *re-dido) ‘give back’, is often posited for the
proto-language as well, this assumption requires, however,
the further assumption that in the majority of the daughter
languages the reduplicated syllable subsequently vanished
without a trace. The root also supplies the base oi*deh3ter
‘giver’: OCS dateljl ‘giver’, Grk SSrcop ‘giver’, Av da tar- ‘giver’,
Olnd datar- ‘giver, giving’. These may be inherited or parallel
formations based on a relatively productive suffix.
*h 2 / 3 enk- ‘bestow’. [GI 818 ( *onk h o-)\ cf. Puhvel 3, 292],
The underlying verb is preserved only in Hit henkzi ‘bestows’
but cf. the widespread derivative *h 2 / 3 onkos ‘what is be-
stowed’: Grk oyKoq ‘burden’, Arm (pi.) hunjW ‘harvest’, Hit
henkan- ‘fate, death’, Av psa- ‘group of followers’, Olnd amsa-
‘portion, share’. Though sparsely attested, the geographical
distribution of those attestations strongly suggests PIE status
for this word. With the loss of laryngeals, the word has become
phonologically confused with *h\nek- ‘attain’. It was appa-
rently loaned from Iranian into Finno-Ugric, e.g., Finnish osa
‘part, portion’, Veps oza ‘luck, portion’.
It is a striking fact that a number of IE roots which can be
reconstructed with the meaning ‘give’ surface in some
daughter languages with the meaning ‘take’ as *h a ei- and
*deh3- indicate. The root *nem- ‘take’, in turn, develops the
meaning ‘give’ in Grk vepco ‘distribute’. Several motivations
for this striking semantic development may be suggested.
Benveniste proposes that one motivation for the shift lies in
the ambiguity inherent in the physical gesture of giving,
comparing NE fake with take Co. More interestingly, Benveniste
notes that the vocabulary of giving is also closely bound up
with the concept of hospitality in PIE society. In this relation-
ship, embodied in Lat hostis ‘stranger, foreigner’ or Grk ^evoq
— 224
GLASINAC CULTURE
Glasinac a. Area of the Glasinac culture (associated with the
prehistoric Illyrians).
Glasinac b. Reconstructed appearance of a warrior from a
burial at Ilijaka II, Bosnia.
‘foreigner’, there is a sort of reciprocal gift-giving known as
potlatch in anthropology. In this relationship, one person is
bound to another by the social obligation of a gift or service;
repaying this gift would then create an obligation in the first
giver to respond in kind, resulting in the circulation of wealth
throughout the society. As Calvert Watkins notes, this
relationship was manifested in many social bonds in PIE
society: host-guest, patron-poet, and lord-client, etc. The
semantic shifts between ‘give’ and ‘take’ could then be seen
as the consequence of focusing on one side or another of
these reciprocal exchanges.
See also Exchange; Take. [M.N., D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European language and society. Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami, 53-100.
Watkins, C. (1989) New parameters in historical linguists, philology,
and culture history. Language 65.4: 781-799.
GLAND
*Qg w 6n- ‘± (swollen) gland’. \1EW 319 (*eng y -)]. Lat
inguen ‘groin, swelling in region of groin’, Grk ddrfv ‘gland’.
Related are Nice okkr ‘swelling, tumor’, OHG ankweiz
‘pustules’. Largely but not exclusively “western” in its
attestation. A reasonably good candidate for late PIE status.
*ghelgheh a - gland’. [IEW 435 ( *ghelgh -)\ . OCS zleza
‘gland’, Rus zelezk ‘gland’, Arm geij-k l ‘gland’. This word
would seem to have been restricted to certain “central” dialects
in late PIE times.
See also Anatomy. [D.Q.A.]
GLASINAC CULTURE
Glasinac refers to the Bronze and Iron Age culture of Bosnia,
especially noted for its substantial cemeteries on the Glasinac
plateau, southeast of Sarajevo, that include an estimated
20,000 graves. Material culture associated with the Glasinac
culture is found also in neighboring areas, including eastern
Serbia and northern Albania. The evidence for settlement in
this region is poorly known hilltop defensive sites. The
primary evidence for the culture derives from its cemeteries.
They involve multiple inhumation burials, surrounded by a
stone circle about 10 m across, and covered by an earthen
tumulus. These tumulus graves have produced very rich grave
goods of more distant central European origin and the frequent
GLASINAC CULTURE
presence of weapons has been interpreted as evidence of a
military aristocracy. By the sixth and fifth centuries BC
cremation becomes more common. The main floruit of the
culture would appear to have been from the eighth to fourth
centuries BC after which the number of burials falls dramatic-
ally. The Glasinac culture would appear to reflect the local
evolution of societies that later emerged as the historically-
attested Illyrians, the major IE group of the east Adriatic.
See also Illyrian Language. [J.PM.]
GUDE
*dhreg- ‘glide, pull (something) across’. [IEW 273
( *dhreg-)\ Wat 15 (*dhreg-)\. ON drak ‘stripe’, Lith dreldti
‘tear apart’, Olnd dhrajati 'move, go, fly, swoop’, dhraj- 'power
to glide or move’. Attested as it is on the margins of the IE
world, it must surely be old in IE.
See also Pull. [D.Q.A.l
GLOBULAR AMPHORA CULTURE
The Globular Amphora (German Kugelamphoreh ) culture
was distributed broadly across central and eastern Europe,
from the Elbe to the middle Dnieper, c 3400-2800 BC. This
area was previously the territory of the TRB culture which
certainly contributed to the formation of its Copper Age
successor and in some areas was contemporary with the earlier
phases of the Globular Amphora culture. Generally, Globular
Amphora is much better known from its burials than its
settlements although roughly rectangular surface dwellings
Globular Amphora a. Distribution of the Globular Amphora culture.
Globular Amphora b. Amber “sun disc”; c. Globular amphora;
d. Cist with multiple burials (the central burial is a male accompanied
by two women and children, and two adolescents at feet with a
separate burial in adjoining chamber); e. House plan from Poland.
r
GO
3^
\ v \
fH If >| III .lit .. .•«»*»» » 1,1% ° V
Globular Amphora f. Human burial and paired ox burials.
I L u >£? o
v Cjc^-n /-* © P
^©cr ,<=,i 6
J \ 2 1 Iz&S
as well as round semi-subterranean huts are known from
Poland. Normally, these occur singly or with several together
suggesting a settlement pattern based on single families or
several living together. At least one component in the settle-
ment system would appear to have been relatively transitory.
Subsistence appears to have been based on stock-
breeding — cattle, pig, sheep/goat, dog and some horse; red
deer, hare, birds and fish were also exploited. There is a
tendency for pig to predominate among the earlier periods of
the Globular Amphora culture which is in marked distinction
to the earlier cattle-based economies of the TRB culture
although there are also Globular Amphora sites that have also
yielded a predominance of cattle remains. Among the plant
remains are wheat ( Triticum dicoccurh and T. spelta ), barley
and pea.
The culture takes its name from its distinctive globular
vessels with two to four small handles mounted on a
constricted neck, which is decorated in a variety of motifs;
flint flat axes are frequently found in burials. The burials
themselves were generally inhumations in a pit or stone cist.
They were laid on their right or left sides in the flexed position
with heads to the east. The stone cists are sometimes covered
with incised decoration, among which the figure of a
composite bow has been identified. Along with several
amphorae and other vessels, grave goods included flint axes,
knives, arrowheads, amber beads, and a variety of objects
fashioned from bone. The lower jaw of a pig or boar tusk
provided characteristic animal offerings. The burial of
complete oxen is also known. Wooden remains from one site
were interpreted as remains of a shield.
The Globular Amphora culture arises in discussions of
Indo-European origins and expansions because of its
apparently mobile economy (or at least transitory settlement),
presence of (presumably) domestic horse, and distinctive
pottery. The ceramics have been sometimes associated with
that of the Maykop culture of the north Caucasus and the
Lower Mikhaylovka Group of the middle Dnieper and some
form of direct connection between the Caucasus and the north
European plain has been controversially argued, especially
within the context of the “Kurgan theory”. Burial ritual has
been regarded as extremely important in linking the Globular
Amphora culture with the Indo-Europeans. Here special
emphasis is placed on the evidence for suttee, the execution
of the wife on the death of the husband, which may be
suggested from a number of Globular Amphora burials. The
burial of livestock, particularly teams of oxen, has also been
regarded as an Indo-European trait as well as the presence of
amber “sun-discs”. Finally, the physical type of the Globular
Amphora population, at least those in the easternmost
territories, has been seen to be similar to those of the steppe
region. Nevertheless, many of the more diagnostic attributes
of the Globular Amphora culture, such as the horse, animal
burials, axes, can all be found in the earlier TRB and Lengyel
cultures and any attempt to connect the Globular Amphora
with the steppe cultures genetically or through historical
contacts is strongly disputed by those who find its origins to
lie among local cultural developments, particularly in Poland.
Recent detailed analyses of Globular Amphora origins tend
to emphasize a complex set of relationships with earlier and
neighboring cultures that render inadequate past schemes of
simple genetic derivation. Given its area of occupation, the
Globular Amphora culture has been claimed as the underlying
culture of a Germanic-Baltic-Slavic continuum.
See also Corded Ware Culture; Kurgan Tradition;
Maykop Culture; TRB Culture. (J .PM ]
Further Readings
Cofta, Broniewska, A. (1991) New Tendencies in Studies of Globular
Amphorae Culture. Warsaw, Crakow, Poznan, Jagiellonian
University.
Gimbutas, M. (1991) The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco,
Harper, 380-384.
GNAT see FLY, INSECTS
*hiei- ‘go’ (pres. *hi6M). [IEW 293-294 (*e/-); Wat 16
(*ei-); GI 627 (*ei-); Buck 10.47; BK 442 (*ayV*ay-)}. Weis
— 227 —
GO
wyf‘ am’, Lat eo ‘go’, Goth iddja ‘went’, OPrus eit ‘goes’, Lith
eimi ‘go’, Latv eimu ‘go’, OCS iti ‘go’, Grk eipi ‘will go’, Hit
yanzi ‘they go’, paimi (< *pe-eimi ) ‘go’, ietta (< PIE middle
*hii-e-to-r) ‘goes’, Av aeiti ‘goes’, OInd eti ‘goes’, TochAB i-
‘go’. Cf. the widespread derivative *hjiter-: Lat iter 'a going,
walk, way’, Hit itar 1 a going’, TochA /far ‘road, way’, TochB
ytarye ‘road, way’. Practically universal in IE and old. This
appears to have been the least marked verb of motion in PIE.
*h a et- ‘go’. [IEW 69 ( *at -); Wat 4 (*af-); GI 370; BK 366
(*at[ h ]-/*dt[ h ]-)\. Lat annus ‘year’, Osc akeno- ‘year,
celebration, time of sacrifice’, Umb acno- ‘year, celebration,
time of sacrifice’ (Italic *atno-), Goth apn ‘year’, OInd atati
‘goes, wanders’. Sparsely attested, but the geographical
distribution would seem to assure its PIE status. The semantic
development ‘go’ > * ‘cycle’ > ‘year’ is a significant innovation
common to Italic and Germanic.
*sed- 1 go’. [7EW887 ( *sed-)\ Wat 56 (*sed-)\ Buck 10.47].
The underlying verb is attested only in Indo-Iranian, and then
only with prefixes: Av pazdayeiti ‘frightens off’, asnaoiti (<
*o-sd-neu-) ‘approaches’, OInd a-sad- ‘enter’, ut-sad-
‘disappear’. Cf. OCS chodu ‘walk’, choditi ‘go’ (the Slavic initial
ch- suggests these words generalized the form once found in
compounds such as pri- or u-), Grk o5og ‘way’, odevco
‘wander’. This verb is widespread and looks to be old in IE.
No doubt because at least its root shape was homophonous
with that of *sed- ‘sit’, it tended to be restricted to
combinations with preverbs where the semantic distinction
remained clear.
*sent- ‘go’. [IEW 908 (*sent-)\ Wat 58 ( *sent -)]. OHG
sinnan ‘go, travel, wander’ (cf. ON senda ‘send’, OE sendan
‘send’ [> NE send], OHG senten ‘send’, Goth sandjan ‘send’ <
PIE *sonteie/o-), Lith suntu ‘send’, Latv sutu ‘send’, Av hant-
‘arrive’. Sparsely attested as a verb, only in Germanic, Baltic
and Avestan. However, that distribution would seem to
guarantee at least late PIE status. Its derivative *sentos ‘way’
is more widely known.
*ieh a - ‘go, travel’. [7EW296 (*ja-); GI 627 ( *yaH-)\ Buck
10.66] . Lith joju ‘ride’, Latv jaju ‘ride’, OCS jadQ ‘ride’, Av ya-
‘go’, OInd yati ‘goes, travels’, TochAB ya- ‘go, travel’. Compare
the derivative *ieh a -nu- ‘a going’ in Lat ianus ‘(arched)
passageway’, TochA yom ‘trace, footprint’ (< *‘trace [of
going]’); and the further derived *}eh a nu-ieh a - in Lat ianua
‘passage (way), entrance’, TochA yoni ‘path, way, course’, TochB
yoniya ‘path, way, course’. Widespread and old in IE. Perhaps
this should be reconstructed *hii-eh a - and be regarded as an
iterative-intensive derivative of *hiei- ‘go’.
*meihx- go’ (pres. *mineh a - ~ *meihxeh a -). [IEW 710
( *mei-)\ Wat 40 ( *mei-)\ Buck 10.47] . MWels mynet ‘go’, Lat
meo ‘go, wander’, OCS minp ‘pass by, pass away’, Pol mijac
‘pass by’. A later word of the west and center of the IE world.
*steigh- ‘step (up), go’. [IEW 1017-1018 ( *steigh -); Wat
65-66 (*steigh-)\ GI 101; Buck 10.21, 10.47], OIr tiagu(DIL
teit ) ‘stride’, ON stiga ‘climb’, OE stigan ‘climb’, OHG stigan
‘climb’, Goth steigan ‘climb’, Lith steigtis ‘hurry’, Latv
steigt(ies) ‘hurry’, OCS stignp ‘come’, Grk gt efyco ‘step, go’,
OInd stighnoti ‘climbs’. Cf. the widespread derivatives: (1)
*stighs in ON stig ‘step’, OHG steg ‘plank, footbridge’, OCS
stidza ‘footstep, street’, Grk or iyog ‘row, line’, or (yet; (pi.)
‘series’; (2) *stoigho/eh a - in OHG steiga ‘step, way’, Goth staiga
‘way, path’, Alb shteg ‘path’, Grk aroiyog ‘row, line’. Wide-
spread and old in IE. The root may also underlie Germanic
expressions for ‘twenty’, e.g., NHG (dial.) steige ‘twenty items’,
CrimGoth stega ‘score, twenty’ which was borrowed into
Slavic *staga ‘score’.
*h!el- ‘go’. [IEW 306-307 (*e/-); Wat 17 (*e/-); cf. Buck
10.47, 10.65], MWels el ‘may go’, Grk eXavvco ‘drive’, Arm
el ‘climbed, came out’. Sparsely attested but the geographical
spread of that attestation would seem to assure a word at
least of the west and center of the IE world.
Go Out (Away)
*Ieit(hx)- ‘go away, go forth’. [7EW672 ( *Ieit(h)~), Wat 36
(*Ieit-)\. ON lida ‘go (away)’, leida ‘lead’, lidinn ‘dead’, OE
Iidan ‘go, travel’, Istdan ‘lead, bring’ (> NE lead), OHG lldan
‘go, travel, go away’, leiten ‘lead, bring’, leita ‘burial’, MHG
bileite ‘burial’, Goth galeipan ‘go, come’, Grk (Hesychius)
Xoiztj ‘tomb’, Xoitevco ‘bury’, Av raeO- ‘die’, TochB lit- ‘pass
on, move away’, Iitk- (< *l(e)it-ske/o~) ‘remove, avert’, lait-
‘depart, pass away, deviate’. Widespread and old in IE. This
verb gives us evidence in PIE for the same metaphor as in
English of ‘pass on, pass away’ for ‘die’.
*hileudh- ‘go (out)’. [7EW 306-307 ( *el-eu-(dh-))\ Wat
37 ( *leudh -)]. OIr lod ( DIE teit) ‘went’, Grk ijXvOov ‘went’,
TochAB lat- ‘emerge’ (TochB past lac 1 he emerged’), lut- drive
out’. The agreement of the thematic aorist, PIE *h pudhet ‘he
went (out)’, in these three languages guarantees the PIE status
of this particular verb. An enlargement of *hiel- ‘go’.
Go Forward
*sehi(i)- l go forward, advance’, [cf. IEW 892 ( *se[i]dh -)].
Weis hawdd ‘easy, feasible, prosperous’, Grk Wvq ‘direct,
straight; upright’, t6vc o ‘press forward’, Arm aj (< *spidhio-)
‘right’, Phryg giSsto ‘succeeded, achieved’, Hit zai (< *soh pei)
‘crosses over’ (pi. ziyanzi < *shjiienti), zinu- (< *sihi-neu-)
‘cause to cross over’, Av -had ‘directing’, OInd sAdhate
‘succeeds, prospers’, sldhyatE succeeds, reaches successfully’,
sadhu- ‘straight, direct; competent’. Reasonably widespread,
certainly old in IE.
Go Beyond
*per- ‘pass through’ (pres. *p6rei). [IEW 816-817
( *per-)\ Wat 50 ( *per-)\ Buck 10.47; BK 69 ( *p[ h ]ar -/
*p[ h ]or-)[ . Lat portare ‘lead’, ON fara ‘travel’, ferja ‘travel, ship’,
OE faran ‘set forth, travel; undergo’ (> NE fare), gefaran ‘die,
attack, overcome’, OHG faran ‘travel’, ferjen ‘travel, ferry
across’, Goth faran ‘wander, puli’, farjan ‘travel, go by sea’,
OCS porjQ ‘cut off’, na-perjQ ‘bore through’, perp ‘fly’, Rus
perju ‘fly’. Alb sh-poroj (< *pereh a -nie/o-) ‘stab, pierce (with
spear)’, sh-pie (< *-pene/o-) ‘send, carry, take to, lead’, Grk
Kepdco ‘pass through, transverse’ (trans./intrans.), KEipw
228
GOAT
‘pierce, bore through’, 7 zopevca ‘bring, carry, convey’,
Kopevofiai ‘go, walk, travel; pass through’, Kopeiv (aorist)
‘bring to pass; offer, bestow’, Arm hordan ‘go away’, Av -par-
‘convey across’, OInd plparti ‘conveys across; saves’. Cf. the
widespread derivatives (1) *pertus (gen. *pytous) ‘passage
way’: OWels rit ‘ford’, Gaul ritu ‘ford’, Lat portus ‘harbor’,
ON fjprdr ‘estuary’, OE ford ‘ford’ (> NE ford), OHG fort
‘ford’, Av poratu- ‘bridge’, Hu-paraOw-a- ‘Euphrates’ (< *‘±
that which is good to cross’); (2) *poro/eh a - ‘passage, way’:
ON fpr ‘journey’, OE faru ‘journey’, Grk nopog ‘ford; ferry;
way, track’, Av para- ‘bank, boundary, end’, TochB akwam-
pere- ‘sprout and stalk’. Widespread and old in IE. From the
adverb/preposition *per- ‘through’.
*terh 2 - ‘bring across; overcome’. [IEW 1074-1075
(*£er-);Wat 70 (*tera-); GI 50, 176 {*t h er-H-)\ cf. Buckl0.57;
BK 1 49 ( *l y [ h ]ar-/*ty[ h Jar-)\ . Pres. *terh 2 ti : Hit tarhzi ‘defeats’,
Olnd tarati ~ tirati ‘sets over, brings across; overcomes’; pres.
*treh 2 ie/o-\ Lat intrare ‘enter’, Grk rpdvpg ~ rpavoq
‘penetrating, clear’, Av Oraya- ‘protect from, shelter’ (< *‘lead
across’), Olnd tr&yati ‘protects, shelters’. Reasonably wide-
spread and certainly old in IE. From the preposition/adverb
*ter ‘through’ which shows up again in some other nominal
derivatives: Grk tepOpov l tnd, point’, reppa l goa\, endpoint’,
zeppcov ‘boundary marker’ (< *‘boundary pole’), Arm farm
‘endpiece’, Hit tarma- ‘nail, peg’.
*serK- ‘pass, surpass’. [VW 451-4521. Hit sarku-
‘projecting, immense, powerful’, TochB sark- ‘pass, surpass,
go beyond’. The agreement of Hittite and Tocharian would
seem strong evidence for this word’s PIE antiquity.
?*ked- ‘± pass through’. [Wat 27 (*ked-)]. Lat cedd ‘go
(from), give place, retire’, TochAB katk- (< *k e d-ske/o- ) ‘cross
over; commit’. Though not widely attested, its geographical
distribution makes this word a likely candidate for late PIE
status.
?*peri-hies- ‘surpass’. [Del 2731. Grk nepieun ‘comes
round’, Olnd paryasti ‘surpasses’. A compound of *hjes-‘be’
which might be old but may reflect independent formations
in Greek and Old Indie
See also Across; Attain; Come, Death Beliefs, Ride,
Run; Step, Through; Way; Year [D.Q.A.]
GOAT
*dlks (gen. *digds) ‘goat ( Capra hircus)’. \IEW 222
( *digh-)\ Buck 3.36] . OE ticcen ‘kid’, OHG ziga (< *dikeh a -)
‘goat (male or female)’, zickl (with affective consonant gemina-
tion) ‘female goat’. Alb dhi (< *deigeh a -) ‘she-goat’, Grk
(Hesychius) <5ifa ‘(she-)goat’, Arm tik ‘leather skin’, Wakhi
tiy( a call to goats), Ishkashmi dec ‘goatskin bag’. Though the
text of Hesychius gives 8i£a as “Laconia”, others have thought
that that designation was an error and that the word was
actually Thracian or Illyrian. Widespread and old in IE.
*bhugos ‘buck, he-goat (male Capra hircus)’. [IEW 174
( *bhugo-s)\ Wat 10 ( *bhugo-)\ Gl 501 ( *bfiuk'o-)\ Buck 3.37],
OIr boc ‘buck’, Weis bwch‘ buck’, ON bukkr‘ buck’, OE bucca
‘buck’ (> NE buck), OHG bok ‘buck’ (Gmc < *bhugnd-, the
Celtic may be borrowings from Germanic), Arm buc ‘lamb’,
Av buza ‘goat, he-goat’, NPers buz ‘goat’. Related in some
fashion but phonologically very irregular is Olnd bukka- ‘goat,
he-goat’. Subject to expressive phonological rebuilding but
certainly of PIE age.
*h a eigs ‘goat ( Capra hircus)'. [IEW 13 (*aig-)\ Wat 1
( *aig-)\ GI 501; Buck 3.36], Probably Alb edh ‘kid’, Grk at £
‘(she-)goat’, Arm aye ‘(she-)goat’, Av izaena- ‘(goat)hide’.
Perhaps belonging here too is Olnd eda- '(a kind oD sheep’
(with the -d- generalized from such cases as ed-bhis where it
would be regular from *-g-) but it is more likely to reflect a
borrowing from Dravidian. A word of the center and east of
the IE world.
*h a eg6s ‘he-goat (male Capra hircus)'. [IEW 6-7 ( *ag-)\
Gl 501; Buck 3.36], OPrus wosee ‘goat’, wosux ‘he-goat’,
wosistian ‘kid’, Lith ozys ‘he-goat’, ozka ‘she-goat’, Latv azis
‘he-goat’, Av aza- ‘he-goat’, MPers aza/t ‘goat’, Olnd a/a- ‘he-
goat’, ajika ~ aja ‘she-goat’. TochA as ‘goat’, TochB asiye
‘pertaining to a goat’ represent borrowings from some Iranian
source. *h a egos would appear to be a rather banal derivative,
albeit one of PIE age, of *h a eg- ‘drive, lead’. However, the
semantic specialization to ‘he-goat’ (through '± bell-wether?)
is obscure. In astronomy, the Olnd aja- represents the zodiacal
sign Aries. A word of the center and east of the IE world.
*ghaidos ‘goat ( Capra hircus)’. [IEW 409-410 ( *ghaido-
~ *ghaido-), Wat 20 ( *ghaido-)\ Gl 501; Buck 3.361. Lat
haedus ‘young goat, kid’, ON geit ‘goat’, OE gat (> NE goat)
‘goat’, OHG geiz ‘(she-)goat’, geizln ‘kid’, Goth gaits ‘goat’,
gaitein ‘kid’. A northwest regionalism.
*k&pros ‘he-goat (male Capra hircus)'. [IEW 529
( *kapro- ); Wat 27 ( *kapro-)\ Gl 501; Buck 3.37; BK 253
(*k[ h ]ab-/*k[ h ]9b-)[. OIr gabor ‘he-goat’, Weis gafr ‘he-goat’,
Gaul Gabro-magos ‘goatfield’ (with initial g- rather than *k-
that is not well understood — perhaps by conflation with
*ghab- ‘lamb’ otherwise seen in Umb habina- ‘ewe-lamb’),
Lat caper ‘he-goat’, ON hafr ‘he-goat’, OE hxfer ‘he-goat’,
NPers kahra (< Proto-Iranian *kafra-ka-) ‘kid’. Widespread
and old in IE. This word is a thematic derivative of *kapf
‘penis’ seen, extended by -t/i, in Olnd kapyth- ‘penis’. A similar
extension, with a different though obviously parallel meaning,
is Grk KoiKpog ‘boar’.
?*kogh£h a - ‘goat ( Capra hircus)'. [IEW 517 ( *kago-)\ GI
500-501 ( *q h ok’-)\ BK 213 (*t}[ h ]ah-/*tjl h l9h-)\. OCS koza
‘she-goat’, kozllu ‘he-goat’, koza ‘leather, skin’, Rus koza ‘she-
goat’, kozel ‘he-goat’, koza ‘leather, skin’, Alb kedh kid’ (Alb
< *koghos\ instead of the expected *kadh we have kedh after
edh ‘kid’ or we have a rebuilt paradigm from the *kadh [sg.] ,
*kedh IpL] , that we would expect from *koghos [sg. 1 , *koghoi
[pi.]). Possibly a late dialect word of the center of the IE world.
This word is often, albeit hesitantly, grouped with the earlier
entry, *h a egds ‘he-goat’ (though the initial *k- is not well-
explained by such a hypothesis), or with the Germanic group
represented by OE hecen ‘kid’, MDutch hoek(e) ‘he-goat’ (see
*(s)kegos ‘sheep, goat’). Neither hypothesis would appear to
be possible since the lack of Winter’s Law (whereby a PIE
— 229 —
GOAT
short vowel is lengthened before original voiced stops but
not before aspirates) in the Slavic words forces us to
reconstruct a PIE *kogheh a -, rather than the *kogeh a - that
either of these other hypotheses would demand.
Archaeological Evidence
The range of the wild goat extended from Anatolia across
Central Asia to southern Afghanistan (with some evidence
for wild goats also in Crete and other Greek islands) and
following the Ice Age it was widely hunted along with the
gazelle. It is in southwest Asia that the domesticated goat
( Capra hircus) first appears by the eighth millennium BC in
the region of Anatolia and Kurdistan and perhaps only slightly
later in Palestine. In archaeological faunas, the remains are
often difficult to distinguish from those of sheep (except for
the distinctive horns and metapodia), and the two are often
combined as “ovicaprids” or “caprovines”. The utility of the
goat lies in both its wider adaptability than sheep — a wider
ranging diet that includes browse and greater tolerance of
temperature and terrain — and the fact that it provides more
milk than sheep; in fact, with respect to body weight it also
yields more milk than cattle. For this reason, the presence of
some goats are generally encountered everywhere across
Eurasia during the Neolithic period and it is difficult to
attribute its lexical diversity to a “late introduction” to speakers
of IE languages.
The palaeozoological evidence offers some possibilities for
explaining the diversity of ‘goat’ names but unless deeper
meaning can be extracted from the various terms (other than
the obvious association with the word for ‘penis’), this remains
less than an hypothesis. For example, although the domestic
goat appears to have emerged from Capra aegagrus , the bezoar
goat, the same species shows some variety in appearance
across the range of its distribution from eastern Anatolia and
Crete east across Iran and Afghanistan. The differences might
be in size, color, and shape of hom and may have called for
early lexical distinctions. Moreover, other species of wild goats
of varying appearance, especially with respect to horns, did
exist such as the West Caucasian tur ( Capra caucasica ), the
East Caucasian tur ( Capra cylindricomis), the markhor ( Capra
falconer i) of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tadzhikistan or the
ibex ( Capra ibex) of Central Asia and the European Alps
( Capra pyrenaica). Contact with any of these other species of
wild goats might explain some of the regional isoglosses.
Regional breeding selection for some features might also
account for lexical diversity. Goats with scimitar horns were
typical of the early Neolithic but by the middle Neolithic goats
with twisted horns began to predominate in central and
eastern Europe. Other levels of semantic distinction may have
derived from the particular use of the goat. For example, the
bezoar goat takes its name from NPers pad-zhar ‘counter
poison’, reflecting the belief that a concretion extracted from
the stomach of the goat could be employed as an antidote to
poison while the markhor takes its name from the modern
Iranian word for ‘snake-eater’.
The Goat in Indo-European Myth
The goat occurs in the mythological traditions of a number
of IE stocks and there are some similarities that may suggest
either common inheritance or (long distance) borrowing. The
goat, for example, is the animal that draws the chariot of the
Old Indie fertility god Pusan ( RV 10.26.8) and also that of
the Old Norse Porr who is also closely associated with
marriage and fertility, and his Lithuanian equivalent, Perkunas.
The goat is also prominent in the Old Indie burial ritual where
the deceased was laid on a goat skin and accompanied by its
entrails as gifts to the hounds of the dead; goat entrails were
similarly seen as sops for the Greek canine guardian of the
underworld, Kerberos.
See also Hide; Horn; Mammals; Sheep. [D.Q.A., J.PM ]
Further Readings
Clutton-Brock, J. (1987) A Natural History of Domesticated
Mammals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Mason, I. L. (1984) Evolution of Domesticated Animals. London
and New York, Longman.
Zeuner, F E. (1963) A History of Domesticated Animals. London,
Hutchinson.
GOD
*dei\fds ‘god’. [IEW 185-186 ( *deiijo-s)\ Wat 10
( *deiw-)\ G1 692 ( *t'eiwo-)\ Buck 22.12; BK 119 ( *t’a> V
*tbZ_)]. oir dia ‘god’, OWels duiu-tit ‘divinity’, Lat deus 1 god',
ON Tyr{ name of war god), (pi.) tivar ‘gods’, OE 7Tw(name
of war god, cf. Tlwesdaeg ‘Tuesday’), OHG Zlo (name of war
god), OPrus deiw(a)s ‘god’, Lith dievas ‘god’, Latv dievs ‘god’,
OCS divu ‘demon’, Hit D sius (with assibilation of the initial
dental) ‘(sky) god’, Av daeva- ‘demon’, OInd deva- ‘god’. In
origin a thematic derivative of *dieu- ‘sky, day, sun(god)’
meaning ‘± luminous one, god (in general)’. It is often
emphasized that the etymology of PIE ‘god’ indicates a
distinction between the world of the gods who are bright,
celestial beings (a deification of the diurnal sky) and humans
who are terrestrial, e g., Lat homo ‘man’ with humus ‘earth’
although there are also a set of deities whose names are built
on *ne- ‘down(wards)’ that may be regarded as subterranean.
The meaning ‘demon’ in Avestan and Old Church Slavonic
reflects directly or indirectly the “religious revolution” of
ZaraGustra whereby the old gods were pushed aside and
revalued as enemies of Ahura Mazdah. Obviously widespread
and old in IE, cf. the fairly widespread derivative *diuios\ Lat
dlus ‘divine’, Grk 8loq ‘divine’, OInd divya- ‘heavenly’.
*djeusph a ter ‘sky- father’. [7EW184 ( *dieus-pater)\ GI 680
(*t’yeu(s)-p tl Ijt h er-)]. Lat Iupiter ~ luppiter , Umb Iupater,
Illyrian Aei-nctTvpoc,, Grk Zevq narf\p, OInd dyaus pita. From
*diius ‘sky’ and ‘father’. The expression also appears
in Anatolian with the children’s word for ‘father’, i.e., Luv
tatis tiwaz ‘daddy sky’, Palaic tiyaz...papaz ‘sky... papa’. In
Hittite the name of the sky god was replaced by a Hattie loan
although the structure of the phrase was kept intact, i.e., Hit
attas Isanus ‘father Sun-god’. Cf. also parallel Baltic formations
— 230 —
GODDESSES
such as Latv Dievs, Debess tevs ‘god, father of heaven’. It has
been argued that Rus Stribogu (name of a deity), also preserves
the basic structure with (presumably Iranian loanword) bog
‘god’ replacing that for the sky, hence ‘father-god’. A Celtic
reflex has also been suggested with regard to the Irish god,
the Dagda, who bears the epithet ‘great father’, i.e., OIr in
Dagdae Oll-athair (< *sindos dago-deiuos olio [platlr). The
distribution of this well known set of correspondences
indicates PIE status.
' *dhug(ba)tir diyds ‘sky-daughter’. Lith dievo dukti
‘Saulyte’ (daughter of the sky), Grk Ovydrrjp Aioq ‘sky-
daughter’ (epithet of Aurora, the dawn), OInd duhita divah
‘sky-daughter. From *dhug(fr a )tir ‘daughter’ and *diius l sky’.
Cf also Lith saules dukti ‘sun-daughter’, Latv sau'les meita
‘sun-maid’, OInd duhita sQryasya ‘daughter of the sun’.
*dheh\s (gen. *dhfris6s) ‘god’. [IEW 259 ( *dhes -); Wat
14 ( *dhes-): cf. G1 388; Buck 12.22; BK 70 ( *diy-/*dey -)] .
Lat feriae ‘festival day’, festus dies ‘of a holiday, festive, festival
(day)’, Grk Oeoq (< *dhfris-o-) ‘god’, Oeoyaxoq ‘spoken by
god, ordained, divine’, Arm (pi.) dik‘ (< *dhehises ) ‘gods’,
OInd dhisa ‘± with impetuosity’; cf. *dhhis-en- ‘endowed
with supernatural force’: Lat fanum (< *fasnom < dhhisno-)
‘temple’ (< *‘consecrated place’), Osc fusnam ‘temple’, OInd
dhisana- (epithet of various gods), Dhisana- (name of a
harmful demon), dhisnya- (epithet of the Asvins), Prakrit
Dhisana ‘Bfhaspati’ (god of devotion), Kati disari (evil female
deity), Ashkun dasani (female monster). Widespread and
certainly old in IE. Possibly *dheh\s- is an enlargement of
*dhehi- ‘place, put, establish’ but the semantic connection is
not overly compelling.
??*ghutdm ‘something evoked, god’, [cf. /EW413 (*ghQ-
to-); Wat 23 ( *gheu(d Buck 12.22]. ON god 1 god’, OE god
‘god’ (> NE god), gydig ‘possessed, insane’ (< ’"‘possessed by
a god’; > NE giddy), OHG got ‘god’, Goth gup ‘god’ (in the
early Germanic languages this noun was neuter when referring
to the inherited Germanic gods but masculine when trans-
ferred in sense to the Christian god). The only non-Germanic
cognate suggested here is TochA nkat ‘god’, TochB hakte ‘god’
(Toch < *ni-ghuto- ‘one called down’) which seems
phonologically improbable; we would expect TochB **nkwate
from *nighutos or TochB **nak u te from *nighutos. The
Germanic forms have been variously derived from PIE
*gheu(hx)- ‘call, invoke’ or regarded as a substrate term.
The Indo-European Sky god
The *d}ius pp a tir ‘sky-father’ is one of the very few deities
that can be reconstructed to Proto-Indo-European on purely
linguistic (in contrast to structural) grounds. The underlying
structure would appear to posit a ‘Father-sky’ who begets both
the set of Divine Twins and a daughter. The Twins are
themselves accompanied by or wed to the daughter of the
Sun. Although the linguistic reflex is solid, the comparison
of other mythic elements is relatively sparse due to the different
evolutions of the Sky god in different IE stocks.
In Old Indie religion, the Sky god’s pre-eminence has been
greatly diluted and he has become something of a shadowy
ancestral figure. He remains the father of the Divine Twins,
the Asvins, a position paralleled by the Sun god Surya who
fathers Yama ‘twin’ and Yam! ‘(female) twin’. He is also the
father of the goddess Usas, the ‘dawn’, who is of PIE date.
Dyaus mates with Pfthivi ‘earth’ (cf. in Greek mythology the
marriage of Zeus and Hera or Ouranos and Gaia ‘earth’). In
the Mahabharata Dyaus is incarnated as Bhlsma, an old warrior
and both his characterization and his career have been
regarded as filling in the “mythic portfolio” which is absent
from the Vedas.
The linguistic cognates of the Old Indie Dyaus in Greek
and Roman religion are Zeus and Jupiter respectively. They
are both clearly sky gods, e.g., Lat sub love ‘in the open (=
under the open sky)’ who have also accrued the roles of
weather deities, e g., thunder, lightning, ram. In the cosmo-
logical model proposed for Proto-Indo-European by Jean
Haudry deities of the diurnal sky such as the Greek Zeus
could not transgress the night sky which was inhabited by its
own sets of gods and the spirits of the dead.
Those who follow the Dumezilian model of IE mythic
analysis find better parallels between Dyaus and his structural
equivalent, Heimdallr, in Old Norse myth. Like Dyaus,
Heimdallr is a progenitor, in this case he is the ancestor of the
three social classes, anthropomorphized in his three sons,
Lraell (‘Slave’), Karl (‘Peasant’) and Jarl (‘Noble’). He guards
Bifrost, the Rainbow Bridge, against the onset of the monsters
who will come against the gods at the end of the world and,
when the Ragnarok does come, he will be the last of the old
order to die.
In Anatolian tradition the lexical remnants of the Sky god,
found in Hit Siu-, Luv Tiwat- and Palaic Tiya- would appear
to still occupy central place among the other deities.
See also Comparative Mythology; Eschatology; Sacred;
Spirit. [E.C.P, D.Q.A., J.PM.l
Further Readings
Haudry, J. (1987) Le religion cosmique des Indo-Europeens. Milan,
Paris, Arche.
Watkins, C. (1974) ‘god’, in Antiquitates Indogermanicae , eds. M.
Mayrhofer, W Meid, B. Schlerath, R. Schmitt, Innsbruck, 101—
110 .
GODDESSES
The only goddesses which may be safely assumed to be
Proto-Indo-European are those which are not only
mythologically comparable with one another but which are
linguistically cognate as well. There are few such goddesses,
and they represent largely natural phenomena with slight
personification.
Proto-Indo-European Goddesses
These include the goddesses of the dawn ( *h a eusos ):
Roman Aurora, Greek Eos, Indie Usas, Latvian Auseklis,
Lithuanian Ausrine; the sun-maiden/daughter of the sun (<
— 231 —
GODDESSES
*seh a ul ): Indie Surya, described in some hymns of the Rgveda See also Dawn Goddess; Divine Twins; Earth Goddess;
as the bride of the twin Asvins, and in other hymns as the Fortune; Goddesses (misc.), Horse Goddess; River Goddess;
bride of the moon-god, Soma; and the Baltic Saules meita, Sun Goddess; Transfunctional Goddess. [M.R.D.]
described in folksongs variously as the bride of the moon,
Meness, and of the twin Dieva deli. A third possible sun- Further Readings
maiden is Greek Helene; her name is derived from PIE *suel- Dexter, M. R. (1984) Proto-Indo-European sun maidens and gods
‘to burn’, with secondary -en- and feminine -a (Attic Greek of the moon. Mankind Quarterly 25, 137-144
77 ) suffixes; Helene ‘burns homes’ through her beauty Dexter, M.R. (1990) Reflections on the goddess *Donu. Mankind
(Euripides, Trojan Women 893-894). Cognates include Greek Quarterly 31, 1 - 2 , 45-58.
eiXr), eXt] (fern.), ‘sun’s warmth’. If Helene is a sun-maiden, Dexter, M. R. (1990) Whence the Goddesses: A Source Book ,
her original relationship to the Dioskouroi, the Divine Twin Pergamon Press, Athene Series, New York, Teachers College Press,
gods, was that of bride and not that of sister. Columbia University, Athene Series, 1990, 1992
Both the indigenous cultures and the Proto-Indo-Euro- Dexter, M. (1996) Dawn-maid and Sun-maid: Celestial goddesses
peans had earth-goddesses; the Proto-Indo-European Earth among the Proto-Indo-Europeans, in The Indo-Europeanization
goddess was the Slavic Mati Syra Zemlj a, Latvian Zemes Mate, of Northern Europe , eds. K. Jones-Bley and M. E. Huld,
Lithuanian Zemyna, Phrygian and Thracian Greek Semel, Washington, Institute for the Study of Man, 228-246.
borrowed into Attic Greek as ZepeXt] (cf. also Lat humus, Gimbutas, M. (1989) The Language of the Goddess. San Francisco,
Attic Greek £0<ov, Hit tekan , Olnd ksam -, TochA tkam , TochB Harper and Row.
kem).
The Proto-Indo-European river (or watery place) has GODDESSES (MISC.)
several personified cognates ( *dhdnu - or *deh a nu-)\ Indie *seren(i)uh x s (name of goddess). [Del 75], Grk Epivtiq
Danu; Irish Danu, mother of the Tuatha De Danann; Welsh (name of a Fury), Olnd SaranyQ (name of Vedic goddess).
Don; and with gender-switching, the Greek Danaus and his The Greek form is already attested in Myc e-ri-nu but without
descendants, Danae and the Danaids, etymology. In Greek myth EpTvVq (Erinys) refers to one of
Greek Hestia, Roman Vesta, goddesses of the hearth, have an unspecified (later fixed to three) avenging furies who have
no other cognates in other Indo-European stocks, so they been variously interpreted as spirits of murdered victims
cannot be considered Proto-Indo-European goddesses. (according to Hesiod they sprang from the blood of the
murdered Ouranos) or deified curses. SaranyQ is the daughter
Goddesses Assimilated from Pre-Indo-European Substrates of the divine craftsman Tvastj* and the wife of the Sun, to
The majority of Indo-European female deities have no whom she bears the twins Yama and Yarn!. She ran away,
linguistic cognates, and are the products of pre-Indo-European taking the shape of a mare and leaving in her stead Savarna,
cultures indigenous to the areas to which the Indo-Europeans a woman of similar appearance, with whom her husband
migrated. After the migrations, these goddesses were Vivasvat (the shining one = the rising sun) begets Manu . When
subsequently assimilated into the Indo-European pantheons. Vivasvat discovers how his actual wife escaped him, he
They were generally represented as transfunctional (cf. the assumes the form of a stallion, and arouses the desire of the
Greek Athene Hygieia, Polias, Nike; Roman Juno Seispes, mare AsvinI, as Saranyu is now called. They mate and give
Mater, Regina; Irish Medb and the triple Machas; and Iranian birth to the Asvins. The term SaranyQ is actually the
Aradvl Sura Anahita, the ‘flowing, strong, spotless’ one). substantivization of an adjective saranyu- ‘speedy, quick’
Whereas a male deity fulfilled one of the priestly, warrior, derived from the root *sar- ‘hurry’. Although challenged in
or nurturing functions, the goddesses fulfilled multiple some etymological textbooks it is legitimately linked with Grk
functions; they were prophetesses and bestowers of wisdom; Epivfig on etymological grounds although it is another thing
bestowers of sovereignty and martial energy; they aided altogether to attempt to postulate a PIE deity of the same
conception and nurtured the populace. The goddesses largely name, especially when there seems little if any reason to
fulfilled a passive role in the Indo-European pantheons, for associate them in terms of mythological function. ij
example, bringing sovereignty to a male figure who would ??*il(j)eh a - (name of goddess). [Del 73], Lat Ilia (daughter |
assume the kingship. The Indo-European male deities of Numitor), Olnd Ila ~ Ida (daughter of Manu). Structurally,
assumed more active roles in the pantheons. the only reason to posit such a comparison is that Ilia was the
Most of the goddesses in Indo-European pantheons were daughter of the progenitor of Romulus and Remus, the Divine
linguistically isolated, even though they shared attributes and Twins who participate in the foundation myth of Rome, while
functions. Whereas these pre- and post-Indo-European female the Olnd lla is also the granddaughter of Vivasvat who begets
figures, assimilated into the Indo-European pantheons, the Indie twins, Yama and Yam!. Beyond this there are no
fulfilled a broad range of functions, and were diversely further mythic grounds for suggesting a comparison and
personified, a lack of personification and narrow functionality linguistically this is an extremely unlikely connection. The
may be demonstrated for the goddesses of Proto-Indo- Latin word is an appellative ilia ‘guts, womb, feminine parts',
European origin. related with Slavic *jehto > Pol kelito guts, sausage’. An
232
GOLASECCA CULTURE
assumed further link with Grk rAog ‘mud’ has to be rejected.
OInd l(}a (as also ila and Ira) is the personified ‘soothing drink,
libation’, corresponding to Av iza ‘milk as soothing drink,
libation personified’ which are generally derived from *ishiros
‘(sacred) power’. Linguistically, the comparison between the
Latin and Indie deities rests solely on phonetic resemblance.
As a goddess, Olnd Ida is invoked to strengthen the
offering, as she transfers the force inherent to the sacrifice; as
an appellative, ida designates the rest of the milk in the
Agnihotra , a part of the animal slaughtered in bloody
sacrifices, a portion of the soma in libations. Ila means
variously ‘nourishment, libation of milk, power of praise’ and
Ila is also a deity of speech and an earth goddess. Ida
participates in all offerings; she is full of mysterious’ forces
and is said to symbolize the “completion of life” for the
participants in religious processes. Legendarily she springs
from the sacrifice offered by Manu to obtain a son. As he
mispronounced the ritual formula, he got a girl instead. She
later taught Manu new sacrificial rites, and Manu begat the
various races of mankind.
See also Dawn Goddess; Divine Twins; Earth Goddess;
Goddesses; Horse Goddess; River Goddess; Sun Goddess;
Transfunctional Goddess. [E.C.P]
GOLASECCA CULTURE
The Iron Age of northwest Italy is generally assigned to
the Golasecca culture which flourished from a Proto-
Golaseccan or Camegrate group (c 1200-900 BC) through
three main phases down to 15 BC when the area was effectively
absorbed into the Roman world. Its origins have been sought
in population movements from the north associated with the
spread of the Umfield culture. A combination of intrusive
traits (urns, metal types [cremation burial had preceded the
spread of umfield types]) and local features fused, it is argued,
to form the Golasecca culture. Early settlements are not well
known but there is evidence of hillforts or the occupation of
naturally defensive sites; later settlements became the nuclei
of major northern Italian urban centers. The culture is better
known from its cemeteries such as the eponymous site of
Golasecca which was excavated in the early nineteenth century
(and misinterpreted as a war-cemetery from Hannibal’s defeat
of Scipio). Burial comprised cremation in an urn which was
set in the ground or a stone cist (chamber) and frequently
surrounded by a circular setting of stones. Grave goods,
including both weapons (swords, daggers, spears, horse gear,
wagons, armor), situlae (metal buckets), and ornaments
exhibit very marked distinctions in status. At the site of Sesto
Calende, south of Lake Maggiore, were two chariot burials
dating to the sixth century BC accompanied with weapons,
ornaments and a large situla while an earlier burial at Ca’
Morta (c700 BC) included a four-wheeled wagon in the tomb.
Explaining the wealth of the Golasecca culture has
engendered some discussion. The rich warrior burials have
been interpreted as evidence for warlords who plundered
surrounding peoples or trade parties. That trade was an
important component in the culture is undoubted since the
region itself lacks many essential resources such as metals
and salt and it sits athwart the main north-south Alpine passes
such as Saint Gotthard and Saint Bernard. For this reason,
control of north-south trade between the Hallstatt culture to
the north and the Etruscans to the south has been seen as a
major factor in the accumulation of Golaseccan wealth.
The ethnic identity of the Golaseccans, at least those who
were literate, was a mater of some dispute in the nineteenth
and early twentieth century since some argued that it was
Ligurian (presumed to be non- IE) while others suggested a
Celtic identification. The latter is now secure with both the
discovery of more inscriptions and the redating of previously
discovered epigraphic evidence. The language spoken by the
Golaseccans, or at least those who were literate enough to
carve, was Lepontic which is recognized as one of the regional
variants of Continental Celtic, or more specifically Gaulish.
Its presence in northern Italy is secured to at least the sixth
century BC and archaeologists have found it difficult to
discover anything other than continuity since about 1200
BC and the appearance of Umfield influences in the area. It is
possible, therefore, that (Proto-)Celtic speakers were already
penetrating northern Italy by the late Bronze Age. The fact
that the peoples of this region maintained regular contact with
Celtic-speaking populations north of the Alps would have
— 233 —
GOLASECCA CULTURE
assisted in both their language maintenance as well as opened
them to continuous linguistic influences from the north.
See also Celtic Languages; Este Culture; Hallstatt Culture;
L\ TEne Culture; Urnfield Culture. [J PM ]
GOLD
*haeusom ‘gold’. [IEW 86-87 (*aues~); Wat 4 ( *aurom)\
G1 618 ( *Hau-s ), 773; Buck 9.64; BK 393 (*haw-/*hdw-)].
OLat aurom ‘gold’, Lat aurum ‘gold’, Sabine ausom ‘gold’,
OPrus ausis ‘gold’, Lith a uksas ‘gold’, TochA was ‘gold’, TochB
yasa ‘gold’ (< Toch *wesa < *h a ues- [with metathesis]
< *h a eus~). Although some have sought to derive the Baltic
forms from Latin, there is little to recommend such an
assumption as early intervocalic voicing and subsequent
rhotacism of [s] in Italic make an early borrowing unlikely.
K. Witczak has suggested that a possible Mycenaean reflex of
this word is to be found in the ideogram *141 which he
interprets as a ligature of two Linear B syllabic signs which
would render a a^-wo (hence *ap6q or *afoq). The distri-
bution suggests the possibility of PIE antiquity for this neuter
noun which might be derived from the same root as ‘dawn’.
It is fairly clear that this and other early metal terms are
some form of substantivized adjective, the original modifying
the neuter noun *h a ei-es- ‘metal’. Terms for ‘gold’ which bear
a vague phonetic similarity to this word for ‘gold’, i.e., Basque
urre(gorri)a ‘gold’, Hurrian ushi ‘gold’, Sumerian GUSK1N
‘gold’, Arm (v)oski ‘gold’, reveal no regular sound change upon
which to connect these with IE roots. It has been suggested
that the Tocharian forms may have provided the original
referent for a series of words relating to metals in general that
occur among the Uralic languages, e.g., Balto-Finnic-Lapp-
Mordvin *waske ‘copper, brass’, Proto-Ugric * was ‘metal, iron’
and Samoyed *wesa ‘metal, iron’.
*ghel- ‘yellow’. [7EW429-430 (*ghel-)\ Wat 21 (*ghel-)\
GI 618 (*J^e/-); Buck 9.64; BK 228 (*gil-/*gel-)}. ON gull
‘gold’, OE gold ‘gold’ (> NE gold), OHG gold ‘gold’, Goth
gulp ‘gold’, CrimGoth goltz ‘gold’ (Gmc < *ghJ-to-m), Lith
zeltas ‘golden’, Latv zglts (< *ghel-to-) ‘gold’, OCS zlato ‘gold’,
Rus zoloto ‘gold’ (Slav < * ghol-to-m) , Av zaranyam ‘gold’,
OPers daranyam ‘gold’, OInd hiranyam (Indo-Iran < *ghi-
enio-m). The distinctive yellow color of the native metal makes
these derivatives from PIE *ghel- ‘be yellow’ rather banal.
The forms with the -to- suffixes are confined to central Europe
while the various ablaut grades indicate that they were created
independently of each other. The Indo-Iranian forms, zero-
grades with -nio- suffixes, are yet another such post-IE
creation.
Grk ^pucrdg (Myc ku-ru-so) ‘gold’ is a loan from Akkadian
frurasu ‘gold’ which form is occasionally used in Hittite beside
the Sumerogram GUSK1N.
Archaeological Evidence
Most prehistoric gold occurred as a native metal rather
than as a mineral ore that required mining and smelting. Its
color might range considerably, especially as much native gold
— 234 —
GOOD
has a high percentage of silver which whitens the metal. The
lightness of these native metals led to the alloying of gold
with copper during the Bronze Age in order to lessen the
whitening effect of the silver. As the sources of prehistoric
gold range from the British Isles, France and Iberia in the
west across central Europe, particularly the Carpathians, and
then through the Balkans to both the north Caucasus and
Anatolia, it can play little part in delimiting the area of early
IE settlement except that northern Europe, i.e., the Baltic Sea
province, lies beyond the area where gold deposits are known.
As for the temporal horizon, the earliest gold objects in
the Near East are generally found in contexts dating to the
fourth millennium BC in Egypt and Mesopotamia, areas most
unlikely to be associated with early Indo-Europeans. Gold
appears still earlier in the circum-Pontic region which
embraces or at least borders most solutions to the IE homeland
problem. In a recent metallurgical study of early Bronze Age
metallurgy of the region from Anatolia across the Balkans and
Carpathians and east across the Black and Caspian seas gold
accounted for over 23,000 out of c 32,000 metal objects. Its
appearance in Greece probably predates the early Bronze Age
and hence should date there at least to the fourth millennium
BC while it is spectacularly well attested in the Vama cemetery
on the Bulgarian coast where it should date c 4500-4000 BC
and it is also found in the Gumelnita culture of c 4500-3500
BC. A Carpathian source is likely and gold is also known
from Hungary in the Tiszapolgar (c 4500-4000 BC) and later
Bodrogkeresztur (c 4000-3500 BC) cultures. A gold bracelet
from a TRB site in Lower Saxony indicates that gold was
circulating as far north as the Baltic during the fourth
millennium BC while its presence in the north Caucasus
(Maykop culture) by the late fourth millennium and as far
east as the Afanasevo culture on the Yenisei suggests a very
broad horizon for gold artifacts by the end of the fourth and
early third millennia. Gold begins to appear in India in the
Indus Civilization of the third and second millennia BC. The
spread of gold objects and gold working to the west tends to
date to the third millennium BC where we encounter gold
ornaments with the Beaker “culture” from central Europe to
the Atlantic, and gold appears in the British Isles by c 2500-
2000 BC. The archaeological record for Britain and Ireland
indicates instances where we must presume that IE speakers
must have abandoned their inherited word for gold. For
example, despite the fact that gold is well known from
archaeological contexts in Britain and especially Ireland from
c 2300 BC onwards, the insular Celtic languages have all
replaced their native words with a Latin loan, i.e., Olr or ‘gold’,
Weis aur ‘gold’ (< Lat aurom). The assignment of gold to the
PIE community, if situated anywhere between Anatolia, the
Balkans or the Pontic-Caspian region, would then seem to be
at least archaeologically possible even if it does not assist us
in defining the PIE homeland.
See also Color; Dawn; Honey; Metal; Silver; Wealth.
[M.E. H, J. P M l
Further Readings
Chernykh, E. N. (1992) Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Witczak, K. (1994) ‘Gold’ in Mycenaean Greek and Indo-European.
Orpheus 4, 55-58.
GOOD
*yesu- ‘excellent, noble’. [IEW 1174 (*y£su-); GI 683
( *wesu-)\ . Olr (dat.) feib ( DIL feb ‘excellence’) ‘in excellence’,
Gaul Vesu-avus (personal name), Bello-uesus (personal name),
Sego-uesus (personal name) -uesus means ‘worthy’. Late Lat
Vesuna (name of goddess), Germ Wisi ~ Wesi ‘the noble
people (earliest name of the Goths)’, Wisu-rih (personal
name), Luv wasu- ‘good’, Av vohu ‘good’, Olnd vasu- ‘good,
excellent’. Goth iusiza ‘better’ has generally been understood
as a suppletive form with comparative -z'za, based on
*eu(e)s-. The case for PIE status seems good, and is enhanced
by the parallel occurrence in personal, ethnic and/or divine
names, in most dialects where it is attested. Derived ultimately
from *h\es- ‘to be’ and related to *hj(e)su- and *su-, assuming
dissimilation of the initial glide. A long tradition of scholarship
also sees in adjectival *uesu- a connection to nouns (cf. Olnd
vasu- ‘the good’), based on vocalism and accent. Some sources
assume historical realignments and mixing between the latter
two forms. See following two entries.
*hi(e)su- ‘good’. [IEW 342 (*esu-s); Wat 17 (*esu-); Gl
683 (*wesu-)l. Grk evg ‘good, useful’, Hit assu- ‘good’.
Assuming a further semantic development, Lat erus, era (<
*esos, *esa ) ‘master, lord’, and the Gaulish divine name Esus
have also been placed with this group but the Celtic form is
etymologically unclear. Another possible cognate is Olnd ahu-
‘master’, again uncertain. Ultimately related to *hies- ‘to be’
but while this connection is generally accepted, the vocalism
and the fate of the laryngeal represent longstanding problems.
*hisu- would represent an expected adjectival formation, and
both the Greek and Hittite forms could be traced to that.
Still, other scholars have posited a full grade here (e for the
Greek and o for the Hittite), which cannot be excluded.
*su- ‘good’. ( IEW 1037-1038 ( *su - ~ *su-); Wat 67
(*su-); GI 683 (*su-)\ Buck 16.711. Olr so- ~ su- ‘good’, Weis
hy ~ hu- ‘good’, Lith sudrus (? < *su-dru- ‘good’ + ‘oak, tree’)
‘luxuriant’, sveikas ‘healthy, good’, Latv sveiks 1 healthy, good’
(< *su-ei-kas ‘to move along powerfully’), OCS sCtdravQ
‘healthy’, Grk i)yi rjg ‘healthy’, Av hu - ‘good’, Olnd su- ‘good,
well, rightly’. These forms might also reflect *hjsu~, as above,
except for the Greek, where loss of laryngeal would have to
be assumed.
*mel- ‘good’. [IEW 720 (*mel-); Wat 40 (*mel-)\ BK 529
(*mal-/*m9l-)]. Lat melior ‘better’, Lith malonus ‘nice,
pleasant’, Hit mala(i)- ‘approve, be favorable’. The apparent
agreement of Italic, Baltic and Anatolian would seem to make
this word a very likely candidate for PIE status. t
?*meh a (t)-‘ good (especially religious or mystical)’. [IEW
693 (*ma-); Buck 16.71], Olr maith ‘good’, Weis mad ‘good’,
Lat manis ~ manus ‘good’, Matuta (goddess of Dawn and
— 235
GOOD
Ripeness). Grk pang ‘great’ has been connected here but is
highly doubtful and it is not even clear that the word is Greek.
If this root can be posited at all, it is confined to the northwest.
?*pro-bhyio-s ‘?good’. [IEW 814 ( *pro-bhuo-s)\ BK 8
( *buw-/*bow -)]. Lat probus ‘good, honest’, Umb prufe
‘properly’, OInd prabhu- ‘powerful’. In all likelihood these
represent independent and parallel formations derived from
PIE *bhuhx~ ‘be’ rather than cognates of a PIE root.
?*selhx- ‘favorable’. [IEW 900 ( *sel- ~ *seh-)\ Wat 57 ( *sel-
~ *sela-)[. Olr slan (< *slhx-no- ) ‘safe, healthy’, Lat solor
‘comfort, relief’, ON saell 1 happy, fortunate’, OE s£l ‘happiness,
joy’, OHG salig ‘happy’, Goth sels ‘good, kind, useful’, Grk
iXciOKOgai ‘appease, conciliate, expiate’. The core of this
reconstruction rests with the Greek which is of uncertain
heritage and the Latin which is difficult both formally
(differences in vocalism) and somewhat semantically. The
Germanic forms are even less certainly connected here. This
is a possible but dubious IE root.
??*bheh a d- good’. [IEW106 ( bhad-)\ GI 121; Buck 16.71],
ON betri ‘better’, OE bet(e)ra ‘better’ (> NE better), OHG
bezzir(o) ‘better’, Goth batiza ‘better’ (Gmc < *batizon ), Av
hu-baSra- ‘fortunate’, OInd bhadra- ‘fortunate, blessed’. While
older sources proposed such a root based on these Germanic
and Indie forms, both sets are now widely regarded as
etymologically unclear and no IE form can be posited.
See also Bad; Be; Master. Q.C.S., D.Q.A.t]
Further Readings
Hamp, E. P (1984). IE *meh a -. MSS 43, 45-46.
Puhvel, J. (1980). On the origin and congeners of Hittite assu- ‘good’.
KZ 94, 65-70.
GOODS see WEALTH
GOOSE
*ghan-s ‘goose’. [/EW412 ( *ghan-s ); Wat 21 ( *ghans-)\
GI 460 ( *^ans-)\ Buck 3.56] . Olr geis ‘swan’, Lat anseF goose,
ON gas ‘goose’, OE gos ‘goose’ (> NE goose), OHG gans
‘goose’, OPrus sansy ‘goose’, Lith zpsis ‘goose’, Latv ziioss
‘goose’, Rus gusl, ‘goose’, Grk %r\ v ‘goose’, Sogd z’y ‘some kind
of bird’, OInd hamsa- certainly ‘goose’ but in the ftgveda
perhaps ‘swan’. Perhaps derived from *ghan- ‘yawn, gape’.
Geographical spread insures PIE status.
The species of the underlying referent is unclear. The
greylag goose, Anser anser, is by far the most widespread;
however, many other species, e.g., the bean goose, white-
fronted goose, etc., are found on archaeological sites across
Eurasia.
In addition to being the largest domestic bird with
abundant though greasy meat, the bird is most watchful, and
thus has been associated with intelligence, e.g., it was allegedly
alert geese that saved Rome from a surprise attack of the Gauls
in 390 BC while in India the goose was said to have taught
the Vedas to Brahma.
The reconstructed term does not distinguish between the
wild and domestic varieties of the goose and even in historical
texts it is context rather than linguistics that provides an
answer. For example, in the Iliad (2.460) the xv v is numbered
with the wild birds whereas in the Odyssey (19.536) we find
Penelope tending her twenty geese about the house. In Greek
religion the goose was sacred to Aphrodite. The Romans also
raised geese for food as both meat (the front part being the
only portion consumed by the upper classes) and for its eggs;
the force-feeding of the bird to produced an enlarged liver
was already in practice in classical times.
The domestic goose is generally believed to have derived
from the greylag (Anser anser) which was widely found across
Eurasia. The origin of its domestication is uncertain but it
has been claimed for the Neolithic, particularly southeast
Europe.
See also Birds, [j A.C.G.]
GRAB see TAKE
GRAIN
*ses(j)6- ‘grain, fruit’. [IEW 880 ( *sasio-), Buck 8.42, 8.44] .
Weis haidd (< *s e sio-l) ‘barley’, Hit sesa(na)- ‘fruit’, Av hahya-
‘providing grain’, ha&hus‘± grain’, OInd sasyam ‘grain, fruit’,
sasa- ‘grass, field’. Ligurian asia, glossed ‘rye’ (Pliny H.N.
18.141: secale Taurini sub alpibus asias vocant) may also
belong here if it is from *hasia , in turn from *sasia. Occurring
only on the margins of the IE world, this may be an old word
in PIE displaced by newer terms in the more central areas.
*j£yos ~ *jdyom ‘grain (particularly barley?)’. [IEW 512
( *ieuo -); Wat 79 (*yewo-)\ GI 565 ( *yewo -); Buck 8.42; BK
469 (*yiw-/*yew-)). Lith (pi.) javai ‘grain’ (cf. jauja(s) ‘barn’
with secondary accent), Latv jauja ‘threshing bam’, Rus ovin
‘granary’, Grk (pi.) fciai ‘an inferior sort of wheat (einkom
or emmer wheat, Triticum monococcum or T. turgidum)'.
Hit ewan ‘± barley’, Av yava- ‘grain’, yavin- ‘grainfield’, NPers
jav ‘barley’, Oss jaew ‘millet’, Ashkun yu ‘barley, millet’, OInd
yava- ‘bread; grain, particularly barley’. From *ieu- ‘ripen,
mature (intr.)’ otherwise seen in TochB yu- ‘ripen, mature’.
TochB yap ‘millet’ may belong here as well if there was an
early dissimilation of manner in *ieuom to give *ieb(h)om.
The usual assumption that yap is a borrowing from OInd
yava- is made problematic by the difference in meaning
(‘millet’ rather than ‘barley’) and the unexpected phonological
outcome (a borrowed yava- might be expected to give TochB
*yap or even *yaw). This is probably the oldest word
reconstructible for ‘grain’ and ‘kernel’ in PIE.
*gfh a n6m ‘grain’. [IEW 390-391 ( *g[-no-m ), Wat 24
( *gp-no-)\ GI 600 ( *k'pno-)\ Buck 8.42; BK 284 (*kiT v V
*k’ery-)\. Olr gran ‘grain’, Weis grawn ‘grain’, Lat granum
‘grain’, ON kom ‘grain’, OE com ‘grain’ (> NE com), OHG
kom ‘grain’, Goth kaum ‘grain’, OPrus syme ‘grain’, Lith zimis
‘pea’, Latv zifnis ‘pea’, OCS zrtno ‘grain’, SC zrno ‘grain’, Alb
grure ‘wheat’ (if not a borrowing from Lat granum ), Pashto
zanai ~ zarai ‘kernel, seed’. Cf. the morphologically identical,
but independent, creation in OInd jlrna- ~ jurna- ‘old, worn
— 236 —
GRANDFATHER
out’. From *gerh a - ‘ripen’, age’ (intr.). A younger word than
*ieuos , with similar meaning ‘ripened grain’, which has
replaced it in most of the west and center of the IE world and
competes with it in Iranian.
*h 2 ed- ‘grain, barley’. [IEW 3 (*ades-); G1 564 ( *Hat ’-);
BK 181 (*hac’-/*h3c’-)\. Lat ador ‘coarse grain; spelt; barley’
(a term generally restricted to use in religious rituals where it
is used for ‘barley’, typically dried, mixed with salt, and used
for aspersion), addreum ‘barley’, OHG ezzisc ~ ezzesc ‘sown
grainfield’, NDutch es ~ esch ‘cultivated fields belonging to a
village’, Goth atisk ‘grainfield’, Arm hat ‘grain’, hacar (<
*h 2 edy~) ‘barley’. Sufficiently widespread to guarantee PIE
status. This word is also connected by some with Iranian *adu
‘grain’ in Av adu.fradana- ‘abounding in grain’, Buddhist Sogd
”dwk (< *aduka-) ‘grain’. However, it may be that *adu is a
derivative of *hjed - ‘eat’. Less likely, though accepted by many,
is a connection with TochA ati ‘grass’, TochB atiya- ‘grass’.
The Tocharian words are semantically divergent and may well
reflect descent from *h 2 et- ‘cut’ (cf. OIr aith ‘sharp, acute’
and for the semantics of Olnd tfnam ‘grass’ but NE thorn).
Watkins connects the words for ‘grain; barley’ with Hit hat-
(< PIE *h 2 ed -) ‘dry’ (intr.) and an original meaning of ‘±
parched stuff’ > ‘grain’. Lycian xOOase (< pre-Lycian *hadahasa-
< Proto-Anatolian *hadasaka-) ‘± hay, fodder’ would provide
a partial semantic parallel (*‘dried stuff > ‘hay’). If these words
for ‘grain’ are related to ‘dry’ the semantic development would
have been PIE in age.
*dhoh x ti6h a - ‘grain’. \1EW 242 ( *dhona-)\ GI 770
( *d h oHna-)\ Buck 8.42; BK 70 ( *diy-/*dey-)\ . Lith duona
‘bread’, Latv duona ‘hunk of bread’, NPers dana ‘grain’, Olnd
dhands (pi.) ‘kernels of grain; fried grain reduced to a powder’,
dhanyam ‘grain’, TochB tano ‘grain, kernel’. Unlikely to be
connected with either *dhehj- ‘place, put’ or *dhehi(i)-
‘suckle’; GI have attempted to derive it from Proto-Semitic
*duhn- ‘millet’. Largely eastern in its distribution, this word
may have been a dialectal competitor for *ieuos.
*dfh x yeh a - ‘± grain’. [IEW 209 (*df-ua)}. Gaul dravoca
‘darnel, rye-grass ( Lolium)\ ME tare ‘vetch ( Vicia sativa or V 7 .
hirsuta), tare (Lolium spp.f (> NE tare), MDutch tarwe ‘wheat’,
NDutch tarwe ‘wheat’ (the Germanic forms with new full-
grades), Olnd durva- ‘panic-grass ( Cynodon [= Panicum ]
dactylon)\ Distribution indicates a word old in IE. Perhaps
related are Grk (Delphic) 8apdmi (pi.) ‘bread’, (Thessalonian)
SapccTov ‘bread’ (if < *dfhx-to- L of grain’). Although sometimes
cited, Lith dirva ‘(arable) field’, Latv dirva ‘grain-field’, Rus
derevnja ‘village (without a church)’, (dialectally) ‘piece of a
field’ are better derived from *der- ‘split off’.
?*h 2 / 3 (e)lg(h)- ‘grain’ (or ‘millet’?), [cf. Puhvel 3:39],
Anatolian Grk aXi £ ‘spelt’ (borrowed from some Anatolian
source), Hit halki- ‘barley; grain’, Lycian Qelehi- ‘of the grain-
god’ (< Proto-Anatolian *halgi-), NPers arzan ‘millet’ Pashto
gdan (< Proto-Iranian *arzana-) ‘millet’. If the Anatolian and
Iranian words reflect a PIE *h 2 / 3 lg(h)-, it would be possible
to add TochB lyeksye ‘millet’ if, in turn, it is from a PIE *h 2 /
3 leg(h)i-kiio-. If all these words belong together, then we have
evidence for something old in IE. Whether the word was ‘grain’
as in Anatolian or more specifically ‘millet’ as in Iranian and
Tocharian is difficult to determine.
*h a ekes- ‘ear of grain’. [7EW2 1 -22 ( * ak.es-), Wat 1 ( *ak-)\
BK 398 (*huk[ b ]-/*hok[ b ]-)\. Lat acus ‘chaff’, ON ax ear’,
OE ear ‘ear’ (> NE ear), OHG ahir ‘chaff’, Goth ahs ‘ear’, Grk
a%vr)(< *h a eksneh a -) ‘chaff’, (Cypriot) dtcocnri ‘barley’, TochA
ak ‘end’, TochB ake ‘end’. From *h a ek- ‘point, sharp’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*h a ekstl - ‘± awn, bristle’. [IEW 22 ( *ak-sti-)\ BK 398,
( *huk[ h ]-/*hok[ h ]-)\ . Weis eithin (< *akstmo-) ‘furze’, Lith
akstis ‘spit (for roasting)’, akstinas ‘prickle; stimulus, impulse’,
OCS ostlnd ‘pale, stake; thorn’, Rus ostl ‘point, bristle, awn,
chaff’, TochA asc ‘head’, TochB asce ‘head’. Cf. OPrus ackons
‘awn, bristle’. Widespread' and old in IE.
See also Agriculture; Barley; Food; Grow, Millet, Oats,
Plants; Rye; Wheat. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1973) An Indo-European agncultural term: Latin ador,
Hittite hat-. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 77 , 187-193.
GRANDDAUGHTER
*neptih a - ‘granddaughter’. [IEW 764 ( *neptI-)\ Wat 44
( *neptl~), GI 670 (*nep h ot h ia): Buck 2.49; Szem 10; Wordick
166-167; BK 573 (*nyip[ h ]-/*nyep[ b ]-)}. OIr necht
‘granddaughter; (?niece)’, Weis nith ‘niece’, Corn nyth ‘niece’,
Bret niz ‘niece; nephew’, Lat neptis ‘granddaughter, female
descendant’ (in later Imperial and Medieval Latin, also ‘niece’),
ON nipt ‘sister’s daughter’, OE nift ‘niece; granddaughter; step-
daughter’, Fris nift ‘granddaughter’, OHG nift ‘granddaughter,
step-daughter’, Lith nepte ‘granddaughter; niece’, ORus
nestera ‘niece’, Alb mbese (< *nepdtieh 4 ~) ‘granddaughter,
niece’, Grk avey/id ‘female cousin’ (< *srp-nept-ih a - ‘co-
granddaughter’), Av naptl- ‘granddaughter’, Olnd naptf -
‘granddaughter’. Although derived from the masculine form
of this word, the distribution indicates that this word for
‘granddaughter’ was of PIE status. Derivatives: OCS netijl
‘nephew’ < *nept-iio-\ Grk (Hesychius) veonzpai . vicov
dvyatepeq ‘sons’ daughters’.
In the northern and western stocks of IE the PIE word for
‘granddaughter’, *neptih a ~, also came to mean ‘niece’ (nowhere
is it demonstrably only ‘sister’s daughter’). However, the fact
that that change in Latin postdates the classical Latin period
may suggest that the extension to ‘niece’, despite its
widespreadness, was not of PIE date. If the extension was
first to ‘sister’s daughter’ (whether in PIE itself or independent-
ly in the northern and western stocks) we have evidence for
one of the characteristic features of Omaha kinship systems,
the equation of daughter’s and sister’s children.
See also Grandson ; Kinship. [ M . E . H . 1
GRANDFATHER
*h 2 euh 2 os ‘grandfather’. [IEW 89 (*ayo-s); GI 668
( *HauHo-)\ Buck 2.46; Szem 7; Wordick 90-92; BK 416
237
GRANDFATHER
( *haw-)\ . Lat avus ‘grandfather’ (and avia ‘grandmother’), ON
afi ‘grandfather; forefather’, NHG (dial.) awwe ‘grandfather’
(ON and NHG as if < *h2euh20-on-), Goth awo (< *h2euh2-
eh a -n- ) ‘grandmother’, Arm haw ‘grandfather’, Hit huhhas
‘grandfather’, HierLuv huha- ‘grandfather’, Lycian xuga
‘grandfather’, TochB awe ‘grandfather’ (or ‘uncle’?). Compare
also OIr aue ( DIL ua ) (as if < *h2euh2iio -, later ua ~ da ~ 6 )
‘grandson’ (with semantic reversal through reciprocity of
terms). Widespread and old in IE.
??*suh x sos ‘grandfather’. (Jokl 1923 : 28 ; BK 169 (*sFaw-/
*s^3W~)} . Alb gjysh ‘grandfather, gjyshe (as if < *suh x siieh a -)
‘grandmother’, OInd susa ‘paternal grandmother’ (?). This
Albanian- Indie equation is tantalizing but uncertain. The Old
Indie word occurs but once in the Atharvaveda and has been
translated (by contextual and etymological guesswork) as
‘paternal grandmother’ and ‘parturient woman’. If ‘paternal
grandmother’ should turn out to be correct, it is still not certain
that the more restricted meaning in Old Indie is not an
innovation in that stock. From *seuhx- ‘bear, beget’.
It has often been thought that *h2euh20s might originally
have meant exclusively ‘mother’s father’ rather than
‘grandfather’ in general and also to have meant ‘mother’s
brother’ as would be expected in an Omaha system of kinship
terminology where the two relatives are often terminologically
equated (though not, it should be pointed out, in Omaha
itself). Certainly all the attested descendants of *h2euh20s
clearly mean ‘grandfather’ (in general) rather than just
‘mother’s father’. Moreover, it seems quite remarkable that
the early Indo-Europeans, who were normally virilocal and
resided with paternal relatives, would have kept and, indeed,
generalized a word for their ‘mother’s father’ whom they might
have seldom an occasion to see and so thoroughly abandoned
the term for ‘father’s father’ with whom they would have been
in far more frequent contact. Particularly telling perhaps is
that we find *h2euh20s joined with generation markers, e.g.,
Plautus (Miles Gloriosus 373 ) ibi mei maiores sunt siti, pater,
avos, proavos, abavos ‘there is where my ancestors lie — father,
grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great grandfather’. It
would be very strange to presume that these originally referred
to the maternal line when the entire reason for such terms
was to trace one’s descent through the paternal line.
The major piece of evidence that *h2euh20s may originally
have meant ‘mother’s father; mother’s brother’ is that in many
stocks derivatives of *h2euh20S do, in fact, mean ‘mother’s
brother’. Thus we have MWels ewyth(y)r ‘uncle’, Bret eontr
‘uncle’, Com ewn ter ‘mother’s brother’, Lat avunculus ‘mothers
brother’ (Italic and Celtic as if < *h2euh2-n-tlo- with Celtic
showing a change of *-l- to *-r-), OE earn ‘(maternal) uncle’
(> NE eme [preserved in Scotland]), Fris em ‘mother’s brother’,
NDutch oom ‘uncle’, OHG dheim ‘mother’s brother’ (< Proto-
Gmc *au(n)-haima- whose first element is *h2euh20- but
whose second element is somewhat obscure), OPrus awis
‘uncle’ (specifically ‘mother’s brother’?), Lith a vynas ‘mother’s
brother’, OCS ujl ‘mother’s brother’ (cf. the further derivative
ujka ‘aunt’) (Balto-Slavic as if < *h2euh2ho~). Just possibly
belonging here is Alb vella (as if < *h2euh20-dhel-eh a -)
‘brother’ (and if originally a cousin term). It is noteworthy
that none of these specific terms for ‘mother’s brother’ can be
reconstructed to PIE itself; at most we have ltalo-Celtic,
Germanic, Balto-Slavic innovations. It is, however, also note-
worthy that these (north)western innovations consistently
mean ‘mother’s brother’ (occasionally generalized in historic
times to ‘uncle’) and never ‘father’s brother’. That such terms
which, from the point of view of their morphology, mean
‘little grandfather’ or ‘he of the grandfather’ does suggest that
the word from which they are derived should mean ‘mother’s
father’ rather than ‘grandfather’ in general. It might also be
suggested that that ‘little grandfather’ was restricted prag-
matically to the ‘mother’s brother’ because ‘father’s brother’
had been pre-empted by a special term, e.g., Lat patruus
‘father’s brother’ or OE faedera ‘father’s brother’. However, it
is often forgotten that the Omaha tendency to equate ‘mother’s
brother’ with ‘mother’s father’ can be operative even if, as
indeed is more generally the case, ‘mother’s father’ is not
distinguished from ‘father’s father’ (e.g., as in Tzeltal or
Southeastern Wintun). Gl, on the other hand, suggest that
*h2euh20s meant ‘father’s father’ (and not ‘grandfather’ in
general) and ‘mother’s brother’ because those two relatives
had the same role from ego’s point of view in a society whose
preferred marriage pattern was that of the dual exogamous
marriage of cross-cousins (where a man can marry his mother’s
brother’s daughter or his father’s sister’s daughter, both of
whom belong to the other lineal group). Their theory, like
that of the “strict Omahaists”, is made difficult by the almost
certain reconstruction of *h2euh20s as ‘father’s father’ and
‘mother’s father’.
See also Grandson; Kinship, Uncle. [M E H., D.Q.A.)
Further Readings
Beekes, R. S. P (1976) Uncle and nephew. JIES 4, 43-63.
Hetterich, H. (1985) Indo-European kinship terminology. Anthro-
pological Linguistics 27, 453-480.
GRANDMOTHER
*h2en- ‘father’s mother’. [IEW 36-37 ( *an-)\
Wat 2 (*an-)\ GI 668 ( *Han-)\ Buck 2 . 47 ; Szem 8 ; Wordick
96 - 97 ; BK 454 (*anF-)]. OHG ana ‘grandmother’, Goth and
‘grandmother’, OPrus ane ‘female ancestor’, OCS vUn^kQ
‘grandfather’, Rus vnuk ‘grandfather’ (< Proto-Slav *ononko-
< PIE *h2en-h2en-ko~) , Grk a wig ‘grandmother’, Arm han
‘grandmother’, Hit hannas ‘grandmother’, Lycian xnnahe/i-
‘of a grandmother’, OPers nyaka (< *h2n-ieh a -keh a -) ‘grand-
mother’. A word, probably ultimately derived from child-
language, which is widespread and old in IE. Only in Anatolian
and Armenian is this word phonologically distinct from *h^en-
‘(old) woman’ as seen in OIr Ana ‘mother of the gods’, Lat
anus ‘old woman’, Hit annas ‘mother’, Palaic annas ‘mother’,
Luv anna/i- ‘mother’, Lydian ena- ‘mother’, Lycian ene/i-
‘mother’. It seems likely that the form of *h2en- ‘grandmother’
has been influenced by that of *h2euh20S ‘grandfather’
— 238 —
GRANDSON
(compare the alliterating pairs in Hittite of attas annas ‘father
and mother’ and huhhas hannas ‘grandfather and grand-
mother’).
?*h 2 euh 2 ih a - ‘grandmother’, [cf. 1EW 89; Wordick 100;
BK 416 (*haw-)\. Lat avia ‘grandmother’; Alb joshe (<
*h 2 euh 2 ieh a -sjeh a -) ‘maternal grandmother’, Grk (Hesychius)
am ‘the aunt or foster-mother’ (‘among the Cyrenaeans’).
None of these equations is certain. The Latin word, for
instance, may reflect an inner-italic development, the creation
of a feminine form to avus in the same way that fratria ‘brother’s
wife’ was created from [rater ‘brother’. A possible word of the
west and center of the IE world.
*seno-meh a t£r ‘grandmother’. [IEW 907-908 ( *$eno -
mater)\ Buck 2.47]. Olr senmathair ‘grandmother’, Lith
senmote ‘grandmother’. Possibly independent creations in
Celtic and Baltic.
Those who support the contention that Proto-Indo-
European kinship terminology was originally unilineal and
that *h 2 euh 20 s originally designated only the ‘mother’s
brother, mother’s father’ (and not a relative on the paternal
line), cite the Latin, Albanian and Greek forms as obvious
feminizations of *h 2 euh 20 s. Another term, */i 2 en-, is more
widespread and may reflect an original patrilineal term
although the Greek cognate may refer to either the maternal
or paternal grandmother. Those who support the unilineal
hypothesis would then argue that as bilaterality became more
common, a compound, *‘old mother’ was developed in Celtic
and Baltic to cover both sides of the family. In other cases
each stock either created a new term or expanded one of the
old terms to take in the grandmother on the other side of the
family.
See also Grandfather; Kinship. [M.E.H., D.Q.A.]
GRANDSON
*n6pdts (gen. *n6potos) ‘grandson; ?sister’s son’. [7EW764
( *nepot-)\ Wat 44 ( *nepot-)\ GI 669 ( *nep h dt h -)\ Buck 2.48;
Szem 9; Wordick 155-165; BK 573 ( *n y ip[ h ]-/*r^ ep [ h /-)] .
Olr nia ~ niae ‘sister’s son, grandson, descendant’, Weis nai
‘nephew’, Com noy ‘nephew’, MBret ni ‘nephew’, Lat nepos
‘grandson, granddaughter, descendant’ (in later Imperial and
Medieval Latin also ‘nephew’), ON nefi ‘descendant’, OE nefa
‘grandson, sister’s son’, OHG nefo ‘sister’s son; (paternal/
maternal) cousin’, Lith nepuotis ‘grandson’ (once apparently
‘niece’!, never ‘nephew’), Alb nip ‘grandson, nephew’, Grk
venodeg ‘descendants’ ( Od 4.404; the erroneous 8 was
backformed from *vencog, the regular nominative, when
identity of the stem-final consonant was no longer certain),
Av napat- ‘grandson, descendant’, OPers napa ‘grandson,
descendant’, OInd napat ‘grandson, descendant’. Clearly of
PIE status. Derivatives: OCS netijl ‘nephew’ < *nept-io -; Grk
dveynog ‘cousin’ (< *sip-neptiio- ‘co-grandson’), Weis cefnder
‘male cousin’, cyfnither ‘female cousin’ (< *kom-nepdt- and
*kom-neptih a - ‘co-grandson and co-granddaughter’
respectively).
This has been both widely and justly regarded as one of
the more critical words concerning the reconst ruction of the
PIE kinship system. One of the major distinctions between
the Omaha type, that which is attributed to PIE by a number
of scholars, and other possible kinship systems, is that in the
Omaha system one may expect there to be generational
skewing where we should find the same term for ‘sister’s son’
(NE ‘nephew’) as ‘daughter’s son’ (NE ‘grandson’). As the
semantic range of the cognates derived from *nepots appears
to embrace both ‘grandson’ and ‘sister’s son’, this composite
reference has provided support for the ascription of the PIE
kinship system to the Omaha type (generational skewing also
occurs in the Crow type but as the Crow type is almost
exclusively matrilineal there are no grounds for ascribing it
to PIE). This interpretation, however, is by no means
universally accepted.
The existence of this nepotic skewing rule has been
challenged on the basis of the actual linguistic evidence. That
*nepots designated the ‘grandson’ is agreed by all; it is whether
we have any right to assume also a meaning of ‘sister’s son,
nephew’ is what is at dispute. The evidence for such is
proposed for Celtic, Latin, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic.
Opponents to the extension of *nepots to ‘nephew’ emphasize
that this meaning is nowhere found in Indo- Iranian.
The Celtic languages uniformally attest the meaning
‘nephew’ although traces of ‘descendant’ may exist in MWels
keiv(y)n (< *kom-+ *nepots) ‘third cousin’ (< *‘co-descendant
of a common ancestor’). The use of Latin nepos to designate
‘nephew’ is only found in texts of the third century AD and
later and even then did not carry on into all the Romance
languages where Spanish nieto and Portuguese neto both
indicate only ‘grandson’. This has suggested that the meaning
‘nephew’ was secondary and developed independently in
Latin. A similar explanation has been extended to Germanic
where OHG nefo (and its feminine forms) designate only the
‘grandson, descendant’ and ‘nephew’ only emerges in Middle
High German. Only OE nefa means both ‘grandson’ and
‘nephew’ from its earliest attestation. The Baltic evidence rests
on OLith nepuotis which almost invariably indicated ‘grand-
son’ (there is one very problematic reference to it designating
‘niece’!). This leaves Slavic which is already among the latest
attested IE stocks and where, it is argued by critics of the
nepotic skewing rule, the shift from ‘grandson’ to ‘nephew’
had already been completed. Hence those who challenge the
reconstruction of the Omaha system for PIE argue that *nepots
originally indicated the ‘grandson, descendant’ and that the
meaning ‘nephew’ is a later development occurring independ-
ently within some of the various IE stocks. Why such similar
but independent developments took place across a number
of stocks has been explained with reference to a similar shift,
again controversially argued, where ‘grandfather’ came to
designate ‘mother’s brother’. This occurs in the same dialects
that saw the shift from ‘grandson’ to ‘nephew’. Such a change
between reciprocal categories of kin would be entirely
expected; what is not so entirely convincing is the reason for
this change. Heinrich Hetterich has suggested that the shift
— 239 —
GRANDSON
from a more mobile settlement pattern to an increasingly
sedentary one would have made certain relationships between
groups related by marriage more continuous and intense and
may have demanded the coining or extension of new kinship
categories. This argument rests entirely on an undemonstrated
premise concerning the evolution of both the IE economy
and residence patterns.
Efforts to etymologize *ne-pot- as ‘powerless’ (< *ne- ‘not’
+ *potis ‘independent, dominating’, i.e., young unmarried
male of extended family) are pointless as the correct
segmentation revealed by the feminine forms is *nep-ot- in
which -of- is the same nominal suffix found in Germanic
*menop- ‘month’ (from ‘moon’) or Hit siw-att- ‘day’ (from
‘daytime sky’).
See also Kinship; Nephew; Uncle. [M.E.H., J.RM.]
Further Readings
Beekes, R. S. P (1976) Uncle and nephew. JIES 4, 43-63.
Hetterich, H. (1985) Indo-European kinship terminology in
linguistics and anthropology. Anthropological Linguistics 27,
453-480.
GRASS
*yei- ‘grass’. [JEW 1139-1 140 ( *uel-)\ Buck 8.511. Weis
gwellt ‘grass’, OPrus wolti ‘head of grass’, Lith valtis ‘oat
panicle’, Hit wellu(want)- ‘grass’. Cf. also OCS vlasu ‘hair,
particularly human headhair’ and Olnd valsa- ‘branch, sprout’.
Rather sparsely attested, however, its geographical distribution
assures its antiquity within IE. Probably the oldest word we
can reconstruct for ‘grass’. Within the cosmological system of
the early Indo-Europeans, grass is an alloform of hair, i.e., in
the stories of the creation of the universe, grass is formed
from the hair of the primeval giant. Similarly, in cures for
baldness, grass is applied to stimulate the regrowth of hair.
*Koino- ‘grass’. [IEW 610 (*/c< oi-no-); Buck 8.52]. Lith
siinas ‘hay’, Latv siens ‘hay’, OCS seno ‘hay, fodder, grass’,
Grk (Hesychius) Koiva (pi.?) ‘grass’. At least a late term used
in the central area of the IE-speaking world.
See also Cosmology; Feed; Plants; Field; Hair; Medicine.
[D.Q.A.]
GRAY
*Eas- ‘gray’. [7EW533 (*£as-); Wat 27 (*kas-\ G1 1361.
Weis ceinach (< *k asm + ako-) ‘hare’, Lat canus (< *K asno-)
‘gray’, Osc casnar ‘old’, ON hpss (< *Kasuo -) ‘gray, brown’,
heri ‘hare’, OE hasu (< *kasuo~) ‘gray, brown’, hara ‘hare’
(> NE hare), OHG haso ‘hare’, OPrus sasins ‘hare’, Khot saha-
‘hare’, Olnd sasa- (< *sasa -) ‘hare’. The hare is originally the
‘gray one’ or the like (cf. Lith sirvis ‘hare’ to sirvas ‘gray’).
Widespread and old in IE. That the connections between this
word and that of the hare are so close among the various
stocks suggests that the word cannot be included as a
“primary” color term as one might expect in a Stage VII system.
See Black; Color; Hare. [D.Q.A.]
GREEK LANGUAGE
The earliest certain evidence of the Greek language appears
in the Linear B tablets known from Crete (Knossos) and
mainland Greece (Mycenae, Tiryns, Pylos, Thebes) which date
to about the thirteenth century BC. Written in a syllabic script,
these tablets number several thousand and are largely confined
to economic records of the late Bronze Age Mycenaeans whose
palace-based civilization collapsed in the twelfth century. The
Linear B texts are written in the official palace language, a
chancery language employed uniformly by the late Bronze
Age civil service both on Crete and in the mainland Greek
palaces.
The collapse of Mycenaean civilization ushered in a “Dark
Age” where the art of writing in Greek was lost. When written
records in Greek resume, during the Iron Age between 825
and 750 BC, they are written in the familiar Greek alphabet,
a script based on that of the Phoenicians. “Alphabetic Greek”
had at first no uniform standard. Each city-state and its citizens
wrote in the variety of Greek appropriate to the local area.
These varieties can be grouped into several larger scale dialect
areas. On both sides of the northern part of the Aegean Sea
were the Aeolic dialects. Southward from ihem on the Asia
Minor coastline and extending to many of the southern Aegean
islands (including Euboea) were the Ionic dialects. In Attica
was the very similar Attic of Athens. (Attic-Ionic are
distinguished from all other Greek dialects by the change of
original *a to *e.) Widely separated in Arcadia in the
Peloponnese and on Cyprus was the Arcado-Cypriot group,
a group which was linguistically closest to the Mycenaean
chancery language. All of these, Aeolic, Attic-Ionic, and
Arcado-Cypriot can in turn be arranged together as “East
Greek” and contrasted with “West Greek”. East Greek dialects
are diagnostically distinct by a change of original *-ti to -si
(e.g., Attic 8(Sovgi ‘they give’ but West Greek didovn). The
West Greek group is composed of Doric, found in the
Peloponnese and throughout the southern islands (including
both Crete and Rhodes) and the closely related Northwest
group extending up the western half of the Greek mainland
as far as Corfu. The Doric dialect wedge looks to be intrusive,
and was certainly spoken in areas that in Mycenaean times
spoke a very different kind of Greek. It was traditionally
assumed that it was a Doric migration/invasion that brought
down the Mycenaean civilization. The Homeric dialect of the
Iliad and the Odyssey stands somewhat apart. It is an East
Greek dialect with both Aeolic and Ionic components
(including a late Attic veneer in some cases) that was the
speech of no local community but rather a pandialectal variety
of Greek that had grown up on the coast of Asia Minor and in
which epic poetry was composed.
The dominant variety of Greek from late classical times on
was a form of Attic, influenced by the closely related Ionic,
called koine or ‘common language. Its gradual acceptance as
the normative variety of Greek, first in Ionia and later
elsewhere, was aided by the cultural and military prestige of
Athens and particularly by the adoption of the koine as the
— 240 —
GREEK LANGUAGE
Mycenae
Greek Distribution of the major Greek dialects.
official language of the Macedonian state and throughout the same or at least they were in close contact before the
Alexander the Great’s conquests. All medieval and modem separation into independent stocks. More distant perhaps are
varieties of Greek are descended from the koine with the similarities between Greek and the lndo-lranian super-stock,
exception of Tsakonian, spoken in the east-central Pelopon- Close similarities have also been suggested between Greek
nese, which is basically Doric (the Greek language spoken in and its Phrygian and Macedonian neighbors; however, these
the once Greek-speaking islands of southern Italy also shows latter are so poorly attested that any meaningful conclusions
some traces of Doric). are difficult to substantiate.
Greek is an independent IE stock but it does share certain
similarities with other IE groups, A close relationship with Description
Armenian has been regularly suggested (though not always In general, Greek, whether ancient or modern, is a
accepted) indicating the possibility that at one time either conservative representative of Proto-Indo-European. Ancient
the linguistic ancestors of the Greeks and Armenians were Greek is arguably the phonologically most conservative IE
— 241 —
Attic - Ionic
Arcado - Cyprian
Doric
m Aeolic
100km
5 NW Greek
GREEK LANGUAGE
Proto-Indo-European and Greek Phonological Correspondences
Grk
PIE
Grk
P
*ph a ter ‘father’
narrfp ‘father’
b
*bel- ‘strong’
peXxicQV ‘better’
ph
*bhreh a ter ‘brother’
q>pStp(a ‘clan’
t
*tritos ‘third’ ‘
tphoq ‘third’
d
*ddh3rom ‘gift’
Scopov ‘gift’
th
*dhur- ‘door’
dvpQ ‘door’
k
*dekrp ‘ten’
Sekgc ten’
g
*gonu ‘knee’
yovu ‘knee’
kh
*gheimen- ‘winter’
Xeipa ‘winter weather’
k
*kor- ‘war’
Koipavog ‘(war) leader’
g
*h 3 ligos ‘sick’
oXiyog ‘little, small’
kh
*h 3 mighleh a - ‘mist’
opix^r] ‘fog, mist’
P~t
*leik w e/o- ‘leave’
kevKoa ‘leave’
*k w is ‘who’
Tig ‘who’
b ~ d
*^ou- ‘cow’
jSoug ‘cow’
*g w elbhus ‘womb’
SeXfpvg ‘womb’
ph ~ th
*g w honos ‘striking down’
q>ovog ‘murder’
*g w hermos ‘warm’
deppog ‘warm, hot’
h ~ 0 ~ s
*septrfi ‘seven’
ektol ‘seven’
*pesos ‘penis’
neog ‘penis’
h — z
*jag- ‘honor, fear’
a^ofica ‘stand in awe of’
*iugom ‘yoke’
f uyov ‘yoke’
0
*y6ghos ‘carrier’
p^og ‘wagon”
m
*meh a ter ‘mother’
pr\vrip ‘mother’
n
*nok w ts ‘night’
vv £ ‘night’
1
*lege/o- ‘gather’
kiyo) ‘gather’
r
*hirudhros ‘red’
epvOpog ‘red’
a
*#- ‘un-’
a- ‘un-’
a
*kijit6m ‘hundred’
EKarov ‘hundred’
al
*m]dus ‘soft’
d-paXdvv(o l gTow weak’
ar
*Kfd~ ‘heart’
KapSia ‘heart’
i
*k w Is ‘who’
rig ‘who’
e
*d6kiji ‘ten’
8ekcc ‘ten’
e
*pb a ter ‘father’
Karrj p ‘father’
a
*sal- ‘salt’
aAg ‘salt’
a
*m6h a ter ‘mother’
grjrrip ‘mother’
o
*g6nu ‘knee’
yovv ‘knee’
6
*ddh3rom ‘gift’
d&pov ‘gift’
u
*iugdm ‘yoke’
£vyov ‘yoke’
u
*mfis ‘mouse’
pvg ‘mouse’
0
*hies- ‘be’
eg- ‘be’
0
*h 2 duis ‘sheep’
o(f)tg ‘sheep’
0
*h 3 dk w ihi ‘eyes’
oooe ‘eyes’
0
*h 4 orghis ‘testicle’
opxig ‘testicle’
language attested. It preserves all five PIE vowels ( i,e,a,o,u —
both long and short), the PIE free accent (except in verbs),
and the distinction between the plain voiced stops ( *b, *d,
*g, etc.) and their aspirated counterparts (*bh, *dh, *gh, etc.),
though the latter group appears in Greek as voiceless aspirates
( ph , th, kh, etc.). The only major systematic changes
undergone by Greek was the complete loss of laryngeals, the
change of *s and *i initially to h- and the loss of these two
and *u in many other environments, and the change of *rp
and to a and the “distraction” *f and *j to ar/ra and al/la
respectively (the placement of the vowel relative to the
consonant originally dependent on surrounding sounds),
though there is evidence that this latter change was not
completed by Mycenaean times.
Greek is also morphologically conservative in preserving
three numbers (singular, dual, and plural) in both noun and
— 242
GREEK LANGUAGE
verb (though the dual disappears during the course of classical
times), three aspects (present, aorist, and perfect) and the
distinction between active and middle/passive in the verb,
and five cases (with traces of two others) in noun and adjective.
It shares with Indo-Iranian and Armenian the presence of the
“augment” (a prefix e-) before past tenses (imperfect, aorist,
and plu-perfect). The presence of a subjunctive mood, distinct
from the indicative and optative, also characterizes the
southeastern group including Indo-lranian and Greek but
reappears in Celtic and Italic as well.
Greek Origins
The origins of the Greeks is a much debated topic and
while there are a number of general issues that find some
consensus, the specific issues of when and from where one
may derive the earliest Greeks are very controversial. The
presumption that the Greeks are intruders into their own
territory is based on a number of lines of evidence. These
include the Greeks’ own tradition that they were later
immigrants, having been preceded by a people known as the
Pelasgians. There is also an abundance of non-Greek place
names, e.g., Corinth, Knossos, Mycenae, Olympus, and
allegedly non-Greek personal names, e.g., Athene, which have
all suggested that Greece was occupied by a prior non-Greek
population or variety of populations. Another line of evidence
are the inscriptions in Linear A, the writing system that
preceded that of the Mycenaean Linear B. Although many of
the signs are similar to the Linear B signs, it has so far proved
impossible to read these earlier inscriptions and although they
cannot be attributed with any confidence to any known
language (Anatolian and Semitic are popular candidates), the
structure of their word-endings does not support their
identification as Greek. Finally, there is the evidence of the
Greek lexicon. On the one hand, Greek is remarkably
conservative and participates very widely in the basic cognate
sets that we can establish between the various IE stocks and
no serious case has ever been presented to support the
hypothesis that either its morphology or syntactic structure
has been heavily influenced by a non-IE substrate. On the
other hand, there is a substantial portion, estimated by some
at greater than 50%, of the Greek vocabulary that cannot be
compared with that of other IE stocks. An exercise in
comparing translations of selected passages of the Bible (Mt
2 and Lk 1 5) in various IE languages revealed that the lexical
items of non-IE or obscure origin numbered 15 for Russian,
34 for Lithuanian, 48 for Italian but 171 for Greek. The non-
IE vocabulary in Greece has been attributed to a variety of
sources: some form of non-IE Anatolian language or Semitic
has been suggested for a number of the loanwords and there
is little question that certain semantic spheres relied heavily
on non-IE loans. Already in the Linear B tablets we find, for
example, words for spices such as Myc sa-sa-ma (Grk cnjod^r]
sesame’), and Myc ku-mi-no (Grk Kvfilvov ‘cummin’) and
there is little doubt that Semitic languages, particularly
Phoenician, were contributing not only many products but
also lexical items to their Greek trading partners and rivals. It
is clear then that many of the foreign words found in Greek
may well have entered after the Greeks themselves were
established. Of more importance are items of vocabulary that
have been attributed to indigenous non-IE languages, some-
times designated as “Mediterranean” or “Aegean”. This latter
influence includes terms for native flora, e.g., cypress, laurel,
chestnut, olive, and technological terms, e.g., brick, jar, oil
flask, sword. That some of these terms reflect the names of
either native plants or technological items that should have
been known in Greece since the Bronze Age if not earlier has
led to the supposition that the Greeks superimposed
themselves on a non-IE substrate. The possibility of other IE
stocks forming a substrate in Greece has also been suggested,
e.g., Luvian or Pelasgian, the latter a largely hypothetical IE
stock whose existence is supported primarily by elements of
the Greek vocabulary that might be explained as IE if certain
non-Greek sound laws are invoked, e.g., Grk zd(pog ‘grave’ is
cognate with Arm damban ‘grave’ and appears to continue
PIE *dhijibhos but Greek also yields a word rv^ipog ‘grave,
tombstone’. This latter word cannot possibly be derived from
the underlying PIE form according to the rules of Greek
phonological development but proponents of the Pelasgian
theory suggest that it is easily derivable if one employs a
different set of phonological rules appropriate to Pelasgian,
e.g., dissimilation of *dh to *d and then to f; PIE *qi >
Pelasgian um\ PIE *bh > Pelasgian b. Although each individual
word suggested by supporters of Pelasgian may be challenged,
there does seem to be sufficient material to support the
hypothesis that there was some form of IE substrate or adstrate
in Greek. The historical circumstances of these borrowings,
both with respect to when and where, remain elusive.
In terms of occupation, human or at least Homo
populations have existed in Greece since at least 350,000 years
ago but the time depth of IE suggests that Indo-Europeans
should not have been present in Greece any earlier than the
Neolithic, i.e., c 7000 BC. Archaeologists have variously
suggested the following “windows” for the entrance of those
IE speakers who later emerged as the historical Greeks: 1)
the beginning of the Neolithic c 7000 BC; 2) the later Neolithic
c 4500-4000 BC; 3) the beginning of the Bronze Age c 3000
BC; 4) the transition from Early Bronze Age II to Early Bronze
Age III, c2300 BC; and 5) the transition between the Middle
Bronze Age and the Later Bronze Age c 1600 BC. An earlier
theory that the Greeks did not penetrate Greece until the
collapse of the Mycenaean civilization c 1100 BC has been
obviated by the decipherment of the Linear B tablets as Greek.
The earliest of the proposed migrations derives circum-
stantially from Anatolia where the Neolithic economy and
technology precedes that of Greece and is held to be the region
from whence the agricultural economy penetrated Europe
from the Near East. The evidence is circumstantial in the sense
that while there are close similarities between early Anatolian
farming sites and those of Greece, there is no clear “path” of
migration from one territory to another, the western coast of
— 243 —
GREEK LANGUAGE
Anatolia being so far devoid of early Neolithic sites. Never-
theless, such an origin for the Greek Neolithic is widely held
and it has proven far easier to accept than the proposal that
the hunting-gathering populations of Greece independently
domesticated plants and animals and developed the requisite
agricultural technology.
There are a number of very serious problems with the
Neolithic solution to Greek origins. By tying IE dispersals
with the seventh millennium BC spread of agriculture from
Anatolia, it requires the expansion and consequent differentia-
tion of the IE stocks far earlier than is normally envisaged by
linguists. It also, would seem to require a chain of IE dialects/
stocks such that Anatolian-Greek would be especially close,
then Greek-Latin, all relationships unsupported by IE
dialectology; conversely, such a model does nothing to
accommodate the relationships between Greek and the stocks
with which it does share many isoglosses, i.e., Armenian, Indo-
Iranian. If the Greeks had occupied their historical seats since
the seventh millennium BC, it is difficult to understand why
we find apparently non-IE lexical items pertaining to the local
environment and economic developments ascribed to the
Neolithic and Bronze Age. Also, one might have expected the
Linear A script to have been read as Greek if Crete had been
(Proto-) Greek since the seventh millennium (when we find
the Neolithic settlement of Knossos). Finally, there are certain
basic items of the reconstructed IE vocabulary, established
from cognate sets which include Greek evidence, that could
not have been known to Neolithic Greek populations. The
earliest evidence for both the horse and wheeled vehicles in
Greece does not appear until after 3000 BC. For the Greeks
to possess what would appear to be inherited words for these
items, we must then presume that they borrowed them from
an IE neighbor who still spoke Proto-Indo-European and that
the language of the (Proto-) Greeks had also been preserved
from any phonological change for millennia before they
adopted these later words so that they remained undetectable
as loan words. Later archaeological solutions to Greek origins
may well fail because of a lack of persuasive evidence for
intrusions while the Neolithic model fails because it seems
conceptually incompatible with accommodating the linguistic
evidence.
A second model would introduce Proto-Greeks at the be-
ginning of the later Neolithic, c 4500-4000 BC. At this time
there appears a shift in settlement type (there is admittedly
limited evidence for this) where in place of earlier villages we
find enclosed compounds with large structures which have
been interpreted as the houses of elites. This pattern is seen
in Thessaly at the sites of Dhimini and Sesklo. It is argued
that this change from presumably egalitarian village settlement
to the citadels of the elite reflects the type of social change
that one might wish to associate with a new people
superimposing themselves on the earlier inhabitants. More
often, however, this shift in settlement type has been attributed
to local evolutions of social complexity and there is no obvious
foreign source for the later Neolithic cultures of Greece.
The third possible “intrusion” is posed for the period of
the fourth and third millennia BC, a period concurrent with
at least some of the linguistic estimates for IF time depth.
Elsewhere in southeastern Europe we find evidence for the
horse and wheeled vehicles although we have no hard
archaeological evidence for these items from Greece at this
time. Nevertheless, Greece appears to participate in an
interaction sphere which also embraces northwest Anatolia,
the east Balkans and the steppe and forest-steppe regions north
of the Black Sea. This interaction is evident, for example, in
the appearance of similar metal daggers (of copper or arsenical
bronze) across this region and the appearance of a brief
horizon of silver ornaments. There is some controversial
evidence for a cultural break in northern Greece while
southern Greece is seen to offer a more gradual transition
from the late Neolithic to the early Bronze Age. This model
presumes that under the guise of exchange patterns we might
also include some population movements that carried
languages into the Aegean from the north Balkans.
The fourth suggested horizon is the break between the
early Bronze Age periods designated Early Helladic II and
Early Helladic III (c 2300-2100 BC) where cultural change
is accompanied or followed by the destruction of earlier sites.
Innovations usually cited as evidence for intruders include a
shift in ceramic styles with the appearance of the so-called
“Minyan” ware, the appearance of two-roomed houses with
an apsidal end, perforated stone axes, small clay anchors, and
by the Middle Helladic period tumulus burial and the
appearance of the horse. These various elements do not form
a unified complex of intrusive features but derive variously
from Anatolia (new ceramic styles) or north of Greece and
appear to move through Greece progressively from north to
south arriving last in the Peloponnese. This is also a period in
which destruction horizons are known from a number of sites
which some would attribute to IE movements. Many would
argue that into this window have been lumped a variety of
features and processes, some local and some foreign, that
suggest some form of long-term progression of north to south
contacts rather than evidence for a distinct wave of intruders.
The fifth possibility of Greek invasions is set to c 1600 BC
with the appearance of the chariot in Greece. In this model,
chariot warriors, whose remains can be found in the shaft
graves of Mycenae, entered Greece from Anatolia where
chariot warfare was earlier attested. The Hellenization of
Greece is regarded then as the superposition of a ruling elite
on the indigenous population as has also been suggested for
the Indo-Aryan conquest of India. It could be added that
surveys of the physical anthropology of Greek populations of
the Bronze Age have so far yielded no solid case for a new
population although those buried in the shaft-graves of
Mycenae do appear more robust than their predecessors.
Other arguments suggesting that the Mycenaeans do not
reflect a natural evolution on Greek soil but came from outside
Greece is the very nature of the shaft-graves themselves. They
involve an impressive assortment of status items derived from
— 244
GREEK LANGUAGE
abroad and an emphasis on conspicuous consumption
unparalleled in earlier Greek burials.
The chariot-warrior hypothesis rests to a considerable
extent on the nature of the wheeled vehicle vocabulary of
Greek. William Wyatt has contrasted the terminology
associated with Homer’s description of a horse-drawn chariot
( Iliad 5.722-730) with that obtaining for the mule-drawn
four-wheeled wagon ( Iliad 24.266-275). The chariot terms,
Wyatt argues, are IE while many of the terms pertaining to
the wagon appear to lack an IE etymology. He concluded
that chariot-using Indo-Europeans (Proto-Greeks) obviously
knew the chariot when they arrived in Greece and probably
brought it with them; on arrival, they encountered an earlier
society who employed wagons and the Greeks borrowed the
terms for the wagon from the native population.
This theory is also not without its weaknesses. That part
of the vocabulary of the chariot employed in Homeric Greek
that reflects inherited PIE words, e.g., kvkXgc ‘wheels’, d^cov
‘axle’, foydv ‘yoke’, are generic terms and in other IE languages
may refer to wagons (or in the case of ‘yoke’, plow-teams) as
well as chariots. All those words whose semantic field is
specific to the chariot, e.g., Kvripri ‘spoke’, emaacozpa ‘tires’,
may have underlying IE roots but these words do not have
specific chariot-associated meanings in any other IE stocks.
For this reason, while it is certain that we can reconstruct a
PIE ‘wheeled vehicle’, there is no specific lexical support for
a PIE ‘chariot’ and it seems likely that the Greeks shifted some
of the the wagon terms to the chariot which was in existence
in the steppe-lands since c 2000 BC if not somewhat earlier.
The linguistic argument presumes that this shift is unlikely
since this would require a model where the Greeks would so
thoroughly have shifted their wagon terms to the chariot that
they would have no inherited words left for the wagon and
would then have had to adopt the non-IE vocabulary for the
four-wheeled wagon. But this entire argument, as with so
many arguments concerning loan-word vocabulary in Greek,
implicitly presumes that the wagon terms in Homer come
from a pre-Greek population in Greece. The Linear B tablets
are of minimal use here since the only suggestion of a wagon
is the appellative use of Myc a-pe-ne-wo (cf. Grk ocktivti
‘wagon’). Given that the mule only began spreading across
the Mediterranean into Greece from Asia in the first
millennium BC, it is entirely possible that some of the specific
terms relating to a mule-drawn wagon post-dated the arrival
of the Indo-Europeans in Greece. In any event, the other Greek
word for the four-wheeled wagon, Grk cigala, may well
derive from a PIE *h 2 em-h a Fs-ih a ‘wagon-chassis’ (with
cognates in Tocharian).
From an archaeological standpoint, an invasion of chariot
warriors has only the appearance of the chariot to sustain it.
The chariot begins to appear in Anatolia at about c 1950-
1850 BC (seal impression from Karum Kanesh II) and chariots
are known from the same period also in the Volga-Ural region.
Other items of comparison are the disc-shaped bridle cheek-
pieces which are attested in Mycenae from c 1600 BC and are
found somewhat earlier in the steppe region. It seems difficult
to deny that there were connections between the steppe,
Anatolia and Greece, but precisely how these are to be
explained is far from understood. A late Bronze Age intrusion
of chariot-warriors might have introduced the Proto-Greek
language from elsewhere but there is really no solid evidence
of this intrusive culture other than the chariot and the cheek-
piece, both of which could have represented technological
diffusion. Other items suggesting long distant connections,
e.g., the presence of Baltic amber in Mycenaean tombs, may
well be explained by exchange systems and are difficult to
link to either a steppe or Anatolian origin, and parallels such
as the use of golden death-masks at Mycenae and the
modelling of clay faces on Catacomb skulls in the steppe
region seem more than a bit distant without intervening
evidence.
Subsequent evidence for population intrusion, such as the
appearance of crude pottery in the twelfth century after the
collapse of the Mycenaean citadels, is usually associated with
north-south movements within Greece itself which may be
tied to the Dorian invasions of Greek tradition but are too
recent to explain the arrival of the Greeks.
As to which, if any, of the proposed “intrusions” the Proto-
Greeks should be attributed still seems impossible to
determine.
See also Indo-European Languages; Indo-European
Homeland; Macedonian Language. [D.Q.A. J PM.]
Further Readings
Language
Francis, E. D. (1992) The impact of non-Indo-European languages
on Greek and Mycenaean, in Reconstructing Languages and
Cultures , ed. E. Polome and W Winter, Berlin and New York,
469-506.
Hooker, J. T. (1980) Linear B: An Introduction. Bristol, Bristol Classic
Press.
Katicic, R. (1976) Ancient Languages of the Balkans. The Hague,
Mouton.
Lejeune, M. (1972) Phonetique historique du mycenien et du grec
ancien. Paris, Klincksieck.
Palmer, L. R. (1962) The language of Homer, in A Companion to
Homer , eds. A, J. B. Wace and F H. Stubbings. London, St Martin’s
Press.
Rix, H. (1976) Historische Grammatik des Gnechischen. Darmstadt,
Wissenschaftliche Buchgese 1 lsc ha ft .
Etymological Dictionaries
Chantraine, R (1968-80) Dictionnaire etymologiquc de la langue
grecque. Paris, Klincksieck.
Frisk, H. (1950-72) Griechischcs etymologisches Worterhuch.
Heidelberg, Winter.
Origins
Crossland, R. A. and A. Birchall (eds.) (1973) Bronze Age Migrations
in the Aegean. London, Duckworth.
— 245 —
GREEK LANGUAGE
Drews, R. (1988) The Coming of the Greeks. Princeton, Princeton
University Press.
Hiller, S. (1986) Die Ethnogenese der Griechen aus der Schicht der
Vor- und Friihgeschichte, in Ethnogenese europaischer Volker,
ed. W Bernhard and A. Kandler-Palsson, Stuttgart and New York,
Gustav Fischer, 21-37.
Manczak, W (1992) Argument contre la conception ethnogenetique
de Renfrew. AZG/V14, 11-18.
Xirotiris, N. (1980) The Indo-Europeans in Greece: An anthro-
pological approach to the population of Bronze Age Greece. JIES
8,201-210.
Wyatt, W F (1970) The Indo-Europeanization of Greece, in Indo-
European and Indo-Europeans, eds. G. Cardona, H. M. Hoenigs-
wald and A. Senn, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania,
89-111.
GREEN
*Kiehi- ‘deep intense shade, ± green’. [IEW 540-541
( *kei-)\ Wat 28 ( *kei-)\ GI 200 ( *k h ey- ~ *K h y-eH-); Buck
15.67]. OE hiw{< *kihj-po-) ‘color’ (> NE hue), hZEwen (<
*kiehi-uo-no-) ‘blue, purple, gray’, OPrus sywan (< *kihi-
yo-) ‘gray’, Lith §yvas (< *kihi-uo-) ‘light gray’, semas (<
*Rieh\-mo-) ‘blue-gray’, OCS sivu (< *kihj-uo-) ‘dark gray’,
sinl ‘dark blue’, SC sinji ( *kihi-ni -) ‘sea green’. Alb thinje
( *Kihi-ni -) ‘gray’, Av syava- (in Syavarsan- ‘having dark horses’
and other proper names), Khot sava- ‘copper’, Sogd S’w (<
*Riehi-jjo-) ‘dark-colored’, Olnd syama- (< *kiehi-mo- = Lith
semas ) ‘dark brown, dark green’, syava- (< *kiehi-uo-)
‘brown’, TochB kwele (< *KiuoIo- ) ‘black, dark gray’.
Distribution indicates PIE status.
*slih x u- ‘plum-colored’. [7EW 965 ( *(s)ll-)\ Wat 61
(*s//-); GI 615], Olr //‘color’, Weis lliw ‘color’, Lat //vor(<
*(s)leih x u-es- ) ‘bluish color’, OE slah ‘sloe’ (> NE sloe), OHG
sleha ‘sloe’ (Proto-Gmc *slaixwa- perhaps metathesized
< *sloih x u-ko -), Rus sllva (< *sleihx-iio-) ‘plum’, SC sllv ‘plum-
colored’. A word of the IE northwest. GI’s suggestion that this
color-term is derived from a word for ‘lead’ seen in Hit suli(ya)-
‘lead’ founders on phonological incompatibilities (we would
expect Hit *s(a)liwa-).
*Ker- ~ *Rpjos ‘grayish blue, grayish green’. [IEW 573-
574 ( *ker - ~ *ker~), 582 (*Ke-ro-)]. Lith sirvas (< *R[-uo-)
‘blue-gray’, sirmas (< *K[-mo-) ‘blue gray’, Alb thjer-me (<
*Ker-uo-) ‘(blue)gray’, sur-me (< *Rf-u-) ‘dark gray, black’,
Grk KppvXoq mythical sea-bird, often identified with the
Halcyon, i.e., river kingfisher (which has greenish-blue
plumage), Olnd sara - (< *kor-o-) ‘colored’. A word of the
center and east of the IE world.
*modheros ‘madder; blue’. [IEW 747 ( *modhro -); Wat
43 ( *modhro-)] . ON madra ‘madder’, OE maedere ‘madder’
(> NE madder), OHG matara ‘madder’, SC modaCblue’, Czech
modry ‘blue’, Hit antara (< *amtara < *matara-) ‘blue’.
Although not widely attested, the geographical distribution
of those attestations would seem to guarantee PIE status.
After yellow, some form of green is the next color expected
in the evolutionary color sequence proposed by Berlin and
Kay. Under the designation grue one might also expect that
various shades of blue, gray, violet and brown would also
have been included. The root *kieh\-, which is found from
Germanic to Indie and thus can be ascribed to Indo-European,
may accommodate our expectations as it signifies the range
of colors expected of grue in a third-stage color system. This
word was replaced in the extreme northwest (Celtic, Italic)
by a second root, *slih x u-, probably derived from ‘plum’ or
‘berry’ in the more easterly languages of Germanic and Slavic.
Lith slyvas is a loan from Slavic. In all of these languages new
words for ‘green’ (e.g. , Olr glas, Lat viridis, Proto-Gmc *grdni-)
are attested. The Celtic is a derivative of the root ‘yellow’, also
found in Greek yXcupoq, Baltic (Lith zalias, Latv zals) and Slavic
(OCS zelenu, Rus zelenyj). In Hit hahlawant-, a root for ‘grow’,
has given a term for ‘green’ as it did in Germanic. It has been
suggested that Homeric Greek lacked a word for green and
possessed only a Stage Il/III system (i.e., peXaq [black] , XevKoq
[white] , and ipvOpoq [red] ; yXcopoq is regarded as a term for
desaturated greens and yellows (= grow). The number of
innovations for green found in other languages also warns
against full acceptance of a PIE green.
The third root, *ker-, found from the Baltic to the Aegean
and into India, was often confused with ‘gray’ and thus
probably referred to a less intense or lighter, grayish blue or
green that is to be assumed for PIE. The same color may have
been designated in Germanic by Proto-Gmc *grCtwa ‘gray’
perhaps cognate with Lat ravus (if irregularly from *ghr(e)hi-
uo-) ‘tawny’. If PIE green is encoded in the above series of
words whose attested meanings range from ‘blue’ and ‘gray’
to ‘brown’ and ‘black’, one can then posit a Stage IV system
for PIE; without a PIE word for the primary color green, we
must presume a Stage III system.
The Slavic, Germanic, and Hittite words for ‘blue’ probably
reflect *modheros ‘madder’ a plant employed in the manu-
facture of blue dye. *bhl(e)hiuos, the source of Proto-Gmc
*bl&wa- ‘blue’, is cognate with Lat flavus (< *bhJhiijos)
‘yellow’.
See also Color; Yellow . [ M . E . H . ]
Further Reading
Berlin, B. and P Kay (1969) Basic Color Terms. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, University of California Press.
Moonwomon, B. (1994) Color categorization in early Greek. JIES
22, 37-65.
GREENS see VEGETABLES
GRIEVE
*reudh a - ‘mourn, lament’ (pres. *riudh a ti) [IEW 867
( *reud-)\ Wat 54 (*reu-)]. Lat rudd ‘roar, bellow, bray’, ON
rauta ‘roar’ (borrowed > NE rout, root), OE reotan ‘moan’,
OHG riozan ‘weep, cry’, Lith raumi ‘mourn, lament’, Latv
raudat ‘mourn, lament’, Slov rydati ‘weep, cry; sob’, Av raod-
‘lament, moan’, Olnd roditi ‘weeps, roars’. Cf. the widespread
derivative *roudh a os: OHG roz ‘cry’, Lith rauda ‘cry’, Olnd
roda- ‘cry’. Widespread and old in IE.
— 246 —
GROUND
*glagh- ‘cry out, lament’. [IEW 350-351 (*glag-)]. Mir
glam (< *glagh-smeh a -) ‘cry’, OHG klagon ‘bewail, complain
about’, Av gorazaiti ‘lament, cry’, OInd gihad ‘laments’. An
enlargement of *ghel- ‘cry out, sing’.
*h a egh- ‘ be afflicted, downcast, fearful; grieve’ (perfect
*hgeh a dghh 2 e ‘am afraid’). [IEW 7-8 ( *agh-)\ Wat 1 ( *agh-)\
Buck 16.53; BK459 (*hak’-/*hdk’-)[. OIr ad-agathar ‘fears’,
ON agi ‘terror’, ogn ‘fright’, OHG akl~ egi ‘terror’, Goth og ‘is
afraid’, un-agands ‘unafraid’, af-agjan ‘be moved, frightened’,
Grk axwpai ‘am inflicted, grieve’, ccxOopai ‘am vexed,
grieve’, Av aya- ‘evil’, OInd agha- ‘evil’. Cf. the widespread
derivative *h a eghlos : ‘± affliction’ in Mir alad (< *h a eghloto-)
‘wound’, MWels aeleu (< *h a eghlouo- ) ‘pain’, OE eg(e)le
‘disagreeable, offensive’, eglan ‘inflict pain’, eglian ‘grieve’
(> NE ail), Goth agls ‘disgraceful’, agio ‘tribulation’, agljan
‘harm’, aglus ‘difficult’; and the derivative *h a eghes- in OE
ege'fear’, egesa ‘fear’, OHG agiso ~ egiso ‘terror’, egison ‘terrify’,
Goth agis ‘fear, anxiety, terror’, Grk a%og ‘mental affliction or
pain’. Widespread and old in IE.
*leug- ‘grieve, be pained’, [cf. 7£W 686 ( *leug-)] . Lat luged
(< *lougeie/o- ) ‘mourn, lament’, Grk XevyaXeoq ‘sad,
horrible’, Xvypoq ‘baneful, mournful’, TochB lakle ‘pain,
suffering’. A word of the center and east of the IE world.
‘weep, lament, moan’. [Buck 16.39; BK 279
( *k’am-/*k’9m-)] . NIr geamh ‘prattle’, Lat gemo ‘sigh, moan,
lament, groan’, Arm cmrim ‘grieve’. If all these words belong
together, then we have evidence for a word at least of the
west and center of the IE world.
See also Call; Fear; Pain. [D.Q.A.]
GRIND
*melti 2 - ‘grind’ (pres. *mdlh 2 ei). [IEW 7 16-7 18 (*mel-)\
Wat 40-41 (*meh-)\ G1 598 ( *mel -); Buck 5.56; BK 518
( *mul-/*mol -)1. OIr meilid ‘grinds’, Weis malu ‘grind’, Lat
mold ‘grind’, ON mala ‘grind’, OHG malan ‘grind’, Goth malan
‘grind’, OPrus malunis ‘mill’, Lith malu ‘grind’, OCS meljQ
‘grind’, Rus moiotf ‘grind’, Grk pvXrf ‘mill’. Arm malem ‘crush’.
Hit mall(a)- ‘grind’, OInd myriad ‘crushes’, TochA malyw-
‘crush, squeeze, lay waste’, TochB mely- ‘crush, squeeze, lay
waste’, mal- ‘crush, repress’. An enlargement of this verb is
TochB mlutk- (< *ml(h 2 )-eu-T-ske/o-) ‘grind’. Cf. the
widespread derivatives meaning ‘meal’ or ‘nourishment’:
MWels blawt ‘meal’, ON mjql ‘meal’, OE melu ‘meal’ (> NE
meal), OHG melo ‘meal’, OPrus meltan ‘meal’, Lith (pi.) miltai
‘meal’, Latv (pi.) milti ‘meal’, Rus melivo ‘nourishment’, Alb
mjel ‘meal’. The Latin derivative immolare ‘sprinkle with
sacrificial meal’ retains the religious associations bound up
with agricultural fertility. The agreement of Hittite and the
various European stocks (as well as, in part, Tocharian B) on
the agricultural meaning ‘grind’ virtually assures us that that
meaning is PIE in date.
*ghrendh- ‘grind’ (pres. *ghrindheti) . [IEW 459 (*ghren-
dh-)\ Wat 23 ( *ghrendh-)\ Buck 5.56; BK 351 ( *Gar -/
*Gdr-)\. Lat frendo ‘gnash the teeth’, ON grotti ‘mill’, OE
grindan ‘grind’ (> NE grind), Lith grendu ‘scrape, scratch (off)’,
Grk yovSpog (if dissimilated from *xpov8poq) ‘grain’. A
younger word than the previous one, found in the west and
center of the IE world.
*hiel- ‘grind down’. [IEW 28-29 (*a/-); Wat 2 (*a7-); GI
598; BK 404 ( *hal-/*hdl~) ] . Grk aXeco ‘grind, bruise, pound’,
Arm alam ‘grind’, OInd anu- ‘fine, minute (< *‘ground fine’);
Panicum miliaceum' (OInd < *alnu-). A word of the southeast
of the IE world.
See also Agriculture, Quern, Thresh. [D.Q.A.]
GROUND
*bhudhnd- ‘bottom’ > ‘ground, depth, foot, root’. [IEW
174 ( *bhudh-m(e)n ); Wat 10 ( *bhudh-)\ Buck 12 34] . Mir
bonn ‘sole of foot’, Lat fundus ‘bottom, piece of land’, ON
botn ‘bottom’, OE botm ‘bottom’ (> NE bottom), OHG bodam
‘bottom’, Grk KvOpffv ‘bottom, depth, root’, nvvSalq ‘bottom,
depth’, Av buna- (< *bundna-l) ‘bottom, ground, depth’, OInd
budhna- ‘bottom, foot, root’. Arm bun is a loanword from
Iranian, as is Mari pundas, which points to *bund(n)a-. Later
Indian languages also have -nd(h)~, e.g., Prakrit bundha-. The
relation between the two Greek forms must be first established
as they clearly have the same base and exactly the same
meaning. Grk -v8- cannot be from *-ndh~. (The argument
that the place-name T1v8va proves Macedonian origin for 8
< *dh is incorrect as the name Iepditvx/Sva = -nexpG on Crete
indicates that the word was not Macedonian but a pre-Greek
word probably meaning ‘rock’). The old explanation that
-no- < -mno- seems both unnecessary and improbable as all
languages would have reduced -mno- independently (as Greek
still retains the original form). The development *-dhn- >
*ndh(n)~ is quite understandable. The Germanic alternation
of dentals is due to Kluge’s Law ( Cn > pp, tt, 7c/c); the Germanic
m is secondary. The original meaning in PIE seems to be
‘bottom’, i.e., ‘the (flat) base of a hollow object or space’; the
meaning ‘ground’, which is not found in Greek, is secondary.
*telhr-om ~ *t}hx-om ? ‘floor (of planks)?’ [7EW 1061
( *fe7-); Wat 69 ( *tel- ); Buck 1.21]. OIr talam (gen. talman)
(< *telhx-mon-l) ‘earth, ground’, Lat tellus (gen.) telluris
‘earth’, meditullium (< *-toll-i~) ‘inland, middle’, ON pel
‘ground’, pil(i) ‘plank, wall of planks’, OE pel ‘floor’, pille
‘plank of a floor’, OHG dil(o) ‘plank’, OPrus talus ‘floor of
room’, Lith tiles (< *tlhx~) (pi.) ‘planks at the bottom of a
ship’, Latv tilandi ‘planks at the bottom of a ship’, ORus tllo
(< *tjhx~o-) ‘bottom’, Rus do ‘bottom’, OInd tala- ‘surface,
bottom’. The Germanic, Baltic and Slavic forms appear to
belong together, PIE status depends largely on the validity of
the Old Indie cognate. The relation between ‘planks’ and ‘floor’
remains uncertain as well as other possible cognates, e g.,
OCS steljp ‘spread out (bed, roof)’; Grk rrjAta ‘playing table’
should be rejected since a lengthened grade is most
improbable and the underlying meaning may derive from
‘sieve’. Connection with the PIE root *(s)telhx- ‘flat’ is likewise
uncertain.
*dhgh(e)men~ *dhghmeh a (-ijR ‘on(to) the ground’. [IEW
414 ( *gbdem-)\ BK 81 (*diq[ h }-/*deq[ h l-)[. Lat humi (<
247 —
GROUND
*g^om~) ‘on the ground’, OPrus semmai ‘down’, Lith zemai
‘low, below, underneath’, Grk ^ajuaT (< *dhghrpmeh a P. ) ‘on
the ground’, Olnd jman ‘on the ground’, ksami ‘on the
ground’. Adverbs derived from *dhghem- ‘earth’ are much
debated. The form in -en is supposed to be *hien ‘in’; the
word for ‘man’, *dhghemon (Lat homo < hemo , etc ), is
supposed to be derived from this adverb. The Latin form is a
normal locative from humus , the Baltic is a normal adverb in
*-ai< *-oi. Grk x^Eoti is now suggested to contain a locative
suffix *-eh 2 (-i) from a Lindeman variant *dhghip~. Olnd
ksama might be a similar formation.
The wide semantic field of *bhudhno- which ranges from
‘ground’ to ‘wooden stand’, etc., was pressed by W. Porzig to
suggest that the various meanings could be best explained by
presuming an original IE environment that involved marshy
land and settlement raised on timber supports, in short, the
so-called Swiss “lake-dwellings”, actually lake-side dwellings,
where houses were raised above the wet ground on wooden
piles. Even Porzig saw that this was hardly evidence to erect
a new homeland solution which archaeologically would be
regarded as fantastic and linguistically without compelling
evidence.
See also Earth; House. [R.S.P.B.]
Further Readings
Hajnal, I. (1992) Griechisch xocpai-e in Problem der Rekonstruk-
tion? Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie, Akten d. VIII
Fachtagung der Idg. Gesellschaft, ed. R. S. P Beekes, Innsbruck,
207-220.
Porzig, W (1933) Boden. Worter und Sachen 15, 112-133.
GROUP see LINEAGE
GROVE
*n£mes- ‘(sacred) grove’. [1EW 764 ( *nemos -)]. OIr
neimed ‘sacred grove, sanctuary’, Lat nemus ‘wood with
pasture land for cattle, sacred grove’, OSax nimidas ‘sacred
grove’, Grk vepoq ‘wooded pasture, glade’. In terms of our
firm evidence on the religious symbolism of trees, we have to
infer that the sacred groves in question consisted in large part
of oak trees bearing, of course, acorns and hung with mistle-
toe. There are frequent references to sacred groves among the
various stocks offering cognate terms. In addition to OIr
neimed , we also have Celtic place-names with the element
‘grove’ from Britain Aquae Amemetiae to the sacred oak grove
of the Galatians of Asia Minor at Drunemeton , while Tacitus
describes both the sacred groves of the defiant druids on
Anglesey as well as the sacred grove of the Germanic Semnones
who believed their sacred grove to be the birth-place of their
tribe and home of their highest god. It is possible but
inherently unlikely that the whole *nemes- set is derived from
the verbal root *nem- ‘to bow, to reverence’, as reflected in
Av namah- ‘bow, reverence’, Olnd namas- ‘bow, reverence’.
The distribution of solid cognates clearly indicates a word of
the west and center of the IE world.
See also Bend; Trees. [PE]
GROW
*h a eug- ‘grow’. [IEW 84-85 ( *aueg-)\ Wat 4 (*aug-)\ GI
206 ( *Hauk’-)\ Buck 12.53; BK 399 ( *haw-/*haw-) ] . Lat augeo
‘augment, increase’, ON auka ‘augment, increase’, OE eacian
‘augment, increase’, OHG ouhhon ‘augment, increase’, Goth
aukan ‘augment, increase’, Lith augu ‘grow’, Latv aQgt ‘grow’,
Grk de^co ‘increase’, Av uxsyeiti ‘grows’, Olnd uksati
‘strengthens’, TochA ok- ‘grow, increase’, TochB auk- ‘grow,
increase’, TochB auks- ‘± sprout, grow up’. Cf. the widespread
derivative *h a eugmen -: Lat augmentum ‘growth’, Lith augmuo
‘growth’, Olnd ojman- ‘strength’, TochB auki ‘± increase’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*h a yoksiie/o- ‘grow’. [IEW 84-85 ( *auek-s-)\ Wat 4
( *aug-)\ GI 206 ( *Hwek’-)\ Buck 12.53], Goth wahsjan
‘increase, grow’, Av vaxsaiti ‘grows’, Olnd vaksayati ‘grows’.
A derivative of the previous word.
*gerh a - ‘grow, age, mature’. [IEW 390-391 (*ger-)\ Wat
20 {*gera-)\ GI 151 ( *R'erH-)\ BK 284 (*AGr>V*ker>0]. OCS
zureti ‘ripen’, Grk yqpdtTKO) ‘age, grow older’, Olnd jar an
‘makes old, decrepit’, jiryati ~ jQryati ‘grows old, becomes
decrepit’, TochAB kwar- ‘age, grow old’. Cf. Alb grua ‘old
woman’, Grk ypavq ‘old woman’, yepcov ‘old man’, yfjpaq
‘old age’, Arm cer ‘old; old man’, Olnd jarant- ‘old, decrepit;
old man’, jaras- ‘old age’, TochB (pi.) sran ‘old men’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*hileudh- ‘grow’ (pres. *hil£udhe/o~) . [IEW 684-685
( *leudh-)\ Wat 37 ( *leudh-)\ GI 216 ( *(e)l-eu-d h -), cf. GI
398 ( *leud h ero-)\ Buck 12.53]. OIr lus ‘plant’, Lat Liber 1 god
of growth’, OE leodan ‘spring up, grow’, OHG ar-liotan ‘grow’,
Goth liudan ‘grow’, Av raodaiti ‘grows’, Olnd rodhati ‘grows’.
Cf. the derivatives *hiIeudheros: Lat liber' free’, liberi ‘children
(as opposed to slaves)’, Grk iXeudepoq ‘free’; *h\leudhis
‘people’: ON Ijodr ‘people’, OE leod ‘person’ (pi.) leode (<
*hileudheies) ‘a people, country’, OHG hut ‘person’, hut(i)
‘people’ (Medieval Lat [< Burgundian] leudis ‘free-born
commoner’), Lith liaudis ‘common people’, Latv jaudis
‘common people’, OCS (pi.) ljudije(< *hileudheies) ‘people’,
ljudti ‘a people’, Rus ljudi ‘people; servants’, ljud ‘a people’.
These represent a couple of metaphorical extensions. First
we have the ‘growing’, i.e., ‘younger’ generation; secondly we
have the ‘growth’ of the people, more particularly one’s own
ethnic group who are ‘free’ in contrast to outsiders within the
group who are likely there as slaves. The focus of this word’s
meaning was apparently the growth to maturity of humans.
Widespread and old in IE.
*h a el- ‘grow’ (pres. *h a £le/o~) [IEW lb-21 ( *a/-); Wat 2
{*al-)\ BK 380 (*haiy-/*hdI>'-)\. OIr ailid ‘nourishes’, Lat aid
‘nourish’, alesco ‘grow’, ON ala ‘nourish’, OE alan ‘grow’, Goth
alan ‘grow’, Grk veahrfg ‘lively’, avaAro^ ‘insatiable’ and
perhaps Olnd an-a/a-‘fire (if< *‘the unquenchable’?). Cf. Lat
altus ‘high’, OE eaWold’ (> NE old), OHG alt ‘old’. Certainly
a word of the west and center of the IE world. If the Indie
word is to be included (and that is questionable since it may
well be a Dravidian loanword), then it is old in IE.
*k er- ‘grow’. [IEW 'ill ( *ker-)\ Wat 30 ( *ker-)\ GI 555
— 248 —
GUMS
( *k h er-)\ Buck 12.53; BK 205 ( *tj[ h ]iry-/*tj[ b }ery-)]. Lat cresco
‘grow’, creo ‘create’, Ceres ‘goddess of the fruitful earth’, OHG
hirso ‘millet’, Lith seriii ‘feed’, pa-saras ‘fodder, feed’. Alb
thjerre ‘lentils’, Grk Kopevvvpi ‘satisfy’, Kovpog (< *K or-uo-)
‘adolescent’, Arm serein ‘bring forth’. From *Ker-h x k-wt have
TochB kark- ‘sprout’, karak ‘branch’ (TochA karke ‘branch’),
karas ‘forest’. The focus of this word’s meaning seems to have
been the growth of plants.
*mehi(i)- ‘grow’ (pres. *m6hi(j)ei). [cf. IEW 704 (*me-);
G1 597 ( *meH(i)-)\ BK 422 (*ma-/*m9-)]. Hit mai- ‘grow’,
maya(nt)- ‘grown man’, OInd mlmlte ‘is conceived, grows (of
the fetus in the womb); reveals strength’, TochB mai we
(< *moh injo-) ‘young man, youth’. Though the verb is attested
in only two stocks, the derived *mehiro- ~ *mohiro- ‘large’
is considerably more widely known, thus confirming the PIE
status of this word.
*\tredh- ‘grow, stand, take shape’ (pres. *ur6dhei). [IEW
1167 ( *uerdh-)\ G1 205 ( *wred h -)\ Buck 12.53], Latv radit
‘bear’, OCS redd ‘nourishment’, rodu ‘race, tribe’, Rus rodltl
‘produce, offspring’, Grk opOog ‘upright, straight, true’, Av
vdmdaiti ‘grows’, OInd vydhati ‘grows, increases, becomes
strong’, vradhant- ‘upright’, TochAB wrat- ‘shape, form’. With
a new full-grade , i.e. , as if from *perdh-: Av vandaite ‘grows’,
OInd vardhati ~ vardhate ‘grows, increases, becomes strong’.
An abstract noun *urodh[ (gen. *ufdhnos) ‘± standing, taking
shape’ is reflected, with considerable analogical remodeling,
in OCS rand (< *prodhnos ) and Grk opOpog both ‘time just
before or at daybreak, dawn’ (i.e., the time the sun takes
shape). More distantly related are ON roskinn ‘ripe, mature’,
Goth ga-wrisqan ‘bear fruit’ (Gmc < *qresk w -), Alb rrit (? <
‘grow, enlarge’. At least a word of the center and east of
the PIE world.
See also Grain, Large; Swell. [D.Q.A.]
GRUNT
?*g(h)ru(n)(d)- grunt’. [IEW 406 ( *gru-)\ Wat 24
( *gru-)\ Buck 18.14]. Lat grunnid ~ grundio ‘grunt’, OE
grunnian ‘grunt’ (> NE grunt), OHG grunzian ‘grunt’, Grk
ypv£a) ‘grunt’. Almost surely independent onomatopoeic
formations in the stocks where they are attested.
See also Animal Cry. [D.Q.A.]
GUEST
*ghostis ‘guest; stranger, enemy’. [IEW 453 ( *ghosti-s)\
Wat 23 ( *ghos-ti-)\ GI 657 {*^ost h i-)\ Buck 19.56; BK 237
( *gus-/*gos-)] . Lat hostis ‘stranger, enemy’, hospes(< *hosti-
pot-s) ‘foreigner, guest, host’ (< * ‘guest-master’), ON gestr
‘guest’ (borrowed > NE guest), OE giest ‘stranger, guest’, OHG
gast ‘stranger, guest’, Goth gasts ‘guest’, OCS gostl ‘guest’, gos-
podi ‘master’. Possibly also Luv kasi-, if it means ‘guest’. An
outsider in IE society could be considered both as a guest
and as a potential foe and this ambiguity is reflected in the
semantic development of this root which pertains at least to
the IE northwest. The neutral meaning ‘stranger’ was
sometimes preserved, e g., in ancient Rome where the stranger
enjoyed the same rights as a Roman citizen. According to
Benveniste, the Lat hostis was not a ‘stranger’ in general but
someone with whom some sort of reciprocal recognition, such
as gift-exchange, was recognized. This also helps explain the
incorporation of the concept of hospitality within the semantic
range of this term. It has been suggested that initially IE social
customs required one to be more hospitable to strangers but
with the progressive change in customs and experiences,
especially the shift from societies based on interpersonal
relations to ones governed by relationships within states, this
duty was no longer observed and the original meaning of
*ghostis changed dialectally according to the prevailing
attitude towards strangers. It is evident from its usage in Latin
that this involved an increasingly hostile relationship.
See also Exchange; Freeman; Friend. [E.C.P]
Further Reading
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami, 71-83.
GULL
The ancients did not discriminate well between different
varieties of seabirds and what has come down to us as words
for ‘gull’ were probably not tightly used. Greek has both tcaval;
from a root ‘to shriek’ and Xapog ‘gull’, another onomatopoeic
root ( *la-\ IEW 650 ( *la-)) which is also said to underlie ON
lo ‘sandpiper’ and Arm lor ‘quail’. Lat mergus was most any
waterfowl, but ultimately became the word for ‘gull’ alone;
Late Lat larus ‘gull’ is a Greek loan. Some of the other IE
stocks drew from roots denoting other birds, e.g. , OPrus kerko
‘sea bird’ (< *kVr-C-) and Arm oror ‘gull’ from *hjer- ‘eagle’.
It is clear then that there are no grounds for reconstructing a
PIE word for ‘seagull’.
See also Birds. [J. A. C.G.J
GULLET
*gutf ‘gullet, throat’. [IEW 394 {*gut-f)\. Lat gut tur ‘gullet,
throat, neck’, Hit kuttar ‘nape of neck’. Although poorly
attested, the Anatolian cognate suggests a word of considerable
antiquity.
*bh e rug- ‘gullet’. [IEW 145 (*bh e rug-)[. Lat (rumen ‘gullet’,
Grk (pctpv(y)lg ‘gullet’, Arm erbuc ‘breast’. Probably also
belonging here is ON barki ‘neck’ though there is no trace of
*-u- in this latter word. Both these words appear to be old in
PIE, though *gutfi nay be the older.
See a /so Anatomy, Mouth. ID.Q.A]
GUMUGOU CULTURE see QAWRIGHUL CULTURE
GUMS see MOUTH
— 249 —
HAIL see ICE
HAIR
Head Hair (Human)
*Eripo~ (Albanian, Indo-Iranian) *kripes- (Latin, Albanian)
‘± head and facial hair’. [Buck 4.14]. Lat crinis (< *kripsni- )
‘headhair’, Alb krip ‘(short) headhair, facial hair’, krife
(< *kripsiieh a - ) ‘mane’, Av srifa- ‘plume’, OInd sipra (dual)
(< *sripa ) ‘moustache and beard, bearded lips’. An old word,
one that does not appear to be derived from any attested verbal
root, that seems to have been largely replaced by newer
formations and geographically and semantically marginalized.
Beard
*smdkvr ‘chin, beard’. [IEW 968 ( *smek-)\ GI 96
( *sme^ 1 -r-)\ Buck 4. 142] . OE smzras (pi.) (< *smahria- ) ‘lips’,
Lith smakras ~ smakra ‘chin’, Latv smakrs ‘chin’, Alb mjeker
(with new vowel) ‘chin, beard’, Arm mawruk‘ ‘beard’, Hit
z(a)mankur ‘beard’, OInd smasru- (< *smasru- ) ‘beard,
(especially) moustache’. From *smek- ‘chin’. This is the oldest
reconstructive word for ‘beard’.
*bhardh-eh a - ‘beard’. [IEW 110 ( *bhardha)\ Wat 5
( *bhardha -); GI 61 (*/Airc/ h a); Buck 4.142; BK 4 ( *bar -/
*bar -)] . Lat barba (< *farba ) ‘beard’, ON bard ‘beard’, OE
beard ‘beard’ (> NE beard), OHG bart ‘beard’, OPrus bordus
‘beard’, Lith barzda (with secondary -z-) ‘beard’, Latv bSrda
‘beard’, OCS brada ‘beard, chin’, Rus boroda ‘beard, chin’.
Compare the derivative *bhardh-eh a -tos ‘bearded’: Lat
barbatus ‘bearded’, Lith barzdotas ‘bearded’, OCS bradatu
‘bearded’. Related ultimately to words for ‘bristle’ or ‘point’
(cf. NE bristle or OInd bhfsti- ‘spike, point’), *bhardh-eh a -
itself is clearly a western regionalism within late PIE.
Body Hair (Human)
*pou-m-s- ‘(human) body-hair’. Lat pubes ‘pubic hair’,
pubes ‘one adult enough to bear arms’ (< *‘one characterized
by adult body-hair’), pubesco ‘attain adulthood, come to
maturity’, Lith (dial.) paustis ‘animal hair’, Rus pukh ‘down,
fluff, fine hair’, Alb push ‘hair, down, fibre, fur’, pushem ‘begin
to grow a beard, body hair’, Grk Karycov (< *pourp-gon-)
‘beard’, Shughni pum ‘down, fluff’, OInd puman (gen.
pumsas) ‘man, male’ (< *‘one characterized by adult body-
hair’).
*pulos ‘(a single) hair (of the human body)’. [IEW 850
(*pu-/o-)]. Mir ul (< *pulu) ‘beard’, Grk KvXiyyeq ‘hairs of
the body’, Pashto pal ‘fringe of hair’, Kurdish pur ‘headhair’,
OInd pulakas (pi.) ‘bristling hairs of the body’, pulastin-
‘wearing the hair straight or smooth’. See discussion in next
entry.
*pilos ‘(a single) hair (of the human body)’, *piles- ‘felt’.
[/EW830 ( *pi-lo-)\ Wat 5 1 ( *pilo-)\ Buck 4. 14] . Lat pilus ‘(a
single) hair (of the human body)’, pilleus (< *pi!seio- ) (adj.)
‘felt’, OCS p/Usff‘felt’, Grk mXog(< *pi!sos ) ‘felt’. Probably in
origin *pi!o- is but a variant, via sporadic unrounding of *-u-
in a labial environment, of *pulo~. A derivative, * piles-, seems
early to have been specialized as ‘felt’. *pu-lo- itself is obviously
related to *pou-ms~. This group, which is almost pan-IE, is
clearly the word for ‘(human) body hair’.
Mane
*k(e)h a isVr- ‘mane’. [ IEW 520 {*kais-)\. Lat caesaries
‘(long) headhair’, OInd kesara- ‘hair, mane’, TochA sisri (<
*sisri-) ‘mane’. Probably the oldest reconstructive word for
‘mane’.
*ghait(so)- ‘hair, mane’. [IEW 410 ( ghait-a ); Wat 20-21
— 251
HAIR
( *ghait -)]. Mir galsid ‘stiff, stubbly hair’, Grk % ahr\ ‘long
flowing hair, mane’, Av gaesa- 'curly hair’. It is not clear
whether this word was originally ‘mane’ or ‘human headhair’.
Of late PIE date.
Body Hair (Animal)
*idKu or *i£Jcu (gen. *i6fcus) ‘body hair’. Arm asr ‘wool’,
OInd yasu ‘± pubic hair’, TochAB yok ‘body hair, wool’. If all
these words belong here, this would seem to be the earliest
reconstructible word for ‘(animal) hair’.
*g6 Wf(gen. *gunds) ‘(animal) body hair’. [JEW 397 ( *geu -
ro-s); Buck 4.141. Mir guaire (< *gour\eh a -) ‘hair (of animals),
bristles’, ON karr(< *goijVro-) ‘curl of hair’, perhaps Goth
kuna-wida ‘fetters’, Lith gauras ‘down, tuft of hair’, Latv gauri
(pi.) ‘pubic hair’, Av gaona- ‘body hair; color’, OInd guna-
‘thread, string’. Possibly belonging here are Bulg guna ‘furcoat’,
gunja ‘goathair cloak’, Rus gun(j)a ‘womout garment, old
furcoat’, though they are usually taken as loanwords from
some Altaic language. Perhaps from *geu- ‘be bent, curl’ and,
though more widespread, likely to be younger than the
underived *ieku.
?*r£umn- ‘horse-hair’ or ‘fleece’. [7EW868 ( *reu-)\ cf. Wat
55 ( *reu-)\ Buck 4. 14; BK 601 ( *ruw-/*row-')). OIr ron ‘horse’s
mane’, NIr ruaimneach (< *reumenako-) ‘long hair’, Weis
rhawn (< *reu(m)no-) ‘horse’s mane’, Rus rund
(< *reu(m)no- ) ‘fleece’, NPers rom ‘pubic hair’, Sarikoli reb
‘body-hair, fur’, OInd roman- ~ loman- ‘body hair of men
and animals’ (Indo-Iran *rauman-). Also related: ON r<pgg~
rgggr (< Proto-Gmc *rawwo-/rawwa -) ‘long hair’. From
*reu(hx)- ‘pluck’, thus *reumn- ‘that which is plucked’.
*reumn- is a banal formation and thus may have been
independently created at either end of the IE world,
particularly as the Celtic terms seem to be ‘horse-hair’ while
the eastern words look to be ‘fleece’ (whence ‘body hair’).
Hair (General)
*vendh- ‘(a single) hair’, *ue/ondhso- ‘facial hair’. [IEW
1148 ( *uendh -); Buck 4.14; BK 511 ( *wun-d-/*won-d -)} .
MIr find ( DIL finna ) ‘a single hair (of humans or animals);
fleece, fur’, fes (< *uendhsos ) ‘lip; beard; pubic hair’, OHG
wint-brawa ‘eye-lash’, OPrus wanso (< *uondhseh a - ) ‘first
beard’, OCS vpsu ‘beard, moustache’, Grk lovdog ‘hair root,
young beard; acne’, Khot vatca- (< *ue/ondhso + - ca -) ‘facial
hair’. Certainly of PIE date.
*dhrigh- ‘± a (coarse) hair’. [IEW 276 ( *dhrigh-)\ Buck
4.14]. MIr gairb-driuch ‘bristle, rough hair’, Grk Qpti; ‘a single
hair’ (pi. ‘hair [mostly of head], (pigs] bristles, wool’), Khot
dro ‘hair’, TochB traksim (pi.) ‘awns’. Another old term in
PIE, one largely replaced in the central PIE area by the
following word.
*ker(es)- ‘± (rough) hair, bristle’. [IEW 583 ( *ker(s)-)\ Buck
4. 14; BK 204 ( *tf[ h ]ir-/*tJ[ h ]er-)\ . ON har 'hair’, OE h&r ‘hair’
(> NE hair), OHG haar ‘hair’ (all < *kero-), OHG hursti (<
*K[sti-) ‘crest’, Lith serys ‘bristle, animal hair’, Lith (dial.) sirys
‘hair’, Latv sari (pi.) ‘bristles, horsehair, mane, hair’, OCS srusti
(< *k[sti-) ‘hair’, Rus serstf ‘wool, animal hair’. The wide variety
of ablaut and formation suggests a respectable antiquity but
its geographical spread suggests a status of a northwest
regionalism within PIE.
*dek- ‘thread, hair’. [IEW 191 ( *dek-)\ Wat 11 ( *dek-)\
Buck 4.14; BK 159 (*t , yak[ h )-/*t i y9k[ h }-)\. Mir dual
(< *doklo-) ‘lock of hair’, ON tagl ‘horse tail,’ OE taeg(e)l ‘tail’
(> NE tail), OHG zagel ‘tail’, Goth tagl' a single hair’ (all from
*dokld-), ON tag ‘thread, fibre’, MHG zach (< *dek(ieh a )-)
‘wick’, Khot dasa- ‘thread’, OInd dasa- ‘fringe’, TochA saku (<
*dekuieh a -) ‘headhair’. Probably here should also be SC dlaka
(if it represents a metathesized *dolko-) ‘a hair’, Shughni 8oxc
‘goat’s hair’, Sarikoli 8ors ‘goat’s hair’ (Proto-Iranian *darsa-),
Khot dairsa - ‘pertaining to goat’s hair’ (< Proto-Iranian
*darsya-). The original meaning of *dek- is more likely to
have been ‘thread’ than ‘hair’. However, a shift to ‘(lock of)
hair’ of the derivative *doklo- was widespread (Celtic,
Germanic, Slavic, Iranian) and surely of late PIE date. Toch
*dekueh a - represents an independent shift of ‘thread’ > ‘hair’.
Cut Hair
*koik- ‘cut hair’. Lith kaisiu ‘scrape, shave’, kaisa ‘scrapings’,
Alb qeth (< *koik-e/o-) ‘cut hair, give a haircut; shear (sheep)’,
OInd kesa- (< *koik-o~) ‘head hair’. Though not widely
attested, the exact phonological and semantic correspondence
suggests at least a late PIE technical term.
*y erg- ‘shave, shear’, [cf. IEW 1 1681 • Arm gercum ‘shave,
cut hair’, TochA wark- ‘shear’, TochB wark- ‘shear’. The
distribution of attestations suggests a possible word of the
center and east of the IE world; possibly related to *uerg-
‘work’.
There is a large number of PIE words that we can recon-
struct for the semantic field ‘hair’. This relative abundance
suggests that this semantic domain had a high degree of
cultural importance for PIE speakers. Certainly there is
evidence from several IE stocks that both headhair and pubic
hair were important signs of adult womanhood. Likewise body
hair, particularly the presence of pubic hair (and a beard),
was the sign of a youths having entered into a man’s estate.
Thus in Latin we have pubes (gen. pubis) ‘pubic hair’, the
adjective pubes (gen. puberis) ‘grown up, adult’, and another
noun pubes (gen. puberis) ‘grown up males, youth able to
bear arms, young men’. The Old Indie cognate, puman, has
become simply ‘man’. In addition, the relatively large number
of terms apparently referring to animal hair (and ‘mane’)
suggests the economic importance of animal hair, particularly
horsehair.
Within IE creation myths, ‘hair’ is generally homologous
with plant life, trees or grass. This association is extended to
ritual behavior, including the proper disposal of shorn hair.
For example, in the Old Indie Cudakarman ( Sankhayana
Gfhya Sutra 1.28) the ritual of the first tonsure involves both
the placement of plant material, here the shoot of the kusa
plant, in the child’s hair and the deposition of the shorn hair
— 252 —
HALLSTATT CULTURE
itself in a mound of bull dung mixed with the same grass. In
the Avesta ( Videvdat 17. 1-6) shorn hair must be disposed of
ritually in a pit in the ground where it will be enjoined to
assist in the growing of plants rather than be casually dropped
to the ground where it may yield demons. The Roman Flame n
Dialis (Gellius’ Attic Nights 10. 15) has his shorn hair placed
in the ground under a fruitful tree while the Vestal Virgins
(Pliny’s Natural History 16.235) “feed” a sacred (five hundred
years old) lotus with their own hair.
Hair and Epic Literature
Epical and anthropological-historical evidence can
maintain the parallelism of hair-growth to healthy vegetation,
but also introduces animal images and parallels, especially
the horse’s mane (Greek and Celtic warrior examples) and
some wild animal hair. The long-haired image is especially
marked in IE warrior contexts from the Iliad onwards, taking
in Indie, Germanic, and Celtic warrior societies, and we should
also note the correspondence between these long-haired
warriors and the long-haired nobility whose hair-style is noted
(and sometimes criticized) through the medieval period and
later. In fact, a case could be made that within the Dumezilian
scheme, an IE Second (Warrior) Function, marked by its long
hair, often finds itself placed between two short-haired or
cropped functions: the cropped or tonsured First (Religious)
Function of the druid, brahman or priest and the short-haired
Third (Fertility) Function figure of the farmer or herdsman.
However, Second Function long hair is expected to be
controlled or kempt, while there is evidence that uncontrolled,
as well as over-elaborate or over-styled long hair, was thought
to mark a glissade toward Third Function degeneracy or
effeminacy in a warrior (see Euphorbos in Iliad 17.51-52;
Starkadr’s remarks in Saxo’s Gesta Danorum 6.28). The
Germanic data, taken from Roman sources, tells us that war-
chiefs (Suebian, Alemannic and probably others) styled their
long hair into horns, crests and “roaches” to appear taller and
perhaps even more monstrous in physical appearance (Tacitus
Germania 38; Silius Italicus Punica 5.134; Ammianus
Marcellinus 16.12.24).
Long hair rather than the beard of the mature warrior seems
to be a more significant marker for an IE warrior-hero: a
significant number of these heroes are “beardless” (the Irish
Cu Chulainn and Conall Cernach, the Byzantine Digenes
Akritas). The typical IE Second Function hero, in fact, can
show marked adolescent characteristics, including long hair
and an immature, even virginal, sexuality. The beard would
be predicted for a First Function sovereign but this is by no-
means always the case. A graying or balding head would be
anomalous in a hero, however fitting for a sovereign figure,
because the hero expects to die young, and gloriously, in battle.
Graying or missing hair then would mark an eccentric or
Tricksterish IE warrior-figure or an Old Hero or one who,
like the Irish Finn mac Cumaill, has some First Function
druidic powers. Cutting the warrior-hero’s hair is disgracing
and unmanning since it indirectly attacks the masculine
essence (Lat caput), though Tacitus says that the Germanic
Chatti allowed the cutting of hair and beard when a young
male had killed his first enemy ( Germania 31).
Hair color follows no perceptible IE code, at least in the
epic canon; typical heroes tend to be blond (ancient and
Byzantine Greek, Irish and Germanic evidence, e g., the ‘flaxen
hair’ of Jarl, the warrior-noble of the Rigspula (str. 35)) while
red, the canonical IE Second Function color, commonly seems
to be given a supernatural association. The hero Cu Chulainn,
however, is at one point identified with hair tricolored in
perfect consonance with the IE formula: dark-rooted, red in
the shaft, golden at the ends ( Tain 2268ff ).
See also Age Set; Anatomy, Chin; Cosmogony;
Medicine; Wool. [D.Q.A., D.A.M.]
Further Readings
Adams, D. Q. (1985) Sanskrit puman, Latin pubes and related words.
Die Sprache 31, 1-16.
Adams, D. Q. (1988). The Indo-European words for hair:
reconstructing a semantic field. JIES 1 6, 69-94.
Markey, T. L. (1984). IE beard and related matters. Linguisiique
Balkanique 27 , 71-73.
Thieme, R (196.3) Jungfraugatte. KZ 78, 161-248.
HALF
*semis ‘half’. \1EW 905-906 ( *semi-)\ G1 741 ( *sem-i-)\
Wat 57 ( *semi -); Buck 13.24; BK 184 (*sam-/*sam-), 198
(*sih-/*seh-)]. Lat semi- ‘half’, OHG sami- ‘half’, Grk qpi-
‘half’, OInd sami- ‘half’. Sometimes taken as a lengthened-
grade derivative of *sem- ‘one’, i.e., ‘that which forms the
whole’ or the like. Others take it to reflect a derivative of
*sehi- ‘separate, divide’ seen otherwise in Lat se(d) ‘without;
apart’ (usually taken as a derivative of *sue- ‘own’), Av haiti-
‘division’, Latv spta ‘hedge, section, division’. Finally, at times
it is left without any connection to other IE words.
*sijiteros one or the other of two’. Weis banner ‘half’, Bret
hanter ‘half’, Grk (Attic) etepog ‘one or the other of two’ (by
assimilation < dxepoq, preserved in other Greek dialects). The
distribution would seem to guarantee at least late PIE status
for this word.
See also Broad, Heap, Middle; Number. [D.Q.A.l
HALLSTATT CULTURE
The early Iron Age culture of much of temperate Europe
during the period c 800-500 BC was the Hallstatt culture.
Chronologically, it is confined to the final two phases of the
Hallstatt period, i.e., periods C and D, the previous phases
assigned to the late Bronze Age Urnfield culture. The culture
marks the transition from primarily bronze-using societies to
the increasing adoption of iron weapons and tools. Both open
settlements, villages and farms, and defended hillforts,
especially in the east or in the Hallstatt D period, are known
and there were growing trade relations with the
Mediterranean, first directly across the Alps and then via the
early Greek colonies in Italy and France External trade
— 253 —
HALLSTATT CULTURE
Hallstatt a. Distribution of the Hallstatt culture.
Hallstatt b. Male burial from the Magdalenberg (Hallstatt D).
Hallstatt c. Wagon burial from the Heiligenbuck barrow
(sixth century BC).
probably helped stimulate social stratification and rich burials;
warriors accompanied with weapons and ornaments, females
with the latter, are well known. Among these, large tumulus
burials often accompanied by the remains of wheeled vehicles
are especially spectacular. There is some evidence that the
eastern Hallstatt in Hungary and Poland may have experienced
incursions from (?Iranian speaking) nomads from the steppe
region. Over much of its territory the Hallstatt culture is
replaced by the Iron Age La Tfcne culture.
In relation to the Indo-Europeans, the Hallstatt culture, at
least in the west, is usually seen as ancestral to the Celts and
many would describe it linguistically as Proto-Celtic. But
Hallstatt is also known in east central Europe in territories
which might be more easily assigned to presumably non-Celtic
speakers. Moreover, the absence of Hallstatt remains in Iberia
and their extreme paucity in Ireland have made it difficult to
associate the Hallstatt culture with the spread of the Celtic
language throughout these peripheral parts of Atlantic Europe.
See also Celtic Languages; La T&ne Culture;
Urnfield Culture. [J.PM.]
Further Reading
Collis, John (1984) The European Iron Age. London, Batsford.
HAND
*gh6s-r- ‘hand’. [7EW447 ( *ghesor-)\ Wat 22 ( *ghesor~)\
GI 707 ( *$ 1 es-j-)\ Buck 4.23; BK 220 ( * gas ? -/*&&-)] . Lat
(from Osc-Umb) hlr ‘hollow of hand’, Alb dore (< *ghesr-
eh a -) ‘hand’, Grk ££ip ‘hand’, Arm Jem ‘hand’, Hit kissar ‘hand’ ,
TochA tsar ‘hand’, TochB sar ‘hand’ (Toch < *£$&r-
< **gheser-). Archaic in morphology and widespread; there
is no doubt that we have here the original PIE word for ‘hand’.
*ghds-to-s ‘hand’. I/EW447 ( *ghesto-)\ Gl 707 {*^es-
Buck 4.33; BK 220 ( *gasT -/*gasT -)] . Lat praesto (< *praT
hestod) ‘at hand’, Lith pa-zasti ~ pa-zastis ‘arm-pit’, Av zasta-
‘hand’, OPers dasfa- ‘hand’, OInd hdsta- ‘hand’. A derivative,
of at least late PIE date, of the previous entry.
*m£haj (gen. *mban6s) ‘hand’. [JEW 740-741 ( *m9-r)\
GI 707 ^rntfr-Zn-Ct* 1 )-)-, Buck 4.33]. Lat manus ‘hand’, Umb
— 254 —
HAPPY
manuv-e ‘in the hand’, ON mund ‘hand’, OE mund ‘(palm of
the) hand, protection’, OHG munt ‘hand, protection, guardian’
(Gmc< *mph a -td~), Alb marr(< *mar-n(i)e/o~) ‘take, grasp’,
Grk gdprj ‘hand’, Hit maniyahh- ‘hand over’. Its exact shape
is difficult to reconstruct (what is given here seems to be the
most likely possibility). Though less well attested, it is dear
that we have a word of PIE date. How it may have differed in
meaning from *ghes-r- is unclear: GI have suggested that the
underlying meaning of *meh a f was ‘hand, power; put into
someone’s possession’, e.g., Lat manus ‘hand; power’ and Hit
maniyahh - ‘hand over, turn power over, rule’, maniyahhai-
‘government, power’. This would suggest that *meh a f
symbolized or implied ‘power’ while *ghes-r- was solely an
anatomical term.
*pdlh a ip (gen. *plh a mds) ‘palm of the hand’. [IEW 806
(*pl-m a); Wat 49 (*pi3-ma-); Buck 4.33; BK 49 (*pl h lal-/
"pf'M-')] . OIr lam ‘hand’, Weis Uaw' hand’, Lat palma ‘palm’,
palam ‘openly’, OE folm ‘palm; hand’, OHG folma ‘hand’,
Grk naXaprj ‘palm’. All of these words are immediately from
the derivative *plh a m-eh a - but the archaic underlying
morphology speaks of great antiquity within IE. Presumably
ultimately a derivative of *pelh a - ‘flat’.
*dh6np ‘palm (of the hand)’. [IEW 249 ( *dhen-)\ Wat 13
( *dhen -)]. OHG Lenar ‘palm’, Grk Qevccp ‘palm, sole of the
foot’. Though not widely distributed, it looks by its shape to
be an old word.
*p6lik(o)s ‘finger, thumb’ ( *p6lihxOS ‘pertaining to a
finger’). [JEW 840-841 ( *polo-), Wat 52 ( *pol-)\ Buck
4.34(2); BK 56 ( *p[ h ]al-/*p[ h jdl-)] . Lat pollex (with secondary
doubling of the -I- ) ‘thumb’, RusCS pallcl ‘thumb’, Rus palec
‘finger, toe’ (< *poliko~), sesti-palyj ‘six-fingered’, bez-palyj
‘without fingers’; cf. also ON felma ~ / alma ‘grope about’, OE
Man ‘touch, feel, perceive’ (> NE feel), OHG fuolen ‘feel’ (Gmc
< *polie/o-), Bulg palam ‘seek’, NPers palidan ‘seek’, and
possibly more distantly Lat palpo ‘feel’. Though only found
in Slavic and Latin, the similarity in form and identity of
meaning strongly suggests at least late PIE status for this word.
Certainly no other word for ‘finger’ looks to be reconstructible
for PIE.
*musti- ‘fist’, [cf. IEW 7 45 ( *meuk-)[ . Av musti- ‘fist’, OInd
must I- ‘fist’, TochB masce (< *musteis ) ‘fist’. Possibly an
“eastemism” in late PIE.
*pj}(k w )stf- ‘fist’. \1EW 839 ( *ppksti-)\ Wat 49
( *ppk-sti-)\ GI 747 ( *p h (e)nk ho -t h -)\ . OE /yst'fist’ (> NE fist),
OHG fust ‘fist’, Lith kiimste (< *punkste) ‘fist’, OCS pestl
‘fist’, Rus pjast ‘metacarpus’. Probably a derivative of *penk w e
‘five’. Possibly a “westemism” in late PIE.
See also Anatomy; Arm. [D.Q.A.J
Further Readings
Markey, T. L. (1984) The grammaticalization and institutionalization
of Indo-European hand. JIES 12, 261-292.
Pedrero, R. (1985 [86]) Las nociones de mano, brazo y codo en
indoeuropeo. Emerita 53, 249-267.
HANDLE
*h2enseh a - ‘handle’. [ IEW 48 ( *ansa ~ *ansi-)\ Wat 3
( *ans-)\ . Lat ansa ‘handle’, MHG ose ~ ose ‘ring, loop’, OPrus
ansis ‘pothook’, Lith psa ‘pot handle’, Latv uosa ‘handle’. A
related word is perhaps to be seen in ON aes (if < *ansi~)
‘edge, outer border’. Presumably a derivative of ‘hold, contain’.
At least a word of the northwest of the IE world.
The original referent of *h 2 enseh a - may have been some-
thing like a strap to account for the semantic range among
the various IE stocks. Its application to ceramics could date
from anytime after the beginning of the Neolithic, e g.,
handled pots are well known from the middle Neolithic in
Greece and Italy and by 3500-3000 BC there is an explosion
of high strap-handled mugs across much of southeastern and
central Europe.
See also King; Pot; Reins; Tool. [D.Q.A.J.RM.j
HANG
*£onic-‘hang’. [IEW 566 ( *kenk -), 614 (*/con/c-); Wat 32
(*iconic-); BK 203 ( *td[ h Junk[ h ]-/*d[ h ]onk [ h }- )]. Lat cunctor
‘delay’, ON hanga ‘hang’, OE hon ‘hang’ (> NE hang), OHG
hahan ‘hang’, Goth hahis ‘you hang’. Hit kank- ‘hang’, OInd
sahkate ‘doubts, fears’, perhaps TochB sank- l ± delay, hesitate’.
This form is securely reconstructible; both Latin and Old Indie
show a shift from immobility to a state of emotional un-
certainty. If the Tocharian form belongs here we may have
evidence for a Narten present, strong-grade *kdnk-, weak-
grade *kenk
*Iemb- ~ *remb- ‘hang down’. Lat limbus ‘hem, border’,
OE lemphealt (< *laempi-halt) ‘lame, limping’, Lith rembstu
‘am slow, immobile’, OInd rambate ‘hangs down’. This root
may be related to the following. If so, the Old English and
Lithuanian forms may exhibit the same connection between
hanging and hesitation that is seen in the cognate set for
*konk - .
?*(s)leb- ‘hang down’. [IEW 655-657 ( *leb-)\ Wat 61
i*sleb-)[. Lat labo ‘fall, sink’, OE slspan ‘sleep’ (> NE sleep),
OHG slafan ‘sleep’, Goth slepijo ‘sleeps’, Lith slabti ‘become
weak’, Grk A opog ‘lobe, earlobe’. A problematic set of possible
cognates. Some doubt whether Greek belongs here while
others would add the series of words for ‘lip’, e.g., Lat labia,
OE lippa (> NE lip), to this set although it is safer to assume
that they do not belong here. The Germanic and Lithuanian
forms have also been grouped separately from the Latin on
semantic grounds.
[M.N.J
HAPPY
*teus- ‘be happy’. Hit duski- (< *tus-ske/o-) ‘be happy’,
dusgaratar ‘joy’, OInd tusyati ‘is delighted with’. Though
restricted in its attestation to Hittite and Old Indie, the pattern
of this distribution would seem to guarantee PIE status.
*ghleu- revel’. [/EW451 ( *ghleu-)\ . ON gly ‘joy’, glaum r
‘noisy revels’, OE gleo ‘joy’ (> NE glee), gleam ‘revels, joy’,
Lith glaudoti ‘joke’, Latv glaudat ‘joke’, Rus glum ‘joke’, Grk
— 255 —
HAPPY
%Xevii ‘joke’. At least a word of the west and center of the IE
world.
*geh a u- ‘rejoice, swell with joy’. [IEW 353 ( *gau-)\ Wat
18 (*gau-)]. Mir guaire (< *geh a urios ) ‘noble’, Lat gauded
‘am happy, rejoice’, gaudium ‘joy’, Lith dziaugiuos
(metathesized < *gaudziuos ) ‘be happy’, Grk yavvpai (< *gh a -
n-u-) ‘rejoice’, yavpog ‘proud’. At least a word of the west
and center of the IE world.
*geh a dh- rejoice’. Grk ypOeto ‘am happy, rejoice’, TochAB
katk- ‘rejoice’. A variant with a more easterly distribution of
the previous entry. Both derive by different enlargements from
a more basic (and unattested) *geh a -.
*meud- ‘be merry’. [IEW 741-742 (*meu-d-)\. Av
maoSand-kara- ‘lust-making’, OInd modate ‘is cheerful’,
moda - ‘cheerfulness’, TochB mutk- (< *mud-ske/o -) ‘±
strengthen, enliven’; cf. the widespread derivative *mudrds :
Lith mudrus ‘cheerful, lively’, Latv mudrs ‘cheerful, lively’,
OInd mudra- ‘merry, cheerful’. At least a word of the center
and east of the IE world.
[D.Q.A.j
HARAPPAN CULTURE
One of the major centers of civilization of Eurasia, the Indus
Valley or Harappan culture flourished c 2700-1900 BC along
the Indus river and the coastal region to its south. The culture
occupied an area of c 800,000 km 2 and settlement ranged
from small villages to extensive towns. The largest of the urban
sites, each averaging some 80-85 ha in size, were Harappa in
the north, Mohenjo-daro on the middle Indus and the more
recently discovered but unexcavated Ganweriwala in
Bahawalpur. These major urban sites reveal citadels, large civic
buildings, a wide range in dwelling sizes, and extraordinary
evidence of plumbing and sanitation, including .large bathing
facilities. The towns were constructed of fired brick and
archaeologists have often been mesmerized by the uniformity
in construction techniques, brick sizes, the Indie system of
weights and measures, and other expressions of Indie
technological and mathematical sophistication. Ironically, this
manifestation of apparent cultural homogeneity is not
matched by the evidence of physical anthropology which
suggests considerable heterogeneity among the populations
of the various Indus urban centers. The Harappan culture
was engaged in extensive trading relationships in both raw
and finished material which included a distant trading outpost
at Shortugai on the Amu Darya (Oxus). It also traded with
Akkadians where it is generally identified with Meluhha, a
name which has been compared with OInd mleccha , a word
appearing in the later Vedas (e.g., Satapatha Brahmana
3.2.1.23-24) applied to non-Vedic-speaking strangers.
The economic basis of the Harappan civilization depended
on domestic plants and livestock. Among the domestic
animals, the most prominent were the zebu ( Bos indicus ),
the domestic cow ( Bos taurus ), the sheep ( Ovis aries ) and
goat ( Capra hircus ) with possible identifications of the
domestic water buffalo (Bubalus bubalus ) and the Bactrian
camel ( Camelus bactrianus). Wild species from the Harappan
sites included the Indian elephant ( Elaphas maximus ), one-
homed rhinoceros ( Rhinoceros unicornis ), wild boar ( Sus
scrota), chital ( Axis axis), hog deer (Axis porcinus ), swamp
deer ( Cervus duvauceli ), nilgai ( Bosclaphus tragocamelus ) ,
blackbuck ( Antilope cervicapra ), gazelle (Gazella bennetti )
and possibly wild sheep, goat, water buffalo and onager
(Equus hemionus).
The agricultural basis of the Harappans varied according
to region with influences deriving from western Asia (wheat
l Triticum compactum ] , barley [Hordeum vulgare ] , pea, etc.),
east Asia (ric t[Oryza sativa 1) and Africa (pearl millet
[Pennisetum typhoides ] , finger millet [Eleusine coracana] and
sorghum millet [Sorghum bicolor 1). There is some evidence
for sesame as well.
The Harappan culture undoubtedly contributed much to
the further development of Indian culture; however, it is
questionable whether its contributions were primarily
linguistic. The Indus towns have yielded a series of seals
providing evidence of the still undeciphered and possibly
undecipherable Indus script. While the identity of the builders
of the Indus towns cannot be proven, they are more likely to
have been Dravidian-speakers rather than Indo- Aryans. There
is strong circumstantial evidence to indicate that the Indo-
Aryan -speakers superimposed themselves on Dravidians who
now occupy the southern third of India but whose earlier
distribution extended much further northward; one of the
Dravidian languages, Brahui, is still situated north-west of
the Indus (if not more recently moved there). Attempts to
translate the Indus inscriptions via a Dravidian key have met
with some level of possible success.
The collapse of the Indus towns was once credited to
invasions of Indo- Aryans although this relied on a minimum
of evidence — thirty-eight unburied corpses in the upper levels
of Mohenjo-daro, some indicating violent deaths — and a
liberal reading of the Rgveda which speaks of the sacking of
strong-holds. The invasion theory, at least as the cause of the
collapse of the civilization, is no longer given much credit
and other factors, particularly environmental, are sought as
more likely causes.
See also Cemetery H Culture; Indo-Iranian Languages,
Painted Grey Ware Culture; Swat Culture. [J.RM.l
Further Readings
Parpola, A. (1995) Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Possehl, G. L. (1982) Harappan Civilization: A Contemporary
Perspective. Warminster, Aris and Phillips.
Wheeler, M. (1968) The Indus Civilization 3rd ed Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
HARE
*kasos ~ *Kasen- ‘hare (Lepus europaeus)'. [ IEW 533
(*kas-)\ Wat 27 ( *kas -); G1 440 (*k h as- ~ *k h as-no-)[ Weis
ceinach (< *Rasni- + - ako -) ‘hare’, ON hen ‘hare’, OE hara
— 256 —
U*T»
TUUUUsVaX©
Harappan a. Distribution of the Harappan culture
Harappan b. Indus Valley seal with seated figure
Harappan c. Outline plan of Kalibangan with adjacent
citadel; d. The longest Indus Valley inscription; e. House
from Mohenjo-daro.
HARE
‘hare’ (> NE hare), OHG haso ‘hare’, OPrus sasins ‘hare’, Khot
saha- ‘hare’, Olnd sasa- (< *sasa-) ‘hare’. Cf. Lat canus ‘gray’.
Gl suggest that Hit sasa-, the designation for some otherwise
unknown animal, might mean ‘hare’ and the word borrowed
from Indo-Iranian. Originally the ‘gray one’ or the like (cf.
Lith sirvis ‘hare’ to sirvas ‘gray’); the meaning ‘hare’, however,
is at least of late PIE date.
The hare ( Lepus europaeus ) is virtually ubiquitous in
Eurasia (in India we have Lepus nigricollis) and occasionally
found in quantities that suggest more than chance encounters,
i.e., deliberate hunting or trapping of hares for meat or fur.
The animal is wild and has never been domesticated although
the ancient Romans did keep hares in their leporariones. This
was far more easily done than the maintenance of rabbits as
the hare, unlike the rabbit, lives above ground and does not
burrow. The rabbit ( Oryctolagus ) was originally confined to
Iberia and southern France and when the Phoenicians made
its acquaintance in the twelfth century BC, they transferred
to the new animal their own word for the closest animal to
the rabbit in their own country, the ‘hyrax’, which also bur-
rows. The name of the rabbit was extended to the coast of the
land in which these small animals lived and hence Phoenician
i-shephan-im was later latinized to Hispania. It was the
Romans who carried the rabbit out of Spain and into the
empire although its introduction into the British Isles is attri-
buted to the Normans, hence OFrench (pi.) conis, and then
ME cunin ‘rabbit’, Mir coinin, Weis cwningen. Lat cuniculus
‘rabbit’ is derived from an Iberian language; cf. Basque unchi.
See also Gray; Mammals. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
HARM
*pehi(i)- ‘harm’. [IEW 792-793 ( *pe(i)-)\ Wat 47
( *pe(i )-)]■ Lat patior (< *pfri-t-) ‘suffer’, ON fja ‘hate’, OE
feon ~ feogan ‘hate’, OHG fien ‘hate’, Goth fijan ‘hate’, Grk
7 uf\pa ‘suffering, misfortune’, Olnd piyati ‘reviles, blames’.
Some doubt exists over whether both the Latin and Greek
forms belong with this set; even without them, the root is
attested at the extremes of the IE world and that argues for
some antiquity.
*dhebh- harm’ [IEW 240 ( *dhebh-)\ GI 133 (‘d'W’-);
Buck 1 1 .28; BK 140 ( *d y ab-/* *d>^b-)] . Lith dobiu ‘beat, hit,
kill’, Hit tepu- ‘few, little’, tepnu- ‘belittle’, Av dab- ‘deceive’,
Olnd dabhnoti ‘hurts, injures; deceives; abandons’. A word
of the center and east of the IE world.
*mel- ‘harm’ (pres. *mel-se/o~). OIr mell ‘harm,
destruction’, millid ‘harms’, TochB mal- ‘± wound, damage’
(pres. mal-sVe- < *mel-se/o-). The exact morphological
equation between Old Irish and Tocharian would seem to
guarantee PIE status for this verb. On the basis of the meaning
it is probable that this *mel- is the same as in *melh2- ‘grind’.
*dh\ferhx- ‘harm’. [Gl 115; BK 144 {*d y aw-/*d y dw-)). Hit
duwamai- ‘breaks, shatters’, Olnd dhvarati ‘bends, causes to
fall, hurts’, dhnrvati ‘injures, causes to fall’, dhurti- ‘injury’.
Though attested only in these two stocks, it is likely that this
is a word of PIE age. Perhaps an enlargement of *dhuer-
‘pierce’. Sometimes associated with this root is the enlargement
*dhuer(h x )gh- seen in ON dvergr ‘block of wood; dwarf’, OE
dweorg ‘dwarf’ (> NE dwarf), OHG twerk ‘dwarf’ (> NHG
zwerg ‘dwarf’).
See also Bad; Deceive; Injure; Pain; Pierce; Wound.
[M.N., D.Q.A.]
HARROW see PLOW
HARVEST
*kerp- ‘pluck, harvest’. [ IEW 944 ((*s)kerp-)\ Wat 30
( *kerp-)\ Gl 597 ( *k h erp h -); Buck 8.41]. Mir corran ‘sickle’,
cirrid ‘mangles, maims’ (if not from cerr ‘crooked’), Lat carpd
‘pluck’, ON harfr ‘harrow’, OE haerfest ‘autumn’ (> NE
harvest), OHG herbist ‘harvest’, Lith kerpu ‘cut, shear, clip
(of hair or wool)’, Latv cirpu ‘shear’, cirpe ‘sickle’, OCS crlpp
‘ladle out’, Grk KapnoqLmW! (< ‘*what is plucked’), Kpcomov
‘sickle’, Olnd kfpani ‘dagger’, kfpana- ‘sword’. Widespread
and old in IE. It apparently was a general word for ‘harvest’
(ultimately derived from *(s)ker- ‘cut’) that had a tendency
in some stocks to be specialized for the picking of fruit while
in others for the reaping of grain.
*h 2 mehi- ‘mow’. [IEW 703 (*me-)\ Wat 39 (*me-); GI
596 (*Ham~); Buck 8.32; BK 516 ( *mi-/*me-)\ . OE mawan
‘mow’ (> NE mow), m£p ‘mowing; mown hay’, OHG maen
‘mow’, mad ‘mowing’, Grk dpdco ‘mow, cut’, Hit hamesha-
(< *h 2 mehi-sh 20 -) ‘spring, ± early summer, i.e., ± April-July’
(< * ‘haying time’). The apparent agreement of Germanic and
Anatolian in a word for ‘mow’ seems of some significance
culturally, as it suggests that the Proto-Indo-Europeans crop-
ped grass for winter hay. An enlargement of *h 2 em- ‘± mow,
reap’, otherwise unattested, that also underlies the next two
entries.
*h 2 met- ‘mow’. [/EW703 ( *m-e-t-)\ Wat 39 (*me-); GI
597 ( *meH(i)-)\ Buck 8.32] . OIr meithel ‘reaping party’,
meithleoir ‘reaper’, Weis medi ‘reaper’, medeE reaping party’,
Lat metd ‘mow, harvest’, OE m£d ‘meadow, pasture’ (oblique
case form> NE meadow). An enlargement of *h2em- ‘± mow,
reap’ found in the northwest of the IE world.
*h 2 merg- ‘gather, harvest’, [cf. IEW738 ( *merg-)\ GI 486
( *merk-)\ . Lat mergae (pi.) ‘reaping boards (used in pairs for
stripping the ears of standing grain)’, merges (gen. mergitis)
‘sheaf’, Grk dpepyco ‘gather, harvest, pluck, puli’. Though
limited to only two stocks, this word would appear to be
another enlargement of *h 2 em- ‘± mow, reap’.
See also Agriculture; Grind; Thresh. [D.Q.A.]
HASANLU
This multiperiod tell-site in Azerbaijan near Lake Urmia
impinges on both the problem of Indo-Aryans in the territory
of the Mitanni and in the possible iconographic representation
of early IE mythology. The site is associated with West Iranian
GreyWare, a ceramic horizon dated to c 1500-1000 BC. With
the appearance of this ceramic horizon, there is a major break
in the cultural sequence which is often associated with early
— 258 —
HATE
Indo- Aryan or Iranian movements south of the Caspian Sea.
The site has yielded objects with artistic motifs which may be
tied to those of either Iranian-speaking tribes of the steppe
region, e.g., portrayals of individuals bearing mirrors, or to
the mythological motifs found in lndo-Iranian religion. Most
prominent of the finds is a golden bowl from a shrine at
Hasanlu, dated to c 1500-1000 BC. Among the scenes
depicted are one of a hero associated with a three-headed
monster and in another scene with a bird of prey. G. N.
Kurochkin has linked these scenes with Yast 5 of the Avesta
where the hero 0raetaona confronts the three-headed monster
Azi Dahaka and then later assists Paurva to fly to heaven in
the form of a bird of prey. The three-headed monster motif is
also known from Indo-Aryan mythology (where Trita Aptya
slays Visvarupa) and may also be found in other IE traditions.
This richly ornamented vessel has been the subject of
numerous other studies which have also sought links with
Assyrian, Anatolian and Hurrian narrative and artistic motifs.
If the motifs are broadly lndo-Iranian (or at least their
narratives as new tales can be fitted to old pictures), given its
location, the site is most likely to be regarded as a possible
Indo-Aryan site associated with the Mitanni. Hasanlu was
destroyed about 800 BC, presumably by the Urartians.
See also Indo-Iranian Languages; Marlik;
Three-headed Monster. [J.PM.]
Further Readings
Kurochkin, G. N. (1994) Archaeological search for the Near
Eastern Aryans and the royal cemetery of Marlik in northern
Iran, in South Asian Archaeology 1993, ed. A. Parpola and P
Koskikallio, Helsinki, 389-395.
Mellink, M. J. (1982) The Hasanlu bowl in Anatolian perspective.
lranica Antiqua 6, 72-87.
HATE
*h 3 ed- ‘hate'. [IEW 773 (*od-), Wat 45 ( *od-)\ Gl 113;
Buck 16.41], Lat ddl 1 hate’, odium (noun) ‘hate’, ON atall
‘fierce, terrible’, OE atol ‘atrocious’, Grk oSvcracrOai ‘be angry
at, hate’, ’OSvcroevg ‘Odysseus’ (< ‘Fearsome’), Arm ateam
‘hate’, Hit hatukzi ‘is terrible’, hatugnu- ‘terrify’, hatuki-
‘ fearful’. Reasonably widespread, certainly old in IE.
*Keh a des- ‘± concern; hate’. [IEW 517 ( *kad- ); Wat 26
( *kad-)\ GI 113; Buck 16.31], Mir cais ‘hate’, Weis cawdd
‘offence’, Osc cadi- ‘enmity’, ON hatr ‘hate’, OE hete ‘hate,
malice’ (> NE hate), OHG haz'hate’, Goth hatis ‘hate, anger’,
Grk tcrjSog ‘care, concern; sorrow, mourning for the dead’,
Av sadra- ‘grief’, perhaps Olnd ri-sadas if ‘caring for a stranger’.
In “eastern” IE we find a more general meaning ‘concern’ while
in “western” IE we find the negative concern, ‘hate’.
*haleit- ‘± do something hateful or abhorrent’. [IEW 672
( *leit-)\ Wat 36 ( *leit -)]. OIr lius (< *h a Iit-tu-) ‘abhorrence’,
ON leidr ‘disagreeable, loathsome’, OE lap ‘disagreeable,
loathsome’ (> NE loath), OHG leid ‘disagreeable, loathsome’,
Grk dkeirqg ‘sinner’, dXoixog ‘sinner’, dXiraivo) ‘trespass,
sin’, aXirpog ‘evil’. A word of the west and center of the IE
world.
*peik/R- ‘be hostile, hate’. [IEW 795 ( *peig - ~ *peik-)\
Wat 47-48 *peig- ~ *peik-)]. OE fah ‘hostile, outlawed; foe’
(> NE foe), OHG fehida ‘hate, strife’, fehan ‘to hate’, gifeh
‘hostile’, OPrus paikemmai ‘we deceive’, Lith peikti ‘blame,
rebuke, censure’, piktas ‘evil’. Arm hek‘ ‘unfortunate,
suffering’, Olnd pisuna- ‘backbiting, wicked’ (< * ‘hating’).
— 259 —
HATE
Widespread and surely old in IE. Only Old Indie appears to
reflect PIE *-K- rather than *-k- and this divergence may reflect
some purely Indie development. Also here, reflecting PIE
*peig -, are OE facen ‘treachery, malice, deception’, ficol ‘sly’
(> NE fickle), OHG feihhan ‘slyness, deception’.
See also Anger; Bad; Contend; Enemy; Grieve, Insult.
[D.Q.A.]
HAUNCH
*Kl6unis ± haunch, hip’. [JEW 607-608 ( *klou-ni-)) . Weis
dun ‘haunch’, Lat clunis ‘buttock, haunch (of animals)’, ON
hlaun ‘buttocks, loin’, OPrus slaunis ‘thigh’, Lith slaunis
‘haunch, hip’, Latv slauna ‘haunch, rump’, Grk Khoviq (with
unexpected vowel) ‘os sacrum’, Av sraoni- ‘buttock’, Olnd
sroni- ‘buttock, hip, loin’. A strong candidate for PIE status.
*sreno/eh a - l ± hip, thigh’. [JEW 1002 ( *sreno -)] . Lith strena
(dial, srena ) ‘loin’, Av rana- ‘thigh’. A Balto-lranian isogloss
that does not appear to have been widespread even in the
east and must have had a very restricted role in the latest PIE.
See also Anatomy; Buttocks. [D.Q.A.]
HAVE see HOLD
HAWK see FALCON
HAWTHORN
*h2td(h)~ ‘hawthorn’. Olr *ad (gen. aide ) ‘± hawthorn,
whitethorn’, Hit hat(t)-alkisnas ‘hawthomAvhitethom branch’.
Although the distribution is limited to two stocks, their
distance from one another and the fact that Hittite is included
suggests PIE antiquity. In early Irish tradition, the whitethorn
or hawthorn was employed in black magic, including the
piercing of a clay image of one’s enemy with its thorns. In
Hittite religion, hawthorn was employed in a purification
ritual, signalling that the plant may have played an important
ritual role in PIE times.
The hawthorn ( Crataegus ) is relatively ubiquitous across
Europe and southwest Asia and some varieties produced fruit
which were clearly gathered from the Neolithic period
onwards.
See also Sloetree; Trees. [j .P.M.l
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1993) Another thorny problem. Lmguistica 23, 243-
248.
HAZEL
*k6s(V)los ‘hazel ( Corylus avellana)’ . [JEW 616
( *kos(e)lo-)\ Wat 32 ( *koselo-)\ GI 547 ( *k h os(e)lo-)\ Fried
73-77]. Olr coll ‘hazel’, OWels coll ‘hazel’, Gaul Coslo- ‘hazel’,
Lat corulus ‘hazel’, ON hasl ‘hazel’, OE haes(e)l ‘hazel’ (> NE
hazel ), OHG hasal ‘hazel’, Lith kasiilas ‘hunter’s spear, stick,
bush’.
This word is supported by regular correspondences in three
stocks: Celtic, Italic and Germanic, all meaning ‘hazel’, which
attest a masculine o-stem. The dialectal, northwestern status
is broken by Baltic where the meanings extend to ‘spears’ and
other objects. It has been suggested that the ‘hazel’ word
derives from a non-IE substrate term (< *ko-sii-loP , cf. the
proposed underlying substrate word for ‘apple’ *&-bo-lo-).
This is archaeologically plausible in that the remains of hazel
nut shells on prehistoric sites and evidence for the possible
maintenance of hazel tree growth through selective burning
is widespread across northwest Europe during the Mesolithic
period (c 8500-4000 BC).
Hazel shoots, tough and pliable, have long been used for
spears, spits, fishing poles and the like, and for wands to
ward off lightning and to symbolize legal authority. The Old
Irish tree-lists set hazel among the noble trees because of its
use as rods. Aside from its withies, the hazel has also been
long valued for its nuts, which are common on archaeological
sites from the Mesolithic period onwards. The hazel (Corylus),
after long coexistence, mainly as an understory, with pine
and birch, spread sensationally during the so-called “hazel
period” of the late Atlantic — which corresponds roughly to
the late PIE and early dialectal IE period — and was virtually
ubiquitous across prehistoric Eurasia.
See also Trees. (PF 1
HEAD
*kfreh 2 (gen. fads) ‘head’; *kdrh 2 Sf (singulative)/
*R&rh 2 or( collective) ‘head’. [1EW 574-576 (*/cer-); Wat 29
(*ker-)\ GI 712-713 (*E h (e)rHs-r/n-)\ Buck 4.20; BK 200
( *tf[ h ]ir-/*d[ h ]er )]. Grk (Ionic) Kapr\ (nom./acc.) ‘head’, em
Kap (< *kfh 2 ) ‘headlong’, Av sara- (< *kerh 2 -o-) ‘head’, Hit
kit-kar (< *-kfh 2 ) ‘headlong’; Lat cerebrum (< *kerh 2 sr-o-)
‘brain’, ON hjarsi (< *kerh 2 sen-) ‘crown of the head’, OHG
himi(< *kerh 2 sn-iio-) ‘brain’, Alb krye(p\.) krere(< *kroh 2 sn-
o-) ‘head’, Grk Kp&xrog (< *kfh 2 snos with -f- analogically
added after the -n-) ‘of the head’, KapapG (< *kfh 2 sr-ehj-)
‘head’, KpSv(ov(< *k[h 2 sn-iio~) ‘crown of the head’, Hit harsar
(gen. harsanas, nom./acc. pi. harsar) ‘head’ (< *harshar by
assimilation < *karshar, the second -h- is lost in the cluster
*-rhs-), Av sarah- ‘head’, Olnd siras- (gen. slrsnas) ‘head’ (the
Indo-Iranian nom. is built on the oblique cases), TochB
kraniye (< *kfh 2 sn-iio~) ‘neck’ (< *‘occiput’). This is an
extremely complicated etymon that is entangled in many ways
with words meaning ‘horn’, though there may be some
evidence that ‘head’ is *kerh 2 ~ while ‘horn’ is *kfreh 2 ~ . In
any case, these words for head are of great antiquity in IE.
*ghebhorhead\ [/EW423 ( * ghebh-el-)\ Wat 21 ( *ghebh-
el-)\ GI 713 (*g h eb h -(e)l-)\ Buck 4.20; BK 219 (*gubV
*gob-)]. ON gafl ‘gable, gable-side', OHG gibil ‘gable’, gebal
‘skull, gable’, Goth gibla ‘gable’, Grk K£(pa?tf\ ‘head, top’,
Macedonian (Illyrian?) xre/kcDAij ‘head’, TochA spal ‘head’,
TochB spal-mem ‘excellent’. More sparsely attested, but almost
as widespread geographically as the previous entry; a good
candidate for (late) PIE status.
*kaput ‘head’. 1/EW529-530 ( *kap-ut)\ Wat 27 ( *kaputY,
— 260
HEAL
GI 713 ( *k h ap h ut h -)\ Buck 4.20]. Lat caput 1 head’, ON hpfud
‘head’, OE hafud ‘head’. Related in some fashion are ON
haufud ‘head’, OE heafod ‘head’ (> NE head), OHG houbit
‘head’, Goth haubifr ‘head’. Here we have a clear case for an
Italo-Germanic innovation that held at best a very restricted
position in the latest phase of PIE (however, see next entry).
*kapdlo- ‘± head, skull’. [IEW 530 (*kap-(e)lo-)\ GI 713
( *k h ap h -el-)\ Buck 4.20] . OE hafola ‘head’, OInd kapala- ‘cup,
bowl; skull’. Surely related in some fashion to the previous
entry. Though very sparsely attested, the morphological
identity and semantic closeness of the Old English and Old
Indie words argue for at least late PIE status.
*mlhxdh-o- (Albanian, Avestan) ~ *mlhxdh-6n - (Old
English, Old Indie) ‘crown of the head’. [IEW 725
( *melddh-)\ Buck 4.201. OE molda ‘crown of the head’. Alb
mal ‘mountain’ (if < * ‘summit’ < *‘head’), Av ka-maroSa- ‘head
(of a demonic being)’, Olnd murdhan- ‘head’. Cf. Grk
pXcoOpog ‘± high grown’. At least a late PIE word.
The association between the concept of ‘head’ and ‘pot’ is
quite frequent among the IE languages, e.g., OE hafola ‘head’
and OInd kapala- ‘cup, bowl; skull’ or ON kollr ‘head’ but
kolla ‘pot’, and in the Old Indie ritual offering of the Pravargya,
a clay pot is used to represent the ‘head’ of a human figure. A
similar relationship is revealed by the change of Lat testa
‘earthen vessel, pot’ to French tete ‘head’.
See also Anatomy; Horn; Pot. ID.Q.A.l
Further Readings
Bernabe, A. (1984) Designaciones de la cabeza en las lenguas
indoeuropeas. Melanges Adrados. Madrid, 99-110.
Nussbaum, A. J. (1986) Head and Horn in Indo-European. Berlin
and New York, de Gruyter.
HEADBAND
*pul c- ‘headband’. [/EW849 (*puk-)[. Grk ag7tvt;(< *ana -
puks) ‘metal headband’, Av pusa- ‘diadem’. Though only
attested in two IE stocks, it may be that we have reflexes of at
least a late PIE word here. The Greek word refers specifically
to a headband worn by women, e g., one is worn by
Andromache ( Iliad 10.469).
*d6himi} ‘band’. [IEW 183 ( *de-mn)\ Wat 10 ( *de-)[. Grk
diddripcc ‘diadem’, OInd daman- ‘band’. From *deh\- ‘bind’.
A word of the IE southeast.
Although infrequent as an archaeological find, metal
diadems do occur from as early as c 5000-4500 BC where
golden diadems are recorded from the Copper Age cemetery
at Varna, Bulgaria. Such finds do not appear to represent the
beginning of a continuous development in Europe and it is
generally about 3000 BC that we begin to find metal diadems
over a broader area of Eurasia. A fine example derives from
the burial of a male in the Baden culture cemetery at Vors in
Hungary where a copper diadem some 67 cm long was
wrapped about the skull. Gold diadems are particularly
evident about 2500-2200 BC during the “Treasure Horizon”
in Anatolia where they have been recovered from Alaca Hiiyuk
Headband a. Copper diadem from Baden culture, Vors,
Hungary; b. Headband from burial of Abashevo culture,
Vilovatovo, Russia
and Troy II, the latter including the famous headdress bound
by a golden band worn by Sophie, the wife of Heinrich
Schliemann, the excavator of Troy.
See also Clothing. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
HEAL
*hi/ 4 eis- ‘refresh (using a liquid), renew the strength of’.
[IEW 299 (*eis-); Wat 16 {*isa-ro-)\ GI 702 (*e/sHro-)l. Grk
iepog ‘manifesting divine power, holy; hallowed, consecrated’,
— 261 —
HEAL
iaopai (< *ihy-a- < *hi/4si-eh a ~, a denominative of *hy4s-
io- ‘strong’) ‘heal, cure’, iotzpoq ‘doctor, iaivco (< *h\/4s-n-
ie/o -) ‘warm, heat, cheer, refresh’, Hit iski(ya)- (< *hi/^is-
ske/o ) ‘salve (to groom or to medicate), anoint (for ritual
purposes)’, Av Is- ‘strength’, aesa- ‘strong’, Olnd Is- ‘refresh-
ment, comfort, strength’, isayati ‘is fresh, strong, lively;
refreshens, enlivens’, isira - ‘strong, lively’, is-kpti- ‘healing’,
TochB aise ‘power, surplus’. An old word in PIE which at
least in Indie and Greek came to have a specifically medical
meaning. Probably not derived from *hieis- ‘set in motion'.
*med- ‘heal, cure’. [IEW 705-706 ( *med-)\ Wat 39
( *med-)\ Gi 711 {*met'-)\ Buck 4.87; BK 527
*ui9t’-)]. Lat medeor ‘heal, cure’, medicus ‘doctor’, Grk MfjSoq
(healing divinity), cf. Medea (healer consort of Jason), Av vf-
mad- ‘healer’, vi-maSaya- ‘act as a healer’. Probably a
specialization of *med- ‘measure’ (i.e., ‘judge well’). Though
only sparsely attested, there is reasonable evidence to suggest
that this meaning of *med - is of late PIE age.
*iak(k)- ‘± cure, make well’. [IEW 504 (*zek-); Wat 79
( *yek-)\ GI 718 (*yeHk h -)\. OIr Icc ‘cure, treatment’, Weis
iach ‘wholesome, healthy’, Grk ccKoq ‘cure, treatment,
medicine’, aKEopai ‘treat, cure’. It seems likely that these
words belong together, though there are phonological
difficulties (the *-k- presupposed by Greek does not match
the Celtic *-kk- and the initial *1- of Old Irish is not well-
explained). If so, then we have evidence for at least a late PIE
word for ‘curing’.
?*bher- ± cure with spells and/or herbs’, [cf. IEW 135
( *bher -)]. Lith burti ‘cast a spell, practice witchcraft, tell
fortunes’, Latv burt ‘cast a spell, practice witchcraft’. Alb bar
‘grass, herb, drug, medicine’, Grk (pappaKov ‘material, esp.
an herb, bringing health or harm, drug, medicine’. It seems
very likely that the Greek and Albanian words belong together,
but whether the Baltic should be included is more dubious.
There is at least the reasonable possibility that it should and
that we have a PIE *bher- ‘± cure with spells and/or herbs’.
Further related to *bher - ‘bear’ or *bher- ‘strike, cut down?
See also Medicine. [D.Q.A.]
HEALTHY
*k6hjlus ‘healthy, whole’. [IEW 520 ( *kai-lo-)\ Wat 26
( *kailo-)\ GI 712 ( *k h ai-lo-)\ Buck 4.83]. Weis coel (<
*keh a ilo- ) ‘(good) omen’, ON heill ‘healthy’, OE hal ‘hale,
whole’ (> NE hale , whole), OHG heil ‘healthy’, Goth hails
‘healthy’, OPrus kails ‘hail!’, (acc.) kailQstikan ‘health’, OCS
celQ ‘healthy’, Grk (Hesy chius) koiXv ‘good’. See following
discussion.
*s6hjos ‘whole’. [IEW 979 ( *solo-)\ Wat 62-63 (*so/-); GI
71 1 ( *sol-(w-))\ Buck 4.83; BK 162 ( V^uT/V'e/-)] . Lat salvus
‘whole, well’, Alb gjalle ‘living, agile, deft’, Grk oXoq (<
*holwos ) ‘whole’, Av haurva- ‘entire’, Olnd sarva- ‘all, whole’,
TochA salu ‘complete’ (cf. Arm olj ‘healthy, whole’, TochB
solme ‘complete’ with new suffixes). Together these two words
cover the IE territory. Neither seems clearly older than the
other. We find *soluos generally in the east and *koh a ilus
generally in the north and west. Only in Greek, if the
Hesychian ktoiAv is really Greek, do we find both.
See also Medicine. [D.Q.A.]
HEAP
?*m6uh x kdn (gen. *muh x knds) ‘heap’. [IEW 752
( *mGk-)\ Wat 43 ( *muk~) ] . ON mugi ‘heap’, OE muga ‘heap’,
Grk (Hesychius) hvkcov ‘heap’. A possible word of the west
and center of the IE world.
?*(s)keup- ‘bundle’. [IEW 956 ( *(s)keup-)\ Wat 60
(*skeup~) 1. ON skauf 1 sheaf’, skufr ‘tassel, bundle’, OE sceaf
‘sheaf’ (> NE sheaf), OHG scoub ‘bundle’, Rus dup ‘tuft, head
of hair, crest’ (cf. also Slavic *kopa ‘heap; batch of sixty’ in
numerals, e.g., Polab pdl-t’upe ‘thirty’ (< *pol - ‘half’ + kopy
‘sixty’). Perhaps a dialect word in late PIE.
See also Abundant. (D.Q.A.]
HEAR
*kleu- ‘hear’. [IEW 605-606 ( *kleu-)\ Wat 31 ( *kleu-)\
GI 33 (*Jctyeu-); Buck 15.41; BK 260 ( *k[ h ]ul-/*k[ b )ol -)} .
OIr ro-cluinethar ‘hears’, Weis clywed ‘hear’, Lat clued ‘am
called’, Goth hliuma ‘hearing’, OCS sluti'be called’, Alb quaj
‘call, name; consider’, quhem ‘be named; be regarded’, Grk
k\e(f)(o ‘tell of, make famous’, Arm lsem ‘hear’, luaj ‘heard’,
Av surunaoiti ‘hears’, Olnd spioti ‘hears’, sruti- ‘hearing’,
TochA klots ‘ear’, TochB klautso ‘ear’ (Toch < *klou-tieh a -).
Cf. the widespread derivative *klutos ‘known, renowned’: OIr
cloth ‘fame’, Weis clod ‘fame’, Lat inclutus ‘famous’, OE
Hlojy-, OHG Hlot- the first part of several personal names
(i.e., ‘famed for’), Grk KXvzoq ‘famous’, Arm lu ‘known’, Olnd
sruta- ‘famous’. With a new Germanic lengthened grade: OE
hlud ‘ loud’ (> NE loud), OHG hlut ‘loud’. From *kloijeh a -
either as a verbal or nominal derivative come OCS slava ‘fame’,
TochAB klawa- ‘be called, named’. The verb forms a frequent
framing device in IE poetry, e g., OIr ro-cuala ‘I have heard’
and Olnd susrava ‘I heard’ (both < *kukloijh 2 e).
*kdeus- hear’. [IEW 606-607 ( *kleu-s-)\ Wat 31 ( *kleu-)\
GI 33 ( *k h leu-)\ BK 260 (*k[ b ]ul-/*k[ b ]ol-)\. OIr cluas ‘ear’,
Weis dust ‘ear’ (Celt < *klous-teh a -) , ON hlust ‘ear’, hlusta
‘listen’, OE hlyst ‘hearing’, hlystan ‘listen’ (> NE listen), OHG
hlosen ‘listen’, OPrus klauslton ‘answer’, Lith klausau ‘hear’,
Latv klausit 1 hear’, OCS slysati ‘hear’, Messapic klaohi ‘hear!’,
Olnd srosati ‘hears’, TochA klyosa-Zklyosa- ‘hear’, TochB
klyausa-Alyause- ‘hear’. An enlargement of the previous entry,
further attesting to the antiquity of the former.
See also Ear, Fame; Poetry. (D.Q.A.]
HEART
*k£rd( gen. *fqd6s) ‘heart’. [IEW 579-580 ( *kerd-)\ Wat
30 ( *kerd-)\ GI 701 (*l^ l er-t'-)\ Buck 4.44] . Lat cor ‘heart’,
ON hjarta ‘heart’, OE heorte ‘heart’ (> NE heart), OHG herza
‘heart’, Goth hairto ‘heart’, OPrus seyr ‘heart’, Lith serdls
‘marrow, heart’, Lith sirdis ‘heart’, Latv serde ‘marrow, heart’,
Latv sirds ‘heart’, OCS srudlce ‘heart’, Rus serdee ‘heart’, sereda
‘middle’, Grk icqp ‘heart’. Arm sirt ‘heart’, Hit kir ‘heart’,
— 262 —
HEAT
HierLuv zar-za ‘heart’, Av zamd- ‘heart’, OInd hfd- ‘heart’
(Indo-Iranian < *ghfd- with unexpected initial). Several
groups show an old derivative *fydieh a -: Olr cride ‘heart’,
Weis craidd (< *k rediom) ‘middle’, Grk Kap6iG ‘heart,
stomach’, Olnd hfdaya- ‘heart’, TochA icri‘will’, TochB karyan
(pi.) ‘hearts’. Pan- IE in form and meaning.
The frozen expression to ‘put’ or ‘place heart’, i.e., *kped-
dhehi- is strongly attested and indicates that in the period of
PIE, the heart was regarded as the organ of belief or thought.
See also Anatomy; Belief. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Szemerenyi, O. (1970) The Indo-European name of the ‘heart’, in
Donum Bakicum , ed. V Rufce-Dravina, Stockholm, Almqvist and
Wiksell, 515-533.
HEARTH
*h 2 ehx-seh a - ‘hearth’. [IEW 68 (*ds-); Wat 3-4 ( *as -); GI
605 ( *Has -)] . Lat ara ‘hearth, fire-altar’, Osc aasaV on the altar’
(the Osc -s- is difficult since we would expect -r- as in Latin
rather than -s-), Hit hassa- ‘fireplace, hearth’ (cf. Osc aasal
purasial 1 in the fiery hearth’ and Hit hassi pahhur ‘fire in the
hearth’), OInd Ssa- ‘ashes’ (< * ‘burnings’). Cf. ON aska ‘ash’,
OE asce ‘ash’ (> NE ash), OHG asca ‘ash’ (ON/OE/OHG <
*h2hxS-g-eh a ~), Goth azgo ‘ash’ (< *h 2 h x s-gh-eh a -), Arm aciwn
(< *h 2 b x s-g-i-) ‘ash’. From *h 2 eh x - ‘bum’ (seen as a verb only
in Palaic ha- ‘be hot’). Cf. also Olr aith (< *h 2 eh x -ti~) ‘kiln’.
Distribution assures PIE status.
*h 2 ehx-tr-eh a - ‘hearth’. [IEW 69 ( *at(e)r-)\ Wat 4
( *ater -)]. Lat atrium ‘forecourt, principal Loom, room which
contains the hearth’ (< * ‘chimney- way over a hearth’), Alb
va ter ‘hearth’ (whence vatra ‘hearth’ in Slavic [e.g., Czech vatra]
and vatra ‘fire’ in Romanian). This is a derivative, limited to
the west and center of the IE world, and not everywhere there,
of *h 2 eh x -ter- ‘fire’ (< * ‘burner’) seen in Av afar- ‘fire’, and,
further derived, in Lat ater ‘black’ (< *h 2 eh x tr-o- ‘blackened
by fire’).
In Indo-European, the domestic hearth was often set at
the center of the house and was the focal point of religious
and social ceremonies. It was also an altar and therefore
represented the expression of IE religious beliefs. These beliefs
linked ancestor worship to the cult of the fire. The domestic
hearth was the symbol of the basic social unit, the family.
Through the rites and ceremonies around it the family hearth
linked the members of a kin group both diachronically,
through the cult of the ancestors, and collaterally. In the
traditions of the Romans, Greeks and Indo-Aryans, a new.
hearth could only be established with the beginning of a new
household when fire was brought from the bride’s family
hearth and in ancient Greece a child was accepted formally
into the family only after it had been carried ceremoniously
around the fire. Among the ancient Germans, in Greece and
India, at the death of the head of the household the fire was
ceremonially extinguished. The significance of the hearth and
the fire was also featured in Hittite tradition which related
special instructions and rituals to keep the hearth fire.
As hearths were being built even before the emergence of
anatomically modern humans, their presence in the archaeo-
logical record can hardly be attributed to any particular ethno-
linguistic group. The discovery of hearths is one of the most
frequent manifestations of human settlement and the range
of the evidence is both archaeologically (and in terms of lexical
formations) linguistically varied: simple fires (e.g.. Arm
/m-oc“fire-place’), fire-pits (e.g., Arm gehean ‘hearth’ (< geh
‘pit’], NPers gau ‘pit’), stone enclosures for the hearth (OInd
agnigfha- ‘fire-place’ [< * fire-house’]), plastered hearths. Those
words for ‘hearth’ that can be reconstructed to PIE are far too
vague to indicate the shape or appearance of a notional PIE
hearth.
See also Burn; Fire; Fire Cult, Ground. [A.D.V., D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Adams, D. Q. (1995) Tocharian A a$tar, B astare ‘clean, pure’ and
PIE *h 2 eh x (s)- ‘bum’, in Analecta Indoeuropaea Cracoviensia ,
vol. 2 (= Kurylowicz Memorial Volume, Part One), ed W
Smoczynski, Cracow, Universitas, 207-21 1.
Della Volpe, A. (1991) From the hearth to the creation of boundaries.
JIES 18, 157-184.
Eilers, W. (1974) Herd und Feurstatte in Iran, in Antiquitates
Indogermanicae, ed. M. Mayrhofer, et. al, Innsbruck, 307-338.
Hamp, E. (1976) On the distribution and origin of vatra, in Opuscula
slavica et linguistica, eds. H. D. Pohl and N. Salnikow, Klagenfurt,
Johannes Heyn, 201-210.
HEAT
*^ r herm6s ‘warm (especially by fire, sun)’. [IEW 493-
494 ( fhermo-)-, Wat 25 ( *g w her-)\ GI 589 ( *^°er-m-)\ Buck
15.85; BK314 (*g w ar-/*g w 3r-)\. Lat formus ‘warm’, ON varmr
‘warm’, OE wearm ‘warm’ (> NE warm), OHG warm ‘warm’,
OPrus gorme ‘heat’, Latv garme ‘(slight) warmth’, Thracian
germo- ‘warm’, rippaq (city characterized by hot springs),
Alb zjarm ‘fire’, Grk deppoq ‘warm’, Arm jerm ‘warm’, Av
gamma- ‘hot’, OInd gharma- ‘heat, glow’. Clearly of PIE status.
From *g w her- ‘warm’.
*g w hrensds ‘warm’. [IEW 495 ( *g?hre-ns-o-)\ Wat 25
( *g w her-), BK 3 14 ( *g w ar-/*g w 3 r -)] . Olr gris ‘heat, fire’, Weis
gwres ‘heat (of the sun, fire)’, OInd ghramsa- ‘heat of the
sun’. From *g w her- ‘warm’ with relatively rare suffix suggesting
IE antiquity.
*tep- ‘hot’. [IEW 1069-1070 (*fep-); Wat 70 ( *tep -); GI
589 (*t h epft-)\ Buck 15.85; BK 92 {*t[ h lap[ h ]-/*t[ h ] 3 p[ h ]-)\.
Lat teped ‘be lukewarm’, OE pefian ‘to pant, gasp’, Rus topitl
‘to heat’, Alb ftoh (o-grade causative < *h 4 eps-top-ehj-
ske/o-) ‘make cold’, Av tapaiti ‘be warm’, OInd tapati ‘to warm ,
bum’; cf. Olr te~ te ‘hot’, Weis tan ‘hot’. Also several suffixed
forms such as *tep-(V)s Olr tess ‘heat’, warmth’, Weis tes
‘heat’, Lat tepor ‘warmth’, Umb tefru (< *teps-ro-) ‘burnt
sacrifice’, perhaps Hit tapissa- ‘fever, heat’, Luv tapassa- ‘fever,
heat’ (which some treat as an Indo-Aryan loanword although
it may also be from Proto-Anat *tapessa- (< putative PIE
— 263 —
HEAT
*topes-o- with new o-grade and thematic suffix, with meta-
thesis of gemination, i.e., *-pp...s-> *-p. .ss-\ ), Olnd tapas-
‘heat ? , tapus- ‘heat, glow’, tapnu- ‘burning, glowing’. The case
for a PIE root *tep- is extremely strong.
*y el- ‘warm, heat’. [ IEW 1140 ( *uel-)\ BK 495 ( *wal -/
*W9l-)]. ON vella ‘bubble, boil’, ylr ‘warmth’, ylja ‘to warm’,
OE weallan ‘boil, be hot’, wielm ‘boiling, surging, raging’,
OHG walm ‘boiling, fervor’, wale ‘heat’, Goth wulan ‘be aglow
with, seethe’, Lith videti ‘make lukewarm’, Alb vale ‘heat,
boiling’, vloj ‘boil, ferment, seethe’, Arm gol ‘heat’, golanam
‘warm oneself’. At least a word of the west and center of the
IE world.
*keh x i- hot’. [IEW 519 (*Mi-)\ Buck 15.85]. ON heitr
‘hot’, OE hat ‘hot, burning, glowing’ (> NE hot), OHG heiz
‘hot’, Goth heito ‘fever’, Lith kaisti ‘to heat, to become hot,
Latv kkitet ‘to burn, to singe, heat’. The Germanic forms are
based on a *-d- extension while the Baltic forms are based on
*-t-. Even aside from this minor formal difference, distribution
points at best to a northwestern dialectal term.
See also Burn; Dry. [J.C.S.]
HEAVY
*g w reh x -u- ~ *g w fh x -u- ‘heavy’. [IEW 476 (*g v er-)\ Wat
25 ( *g w ero-)\ GI 685 (*k’°(e)r-u-)-, BK 339 ( *k’ w ur y -/
*k w or y -)]. Mir bair 1 heavy’, Weis bryw (< *g w er -) ‘lively,
vigorous, strong’, Lat gravis (< *g w fui- or *graus ) ‘heavy’, Goth
*kaurjos (only by assuming loss of labialization, otherwise
unlikely) ‘weighty, oppressive’, Latv gruts ‘heavy’, Grk ficcpvg
‘heavy’, Olnd guru- ‘heavy’. Cf. TochB kramar ‘weight,
heaviness’, whence TochB kramartse ‘heavy’ and related TochA
kramarts ‘heavy’, which must reflect a putative PIE
*g w re/ohx-mf. Av gouru- ‘heavy’ has often been suggested
here, but is found only in one compound where the reading
‘heavy’ for this element is unclear. Alb zor ‘heaviness, trouble’
has also been placed here. In spite of the weakness of several
links, close correspondences from several stocks makes IE
status likely.
*tengh- ‘be heavy, difficult’, [cf. IEW 1067]. ON fyungr
‘heavy, difficult, unfriendly’, Lith tingus ‘idle, lazy, sluggish’,
tingti ~ tinged ‘be slow, idle’, OCS o-tpzati ‘become heavy,
loaded’, tpga ‘anxiety, trouble’, Rus tjazkyj ‘heavy, pressing’,
tuga ‘suffering’, TochB tank- ‘hinder, obstruct’. Old in IE.
See also Light 2 . (J.C.S., D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Fischer, H. (1982). Lateinisch ‘gravis’. MSS 41, 33-34, and (1991).
Nachtrag. MSS 52, 7.
HEDGEHOG
*hieghis ‘hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus [+ Hemiechinus
auritusl])'. [IEW 292 ( *eghi-)\ GI 444 (*eg? 1 i-)[. ON igull
‘hedgehog’, OE igil ‘hedgehog’, OHG igil ‘hedgehog’, Lith ezys
‘hedgehog’, Latv ezis ‘hedgehog’, OCS (j)ezl ‘hedgehog’, Rus
ez ‘hedgehog’, Grk eyivog ‘hedgehog’, Phrygian e£ig
‘hedgehog’, Arm ozni ‘hedgehog, Oss wyzyn ~ uzun
‘hedgehog’. Widespread and obviously old in IE. Traditionally
this word is explained as a derivative of *hieghis ‘snake’, the
semantic connection being that the hedgehog is a snake-eater’.
Alternatively, we may have two largely homophonous and
unrelated, though secondarily associated, words.
*ghir ‘hedgehog ( Erinaceus europaeus [+ Hemiechinus
auritusl])'. [IEW 445 ( *gher-s)\ Wat 22 ( *ghers-)\ . Lat er
(< *her ) ‘hedgehog’, Grk (Hesychius) xhP ‘hedgehog’.
Apparently a regional word for ‘hedgehog’ in IE. A root-noun
from *gher- ‘± pointed object, point’. It is at least possible
that *hieghis and gher referred to the two different species of
hedgehog but, if so, the exact semantic distribution is im-
possible to recover. The association of the word for hedgehog
with a pointed object is a transparent reference to the animal’s
spines and there is a considerably body of folklore concerning
the ability of the hedgehog to carry apples on its spines.
With the exception of the far north, the European hedgehog
is distributed across Europe and most of Asia but only as far
south as northwest Kazakhstan. The long-eared hedgehog
(Hemiechinus auntus) is known from the rivers Don and Volga
southeast across Iran (where it has been recovered from
Neolithic contexts), Afghanistan and well into India. The
European hedgehog is present on Mesolithic and Neolithic
sites across Europe but never in numbers that would suggests
anything other than chance encounter and there is no evidence
that it was eaten as it later was during the Middle Ages, e.g.,
the Normans appear to have introduced it into Ireland and it
is already presumed domesticated by the time of Aristotle in
the fourth century BC. Among naturalists (presumably
ignorant of the suggestions concerning its deep etymology),
the hedgehog has long had a reputation as a snake-killer whose
spines protect it from fangs and it is also known that it is
unusually impervious to snake poison (the macroglobulins
in its blood help prevent haemorrhaging from adder venom).
Interest in the association between snakes and hedgehogs has
even produced a number of experiments where hapless snakes
have been placed in boxes with a hedgehog. In some instances
the animals have ignored one another while in others the
hedgehog has efficiently killed the snake by systematically
biting it along its spine, and in one case, devouring the snake,
although its normal diet is earthworms and insects. Records
of hedgehogs killing adders also exist where this ordinarily
sluggish mammal has successfully defeated an adder very
much in the manner of a mongoose, i.e., by bobbing and
weaving and tiring the snake before it strikes. While this need
not secure the etymological association between the name of
the hedgehog and that of the snake, it does rest on something
stronger than fanciful folklore.
Killing of the hedgehog was proscribed in the Avesta (in
the Videvdat 13.2-4, it is known as Vanhapara or, to the evil-
speaking people, Duzaka, and is described as a ‘shy, pointed-
nosed dog’) and for practical reasons, the use of its spines in
preparing cloth, the Romans also attempted to curtail its
slaughter.
GI have suggested that the original referent of *h\eghis
— 264 —
HELL-HOUND
was the mongoose ( Herpestes ichneumon ) which inhabited
North Africa, Anatolia and Spain while the Indian mongoose
(Herpestes edwardsi ) occupies the subcontinent. While this
animal was most certainly a ‘snake-killer’, it was primarily
known only in ancient Egypt until the classical period when
it was to be found in Greek naturalists’ works and Rome where
it became fashionable for ladies to keep mongooses. The
Romans may have introduced it deliberately into Iberia to
reduce the population of rabbits and it has been observed
that there is a deficiency of small carnivores (e.g., the stoat
and beech marten) generally in the Mediterranean. It is most
unlikely that *hieghis originally meant the ‘mongoose’ as the
animal is conspicuous by its absence on European prehistoric
sites (which do offer evidence for similarly sized animals such
as martens, weasels, and hedgehogs), the meaning ‘mongoose’
is not attested in any of the IE stocks, its natural distribution
is discordant with the general range of European cognates
(Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Greek), and the hedgehog satisfies
any etymological demands required if one derives the animal’s
name from that of the snake.
See also Mammals; Snake; Stiff. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
HEEL
*p6rsn-eh a - ‘heel’. [IEW 823 ( *persna)\ Wat 50 ( *persna)\
Buck 4.35] . Lat pema ‘haunch’, OE fiersin ~ fiersn ‘heel’, OHG
fers(a)na ‘heel’, Goth falrzna ‘heel’, Grk mepva ‘heel’, Hit
parsna- ‘upper thigh’; with long vowel: Av pasna- ‘heel’, Olnd
pirsnl ‘heel’, TochB porsnai- ‘± heel, ankle’. Clearly PIE in
status.
*pent- ‘heel’. [ IEW 988 (*(s)pen-(d)-)]. OPrus pentis ‘heel’,
Lith pentis ‘butt-end of an ax’, OCS ppta ‘heel’, Rus pjata ‘heel’,
Pashto punda (< *panta) ‘heel’. A word of the center and east
of the IE world.
*spph 1 6m ‘heel’. \ IEW 992-993 (*sp(h)er-)\ Wat 64
(*spero-)}. ON spor ‘footprint’, OE spor ‘footprint’ (> NE
spoor), OHG spor ‘footprint’ (< *spfhidm), OE spure ‘heel’,
spora ~ spura ‘spur’ (> NE spur), OHG sporo ‘spur’ (< *spihi-
o-on-), spuri-halz ‘lame’, Grk o cpvpov (< *spfhidm though
both the aspirate -ph- and the vowel -u- are unexpected)
‘ankle(bone)’, TochB sprane (dual) ‘± flanks’ (< *spfhi~
o-on-, the meaning < *‘hollow above hips’ < *‘hips’ < *‘hock’
as similarly for Lat pema above). From *sper(h ])- ‘kick’. Also
derived from *sper(hi)~ are 01rseir‘heel’ and Weis ffer ‘ankle’
(< *sperets). *spfhidm would appear to be at least of late PIE
age.
See also Foot; Hock; Kick. [D.Q.A.]
HEIR see ORPHAN
HELLEBORE
*kemeros ‘± hellebore’. [IEW 558 ( *kemero-)\ . OHG
hemera ‘hellebore’, Lith kemiras ‘marigold’, ORus cemeru
‘poison’, cemerl ‘hellebore’, cemer'pain, ache’, Grk Kapapoq
‘larkspur’. Olnd kamalam ‘lotus’ is semantically distant and
probably a Dravidian loanword. Both the hellebore and
larkspur are members of the buttercup family. Probably a late
word in at least the west and center of the IE world whose
exact meaning is not recoverable.
See also Plants [D.Q.A.]
HELL-HOUND
*kirberos mythical dog of the underworld. [IEW 578
(*kerbero-)\. Grk Keppepoq (hound of Hades), Olnd sarvara-
(epithet of one of Yamas dogs). From *kerberos ‘piebald,
spotted’. The linguistic equation is exact between the Greek
and Old Indie forms.
The association of dogs with death and the otherworld is a
common IE theme. They appear, singly or in pairs, to guide
the soul to the afterlife in Indie and Iranian, to guard the
afterworld in Greek, Roman, Germanic, and Celtic, and as
choosers of the dead in Indie and Celtic. In Hittite, although
the connection is unclear, dogs seem to be associated with
the spirits of the dead.
The Old Indie Yama has two four-eyed dogs, Sabala
‘Spotted’ and Syama ‘Black’. In Rgveda 10. 14, they are referred
to as guardian dogs and keepers of the path to the afterworld.
Only the souls who have sacrificed properly may pass on to
the happy afterlife. The Atharvaveda depicts the dogs as
messengers of Yama, sent forth to choose those who are to
die. In the epic tradition of the Mahabharata , it is a dog that
leads Yudhistira and his brothers northwards where each dies
as they approach the afterworld until Yudhistira himself is
invited by Indra to enter the next world.
In Iranian tradition, a four-eyed dog was brought in to a
dead body in order for its gaze to expel the demons,
particularly Nasu the goddess of decay who disguises herself
as a fly on the body. The Daena, or ‘inner self’ of the dead
person, in the shape of a beautiful woman, escorts the souls
of the righteous to Paradise accompanied by two dogs whose
function is to guide the soul to the proper path by barking.
The three-headed Greek Kerberos is the best-known
otherworldly dog, first attested in the Theogony 31 1 . His duty
was to maintain the boundary between Hades and the world
of the living, although he could be bribed or drugged. Another
resident of Hades, Hekate, was also called ‘Our Lady of
Hounds’, leading a swarm of ghosts and demonic barking
dogs through the underworld nightly
The Norse hell-hound is Garm, another guardian of the
boundaries. The souls of those who have died of sickness or
old age encounter him on their way to Hel, if they have ever
given food to the hungry, they find a crust in their hands
with which to propitiate him. The Elder Edda names two
dogs, Gifr and Geri, guardians of the boundary between this
world and another, who will keep watch night and day until
the end of the world. One wishing to pass could give them
the wings of Vldofnir, a mythical bird, and slip past while
they ate. Odinn has a pack of otherworldly hounds, and the
Valkyries ride through the sky over battlefields on wolves.
In Welsh tradition, Gwyn ap Nudd, a god of the under-
world, leads the Wild Hunt through the sky. He is accom-
— 265 —
HELL-HOUND
panied by his dog Dormarth ('Deaths Door’), perhaps another
gate guardian. In Irish folklore, two dogs or wolves wait beside
the dying person to pursue the soul at the moment of death.
Perhaps representing the devouring aspect of death, dogs
have a clear role in Indo-European mythology as guardians
of the path or gate to the otherworld and as choosers of the
dead. In some traditions, e.g., Germanic and Greek, there is
also evidence that the souls of those who for various reasons
(suicide, childlessness, failure to marry, etc.) cannot enter the
afterlife, must pass their intervening time in the form of dogs
or wolves which regularly haunt cemeteries. Related is the
belief indicated in the religion of ZaraBustra that dogs (and
birds) consume the flesh of the deceased wherein rests the
soul that it may pass to the afterlife. In various IE traditions
the worst throw of the dice is known as the ‘dog’ which is
associated with death and fills a semantic sphere similar to
that of the Ace of Spades in cards; conversely, the best throw
is known as the ‘dog-killer’.
The pairing or doubling of the dogs associated with
mortuary beliefs is common and expressed either in pairs of
dogs or the doubling of some feature of the dog, e.g., the
four-eyed dogs of both Indie and Iranian tradition or perhaps
a double-headed dog. These pairs are usually given contrasting
colors, e.g., in Brittany and Armenia, they are black and white
while in Indie tradition they are spotted and black. This pair-
ing has been interpreted as an expression of the limnal aspect
of the dog, resting on the junction between this life and that
of the otherworld.
Some archaeological reflection of this network of beliefs
has been recovered from prehistoric sites which have been
associated by some with early Indo-Europeans. At Klady in
the north Caucasus, a tomb of the Maykop culture dating to
c 3300 BC yielded at the head of the deceased, among other
things, two figures of dogs, one of bronze and one of silver,
which are said to reflect the different colors of the two
guardians of the dead in Indo-European myth. In a more
general way, the burial of dogs with the deceased is so wide-
spread that it can hardly be interpreted as a specifically IE
rite. Burials accompanied by dogs are known at least since
the Mesolithic period in Scandinavia where in southern
Sweden they not only may accompany the deceased but in
some instances have received individual interment and been
provided with the same grave goods as found in the burials
of humans. Dog remains are very infrequently found in Kurgan
sites of the Pontic steppe, and normally in the form of teeth,
jaws or occasionally a whole skull. There are exceptions,
however, such as the burial of a dog over a grave of the Yamna
culture. Dogs are also occasionally encountered in the
presumably (Indo-)Iranian burials at Sintashta in the southern
Urals. The suggestion by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov that the
employment of dogs in burial rituals of the Shang dynasty
derives from IE contacts is unpersuasive given the fact that
dog burial and sacrifice is also found in the much earlier native
Neolithic cultures of China.
See also Death Beliefs; Dog. [L.J.H., J.RM.]
Further Readings
Lincoln, B. (1979) The Hellhound. JIES 7, 273-286.
Schlerath, B. (1954) Der Hund bei der Indo-Germanen. Paideuma
6, 25-40.
HELP
*k elb- ‘help’. [IEW 554 {*Kelb- ~ *kelp-)\ Wat 28
(*/ce/b-); Buck 19.58]. ON hjalpa ‘help’, OE helpan ‘help’ (>
NE help), OHG helfan ‘help’, Goth hilpan ‘help’, Lith selpiii
‘help, support’. A northwest dialectal form.
[M.N.]
HEMP
?*kannabis ‘hemp (Cannabis sativa)' . [Wat 27 ( *kannabis)\
GI 570-571]. Olr cnaip ‘hemp’, Lat cannabis ‘hemp’, ON
hampr ‘hemp’, OE haenep ‘hemp’ (> NE hemp ), OHG hanaf
‘hemp’, OPrus knapios ‘hemp’, Lith kanape ‘hemp’, Latv
kapepe ‘hemp’, OCS konoplja ‘hemp’, Alb kerp ‘hemp’, Grk
Kavvapig ‘hemp’, Arm lcanap“hemp’.
Hemp is an important source of bast fibres for textiles. It
grows up to four or five meters in height, producing longer
and coarser fibres than flax (though they are otherwise very
similar to them). These fibres may be used for coarse cloth
but are even better suited for making ropes and sails. Hemp
seed is also traditionally used for its oil or as an animal feed,
and, finally, as a narcotic.
Hemp is found in the wild state in Central Asia and it
occurs on Neolithic sites from Germany, Switzerland, Austria,
the Czech Republic (seed impressions on pots), Romania,
Moldova (seed impressions on Linear Ware culture pots) and
the Ukraine. Its presence in all these areas is sparse and it
does not seem to have been common in Greece until the
classical period although Herodotus (4.74) does mention its
use among the Thracians.
The various attested words, while similar to one another,
cannot reflect a common PIE source and their similarity must
reflect a later series of borrowings from one IE stock to another.
E. Barber has suggested that a common source, perhaps
Thracian or Scythian, provided the Greek form which was
then borrowed into Latin. It was also lent first into Slavic and
then to Baltic and on to Finnish, and Germanic apparently
borrowed the word before the first sound shift. There is also
a possible Old Indie cognate bhanga- which has been
explained as a reversal of the original word, with labial first
and velar last, i.e., *kan(n)aB- > ?*Ban(a)g- The reversed
position of the stops has been explained as an attempt to gain
access to the spirit world by a reversal of order, comparable,
for example, to a Black Mass where the mass is recited
backwards. This borrowing of a new term for an old object
could have been induced by a new variety of hemp which
could be put to new purposes.
The old northern hemp that the PIE speakers and their
neighbors had been using since 5,000 BC did not contain the
narcotic THC. Presumably the “new and improved” hemp
was improved precisely because it did contain THC. It has
— 266 —
HENBANE
been argued that the additional narcotic use of hemp is
relatively late, appearing only in the first millennium BC.
Herodotus, for example, records its use as a narcotic among
the Iron Age Scythians and a complex of brazier, hemp seeds
and wooden tripod to form a tent like structure, all described
by a confused Herodotus as a “vapor-bath”, has been recovered
from the Iron Age royal tombs of Pazyryk in the Altai
Mountains. It was by no means confined to the steppe region
and hemp has also been discovered in Iron Age contexts in
western Europe, e.g., a Hallstatt burial, presumably Celtic, at
Hochdorf in Germany. It has been presumed that the narcotic
uses developed in the steppe region and then diffused
westwards dunng the Iron Age accounting for the particular
pattern of loans. But it has also been suggested that this spread
of hemp may date to a much earlier period. Hemp has not
only been recovered from settlement sites in Romania but
also from a Yamna burial at Gurbane§ti (Moldova) where traces
were found in a “censer” (a shallow footed bowl believed to
have been used in the burning of some aromatic substance).
It has been found in a similar context from an early Bronze
Age burial in the north Caucasus. These “censers”, often highly
decorated with “sunburst” motifs, are widespread across the
steppe region in the third millennium BC (extending at least
from the Dnieper to the Yenisei) and may be a part of a ritual
complex. The censers also diffuse westwards at this time in
Romania, Hungary and further along the Danube. As cannabis
can also be infused, i.e., served as a component in a drink, it
has also been suggested that the spread of cord-(hemp?)
decorated pottery from the steppe westwards may also have
been part of the same complex.
While attractive, this theory that emphasizes purely the
narcotic nature of hemp does not entirely explain the later
spread of Cannabis sativa in Europe. Hemp, for example,
appears to have been employed in the making of textiles in
Anatolia by at least the eighth century BC, was widely
employed in the Near East and Greece in the first centuries
BC and spread to Italy c 100 BC. It was also introduced into
both Britain and Ireland during the first centuries BC and AD
and during the early mediaeval period its primary use was in
textiles where it was regularly coincidental with a rise in flax.
There are thus at least three chronological horizons to which
the spread of hemp might be ascribed: the early distribution
of hemp across Europe during the Neolithic c 5000 BC or
earlier; a later spread of hemp for presumably narcotic
purposes about 3000 BC; a still later spread or, at least, re-
emergence of hemp in the context of textiles during the first
millennium BC. Given the fact that the word appears to
involve inter-stock borrowing after the collapse of PIE, the
more recent horizon appears to be the more attractive period
for the spread of the word.
See also Henbane; Plants; Poppy. [D.Q.A., J.RM.]
Further Readings
Barber, E. J. W (1991). The archaeolinguistics of hemp, in Prehistoric
Textiles : The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze
Ages. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 36-38.
Sherratt, A. (1991) Sacred and profane substances: The ritual use of
narcotics in later Neolithic Europe, in Sacred and Profane , eds P
Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates and J. Toms, Oxford, Oxford
University Committee for Archaeology, 50-64.
HEN
*kerk- i hen’. [1EW 568 (*kerk-)\ G1 5\5 (*k h erk b -). Buck
3.54]. Mir cere ‘brood hen’, Grk Keptcoq ‘rooster’, Av kahrka-
‘hen’, OInd kfka-vaku- ‘rooster’, TochB kranko ‘rooster’.
The hen, a Neolithic economic miracle, a bird that lays an
egg every day, originated as the Red Jungle Fowl, and was
bome westward. Its point of origin is disputed and while
traditionally held to be India where it occurs at Mohenjo-
daro c 2000 BC, there appears to be much earlier evidence
from southeast Asia which would project its appearance back
to before c 6000 BC and already by the sixth millennium BC
it has expanded far beyond its natural range to reach the arid
plains of northern China. Remains of Gallus are known from
north of the Black Sea by c 3000 BC which has prompted the
suggestion that the hen may have spread from China via the
steppe region into Europe. The other route, from India to the
Mediterranean, cannot be excluded although this would
appear to have been later than the spread across the steppe
There is also some evidence of the hen from Greece in the
period c 3000 BC. In general, the main rise in the dispersal of
the Gallus is to be found in the later Bronze Age and the Iron
Age. The archaeological evidence might suggest the possibility
of reconstructing a common IE word for the hen ( *kerk-)
across a number of stocks if not to PIE itself although the
clearly onomatopoeic features of this word invites con-
siderable caution.
See also Birds, Cock. [J. A. C.G., J.RM ]
Further Reading
West, B. and B.-X. Zhou (1988) Did chickens go north? New evidence
for domestication. Journal of Archaeological Science 15, 515-
533.
HENBANE
*bhel- ‘henbane ( Hyoscyamus niger)' . [IEW 120
(*bhel-)}. Gaul belinuntia ~ (deXeviov ‘henbane’, Belenos
‘Apollo’, OE beolone ‘henbane’, OHG bil(i)sa ‘henbane’, Rus
belena ‘henbane’. The exact form which this word took in
PIE is not recoverable; however, its existence, at least in the
west and center of the IE world, is assured. The plant appears
to have been indigenous across most of Europe (it is known
from the Neolithic Swiss lake-side dwellings and traces of
henbane have been recovered from a mortuary structure in
Scotland) and much of Asia where it was particularly prized
for its narcotic (it produces hallucinations) and medicinal
properties (it is a pain-killer and muscle-relaxer); it was also
employed by Danish chicken-thieves to stun their victims. It
has been traditionally consumed both by smoking and, in
India, as a beverage. It is a regular ingredient in witches’
— 267
HENBANE
potions and is poisonous. Today it is commercially grown for
the production of the drugs atropine, hyoscy amine and
scopolamine.
See also Hemp; Plants; Poppy. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
HERD
*uretos (or *\}rehitosl) ‘flock, herd’. [IEW 1151
( *ureto -)[ . ODan wrath ‘herd of twelve swine’, OE wr£p ‘herd
(of swine)’, Goth wripus ( recte *wrepus) ‘herd’, Olnd vrata-
‘flock, swarm, troop (particularly the non-Brahminical section
of society)’. The basic meaning here seems to be ‘flock’ or
‘herd’ as a derivative from the root *uer- ‘bind, array’ (cf. Olnd
vpnoti ‘cover, surround; ward off). Compare also Gmc *warina
in OE weam ‘troop, crowd’ and similar Celtic forms, e.g., OIr
foirenn ‘indefinite number of persons, band, troop’, Weis
gwerin ‘host’. Though *uretos is not widely attested, the
geographical distribution of those attestations suggests PIE
status.
*kerdheh a - ‘herd, series’. [IEW 579 ( *kerdho-)\ Wat 30
( *kerdh-)\ Buck 3.18]. ON hjprd ‘herd’, hirdir ‘herdsman’,
OE heord ‘herd’ (> NE herd), hierde ‘herdsman’, OHG herta
‘herd’, hirti ‘herdsman’, Goth halrda ‘herd’, halrdeis
‘herdsman’, OPrus kerdan ‘time’, Lith (s)kerdzius ‘herdsman’,
OCS creda ‘herd, series’. A word of the northwest of the IE
world. Related more distantly are MWels cord ‘troop, crowd,
family’, Grk KopOvq ‘heap, sheaf. Though sometimes put here,
Av sarodana- ‘avenger’, Olnd sardha- ‘might, strength’ (later
also ‘herd’) are semantically (and phonologically, *k- rather
than *k-) distant.
See also Herdsman. [D.Q.A.]
HERDSMAN
*]}6stdr ‘herdsman’. [IEW 1171 (*yes-); Gl 601 ( *wes -
t h er-)\ Buck 3.18]. Hit LV westara- ‘herdsman’, Av vastar-
‘herdsman’. From *yes- ‘graze’. Though not widely attested,
the distribution suggests great antiquity in IE.
*g w ou-k w olos cowherd’. [IEW 483 (*g u ou-); GI 601
( *-k ho el-)\ Buck 3.18; BK 346 (*k w uw-/*k’ w ow-), 317
( *k w [h Jul-/*k w ( h Jol-)] ■ Mir buachaiV cowherd’, Weis bugail
‘shepherd’, Myc qo-u-ko-ro ‘cowherd’, Grk povKohoq
‘cowherd’. At least a word of the west and center of the IE
world. A compound of *g w ou- ‘cow‘ and *k w olo- ‘one who
turns, moves’ (from *k w el- ‘turn, move around’).
*pohiim6n- ‘herdsman’. { IEWS39 (*pdi-men-)\ cf. GI 600
(*p b aH-)’, Buck 3.18], Lith piemuo ‘herdsman’, Grk Koipqv
‘herdsman’. A word of the IE center. From *poh\(i)~ ‘watch
(after cattle)’.
See also Cow; Feed; Herd; Protect. [D.Q.A.]
HERNIA
*kiuh x l (gen. *kuh x lds) ‘hernia’. [IEW 536-537
(*Mu(o)la)]. ON haul} ‘hernia’ , OE heala ‘hernia’, OHG hola
‘hernia’ (Germanic from an o-grade derivative *kouh x l-o -),
Lith Mias ‘hernia’, Mia ‘thickening, swelling’, OCS kyla
‘hernia’, Rus kila ‘hernia’, Grk (Ionic) kj\Xj] ‘tumor’, (Attic)
Kohl ‘hernia’ (Grk < *kewala- ), Oss k’ullaw ‘hernia’. From
*keuh x - ‘be bent’ (cf. *kuh x lo- ‘back’). A widespread and
remarkably specific medical term. At least late PIE in status.
See also Medicine. [D.Q.A.]
HERON
?*hiorh x deh a - ~ *h \r(o)hydeh a - some form of water bird,
heron?’ [IEW 68 (*arod-)]. Lat ardea ‘heron’, ON arta ‘teal’,
SC roda ‘stork’, Grk pcodioq ~ epcoSio q usually ‘heron’ but
also confused with the ‘stork’. Both geographical spread and
uncertain semantics provide little support for a PIE ‘heron’.
Old Indie largely uses kanka- ‘heron’ though other names are
used for particular species while Armenian employs a single
term, jknak'al literally ‘fish gatherer’ which is also the word
for ‘swan’. The NE heron is probably from an early ono-
matopoeic form derived from the much employed *ker
Whatever word is used for heron, the word was also used for
the various water birds with longish necks who caught fish
by darting their bill into the water.
See also Birds. [J.A.C.G.j
HIDE 1
*bhergh- ‘keep, protect’. [IEW 145 ( *bhergh-)\ Wat 8
( *bhergh-)\ Gl 366; Buck 12.27]. ON bjarga ‘keep, preserve’,
OE beorgan ‘keep, preserve’, OHG bergan ‘keep, preserve’,
Goth balrgip ‘keeps’, Lith birginti ‘be parsimonious’, OCS
bresti ‘care for’. A northwest dialectal term.
*gheugh- ‘protect, hide’. [IEW 450 ( *gheugh-)\ Gl 84
(*g b eugf 1 -)\ Buck 12.27] Lith gQzti ‘cover with something
warm’, Av gaoz- ‘hide’, Olnd gQhati ‘conceals, covers’. A word
of the IE center and east unless one accepts ON eld-gygr ‘abyss
(crater of a volcano)’ (< *‘something hidden’).
*keudh- ‘hide’. [IEW 952 ( *(s)keudh-)\ Wat 60
( *(s)keu-)\ Buck 12.27], OE hydan (< Proto-Gmc *hudjana -
with a new lengthened grade) ‘hide’ (> NE hide), Grk kevOco
~ fcevOdvcD 1 hide’ (tr.), Arm suzanem ‘submerge, hide’. A form
showing metathesis, namely *dheuk-, appears in OE deog
‘he concealed himself’, deagol ‘secret, hidden, mysterious’,
OHG tougan ‘hidden’, tougali ‘secret’, TochA tpuk- (< *ui-
dheuk -) ‘be hidden’, TochB tuk- ‘be hidden’. The agreement
of Germanic and Tocharian in both metathesis and probably
the prior existence of a present *dhoukei is very significant
and dearly supports antiquity in IE.
See also Cover. [D.Q.A.]
HIDE 2
*piln - ‘animal skin, hide’. [JEW 803 ( *pel-no- ), 985-986
( *(s)p(h)el-)\ Wat 48 {*pel-)\ GI 227-228 (*p h el-H-), Buck
4.12; BK 60 ( *p[ h lal-/*p[ h ]dl-)\. Lat pellis (< pelni-) ‘(animal)
skin, hide’, ON fjall ‘skin’, OE fell ‘animal skin, hide, pelt’ (>
NE fell), OHG fel ‘animal skin, hide, pelt’ (Gmc < *pelno- ),
OPrus pleynis ‘meninges’, Lith plen£ ‘film (on milk), scab’,
Latv plene ‘membrane’, Rus plena ‘pelt’ (Baltic and Slavic
derivatives with new full-grade), Grk Epvoi-nekaq (< *pel-
p-s- or perhaps rebuilt from < *-pelar) ‘red inflammation of
— 268 —
HILL
the skin’, KeXXopd(pr\g ‘sewing skins together’. Cf. OE filmen
‘film, membrane; foreskin’ (> NE film), Grk neXpa ‘sole of
the foot’, or Lith plevi ‘membrane, scab’, Rus pleva
‘membrane’, Grk emnXo(f)og ‘omentum’. More distantly yet
we have Lat spolium ‘(animal) skin, hide’, Grk anoX la ‘fine
wool plucked from the legs of sheep’. From *(s)pel- ‘tear off’,
though the underlying verb is nowhere attested as such.
Widespread, though not universal, in late PIE.
*h a eg!nom ‘hide’. [IEW 7 ( *ag-)\ GI 50 1 ; Buck 4.12], OCS
(j)azno ‘hide, leather’, OInd ajinam ‘hide’. Formally very
similar but with a different, and more original, meaning is
Lith oziena ‘goat flesh’. A derivative of *h a egos ‘goat’. A word
of the east and center of the IE world.
*letrom ‘leather’. [IEW 681 ( *letro-)\ Wat 36 ( *letro-)\.
OIr lethar ‘leather’, Weis lledr ‘leather’, ON /edr ‘leather’, OE
leder ‘leather’ (> NE leather ), OHG leder ‘leather’. A dialect
innovation of the far northwest of the IE world. It has been
suggested that the Germanic words for leather should be
explained as a Celtic loan word, i.e. , *pel-tro > (with
metathesis) *ple-tro- > Gmc *lepra-. This would ultimately
derive from *pel- ‘cover’ but the metathesis required here is
not otherwise attested.
?*n£k(es)- l ± pelt, hide’. [ IEW 754 (*nak-) ]. OE naesc
(< *naeks ) ‘dressed fawn-skin’, OPrus nognan (< *noknan)
‘leather’, Grk vctKoq (stem nak-es -) ~ vaicrj ‘pelt, fleece, hide
of deer or goat’, (Hesychius) vaicvpiov ‘skin’. Perhaps a word
of late, dialectal IE; perhaps a culture-word or trade-word
from some source.
See also Anatomy; Goat; Skin. [D.Q.A.]
HIGH
*bhfghus ~ *bhfgh6nt- ‘high’. [IEW 140-141
( *bheregh-)\ Wat 8 ( *bhergh-)\ GI 576-577 (*b^(e)r^ 1 -)\
Buck 12.31 ; BK 19 ( *bur-gy~/*bor-gy-)\ . From *bhfghus: Arm
barjr ‘high’, Hit parku- ‘high’, Luv parray(a)- ‘high’ in the
collocation parrayanza ‘high mountains’, TochA parkar ‘long’,
TochB parkare ‘long’ (Tocharian with regular replacement of
u-stem by ro- stem; note that the Tocharian meaning results
from a horizontal perspective as opposed to the original
vertical one; the same semantic development can also be found
in certain Iranian reflexes, e.g., Khot bulysa- ‘long’, Sogd firz-
‘long’); from *bh[ghent~: OIr Brigit (feminine proper name),
ON Borgundarholmr ‘Bornholm’ (an island that rises high
from the sea), OHG Burgunt (feminine proper name), Av
barazant- ‘high’, OInd b[hant- (fern, bphatf) ‘great, high’. Cf.
OLat forctus ‘strong’, Lat for(c)tis ‘strong’. PIE *bherghs{ gen.
*bhfghds) ‘height’: MIr brl (acc. brig) (< *bhfgh-) ‘hill’, ON
bjarg ~ berg ‘mountain, rock’, borg ‘height, wall, castle, city’,
OE beorg ‘hill’ (> NE barrow), burg ~ burh ‘fortified place,
castle, city’ (> NE borough), OHG berg ‘mountain’, burg‘fort’,
Goth bairgahei ‘mountainous area’, baurgs ‘tower, city’, Av
bars (gen. barazd) ‘height’. PIE status assured. Germanic
derivatives indicate both natural high places such as hills or
mountains as well as fortified heights.
*\}6rhxdhus (gen. *y/b*<ihyds) ‘upright, high’. [/EW339
( *er(a)d -), 1167 ( *uerdh-)\ Wat 17 ( *erad -); BK 500
(*war-/*war-)]. Grk (g)op66q ‘upright, standing; straight;
just’, possibly Av aradva- ‘high, erect’ if by dissimilatory
loss (i.e., *u. . . u> * 0 . . . *u) from *varadva-, OInd urdhva-
‘upright, erected, high’, TochA orto ‘(from) above’. A word of
the PIE southeast.
*h 2 erdus ‘high, lofty’, [cf. IEW 339; Puhvel 3:203], OIr
ard‘high’, Lat arduus ‘steep, lofty; difficult’, ON prdugr ‘steep’,
OCS rastp ‘grow’, Rus rost ‘height’, Hit harduppi- ± high’,
possibly Av aradva- ‘upright’ (if it doesn’t belong above),
Roshani wurd ‘irrigation canal built on a stone causeway’,
ardan ‘embankment between irrigation canal and field’
(< Proto-Iran *arda- and *ardana- respectively). The
geographical distribution would appear to guarantee IE status.
See also Fence; Fort; High-one; Hill. [A.D.V., D.Q.A.]
HIGH-ONE
*bhfghQtih a - ‘high one’. [IEW 140-14 1 ( *bheregh-)\ Wat
8 {*bhergh-)\ GI 576 ( *bhergh-)\ BK 19 ( *bur-g y -/
*bor-g y -)\ . OIr Brigit (Celtic goddess), OBrit Brigantia (Celtic
goddess), OHG Burgunt ~ Purgunt (woman’s name), OInd
bj-hatf- ‘high, lofty’. The derivation is clearly from *bhergh-
‘high; hill, mountain’ and the OBrit Brigantia is cognate with
the Old Indie adjectival form which may occur as a woman’s
name. The Celtic goddess is attested in both Britain and
Ireland (cf. also the British and early Irish tribal name Brigantes
of whom Brigantia would have been the titular deity). In the
Roman interpretation of Celtic deities, Brigantia is equated
with Minerva and hence is seen as a patron of the crafts,
especially poetic or those pertaining to foretelling the future,
while the Irish sources also associate her with crop fertility.
Although recorded in pagan contexts in early Irish literature,
characteristics of the pagan Brigit are also recovered after her
Christianization into St Brigit, a sixth-century Leinster saint,
whose sacred fire at Kildare suggests other rituals pertaining
to the goddess. St Brigit was also a patron of agricultural
fertility and her feast day fell on the Irish festival of Imbolc,
the summer solstice. Although lexically cognate with the Old
Indie adjectival form, there is no corresponding body of myth
concerning an Indie bfhati- on which to sustain a mythological
comparison.
See also Goddesses; High; Hill. [D.Q.A., J.PM ]
HILL
*bhergh-~ *bh[gh- ‘high; hill, mountain’. [7EW 140-141
( *bheregh-) ; Wat 8 ( *bhergh-)\ GI 576-577 (*b h (e)rg^-)\
Buck 1.22; BK 19 ( *bur-g y -/*bor-gy -)] . MIr brl (gen. brega)
(< *bhfgh-) ‘hill’, Weis bre ‘hill’, Gaul -briga ( *bhfgh-a) ‘hill’,
ON bjarg ~ berg ‘mountain’, OE beorg ‘mountain’, OHG berg
‘mountain’, Goth bairgahei (< *berga -) ‘mountainous region’,
OCS bregu ‘riverbank’, Rus bereg ‘riverbank’ (Slavic with
problematic -g). Arm erkna-berj ‘sky-high’, Av baraz- (nom.
bars< *bh(e)rgh-) ‘high; hill, mountain’, Oss baerzond ‘high,
mountain’. The PIE word for ‘high’, ‘hill’ or ‘mountain’.
— 269 —
HILL
*kolhx~dn ~ *kjhx-n-6s ‘hill’. [IEW 544 (*kel-\ Wat 28
( *kel -)\ i GI 577 {*k h el-)\ Buck 1.22] . Lat collis (with early
loss of laryngeal) ‘hill 1 , OH hyll (< *huln-i- < *klh x ni-) ‘hill’,
MDutch hil(le), hulle ‘hill’ (ON holmr , holmi ‘island’ , OE holm
‘wave, sea, island’, OS holm ‘hill’), Lith kalnas ‘mountain’,
kalva ‘hill’, Latv kalns ‘mountain’, kalva ‘hill, river island’,
Grk KoXcovrj, Kohcovog'hWV. Uncertain is ON hallr, OE heall
(> NE hall), Goth hallus (< *kolh x n-u -) ‘rock’. Lat columen
‘top’ is from *kelamen < *kelh x -mp (with syncope culmeh).
Very doubtful is Hit kalmara- ‘mountain’. From *kelh x -
‘project, tower up’. With Baltic, Germanic and Greek from
one paradigm, this is certainly the PIE word for ‘hill’.
*g w orh x - ~ *g w fhx- ‘mountain; mountain forest’. \IEW
477-478 ( *g?er-)\ Wat 25 ( *g w er3-)\ GI 574 ( *Hk K) r-i-)\ Buck
1.22; BK 363 ( *q’ w ur-/*q’ w or '-)]. OPrus garian (< *g w orh x -)
‘tree’, Lith giria (fern, gire) (< *g w [hx-) ‘forest’, Latv dzija ~
dzire ‘forest’, OCS gora ‘mountain’, Rus gora ‘mountain’. Alb
gur{< *g w fhx-) ‘rock, stone’, Av gain- ‘mountain’, OInd giri-
‘mountain’ (Indo-Iran *g w {h x -i-l). PIE had a root noun,
probably *g w orh x -s (gen. *g w fh x -os). Perhaps the Indo-lran
i-stem originated in the nom. *garis (< *g w orh x s ). Grk fiopeocq
‘northwind’ is uncertain here as well as Grk (Hesychius)
Seipoq ‘hill’ which is secondarily derived from a compound.
The semantic shift to ‘forest’ in Baltic is not uncommon as
forests tend to be associated with mountainous regions and
parallel developments have been observed in other languages
and language families.
?*men- ‘mountain’. [IEW 726 (*mp-t-)\ Wat 41 ( *men-);
GI 574 {*m(e)n-t h -)\ Buck 1.22; BK 533 ( *mun-/*mon -)} .
Weis mynydd (< *monio- ) ‘mountain’, Lat mons (gen. montis )
(< *mon-ti- ) ‘mountain’, Av mati (< *m$-ti ) ‘(mountain)
height’. These are all probably independent derivatives from
a word for ‘neck’ which itself derives from *men- ‘project,
stick out’.
The existence of multiple words for mountains has been
employed by GI to demonstrate that the earliest Indo-
Europeans lived in a mountainous region (cf. also words for
‘cloud’, ‘thunderstorm’, etc.), specifically the highlands of the
south Caucasus and Armenia. Such conclusions are ingenuous
in the extreme as possession of a virtually universal conceptual
category can hardly have any bearing on the specific location
of a population and there is nowhere in Eurasia where one
could set the Proto-Indo-Europeans where they could be
expected to have never encountered a mountain or hill.
See also High; High-One; Peak. [R.S.P.B.]
HIP see HAUNCH
HOCK
*kenk- ‘± hock, back of knee’. [IEW 566 (*kenk-)\ Wat
29 ( *kenk-)\ . ON haell ‘heel’, OE hela ‘heel’ (> NE heel )
(< Gmc *hanhila- ), ON ha-mot ‘ankle’, OE hoh ‘hock, heel’
(< Gmc *hanha -), Lith kenkli ‘hock, back of knee’, kinka
(< *kpkeh a -) ‘hock, back of knee’, Latv cinksla ‘nerve behind
the knee’, OInd kankala- (as if < *konkolo-\ but attested only
late and sparingly) ‘bone, skeleton’. The original PIE word (a
root noun?) has not survived. Rather we find several indepen-
dent derivatives. If the Old Indie word belongs here, we have
evidence for at least a late, but general PIE word. If it does
not, then we have evidence for a “westernism” in late PIE.
See also Anatomy; Foot; Heel; Leg. (D.Q.A.]
HOE see PLOW
HOLD
*h 2 erk- ‘hold back (so as to prevent someone from doing
something), contain’. [IEW 65-66 ( *areq-)\ Wat 3 ( *arek -)\ .
Lat arced ‘shut in; keep at a distance, prevent’, porced (< *po-
+ *arceo ) ‘hold off’, arx ‘stronghold, fortress’, area ‘chest,
container’, Grk dcpKeo) ‘ward off, defend, assist; achieve; suffice’
(denominative to apKoq ‘defence’), Arm argelum ‘hinder,
restrain, hold back’ (denominative to argel ‘obstacle’), Hit
hark- ‘hold, have’, pe hark- ‘bring along, tender, deliver’,
possibly TochB ark- ‘be obliged to’ (if, like NE have to [=
‘must’]). To these may be added Lith rakinti ‘lock with a key’
although the latter is more probably related to the root seen
in Lith rakti ‘to poke with a sharp object’ (or rakinti may be
an unexpected new full-grade, influenced by rakti). OIr
accrann ‘shoe, clothing’ (< *‘that which holds the foot’) has
also been set here but this connection is extremely dubious.
Nevertheless, the distribution of the other cognate sets seems
to secure this word to PIE.
*dher- ‘be immobile; support, hold up’. [IEW 252-255
( *dher-)\ Wat 14 ( *dher-)\ Buck 11.15; BK 143 ( *d y ar-/
*d y 9r-)\. Lat firmus (< *dher-mo -) ‘solid, firm’, OE darian
‘lie motionless, lurk’, Lith dereti ‘be useful, serviceable’, Grk
(aor. inf.) OpqcracrOai ‘seat oneself’, Arm dadarem ‘become
quiet, stop’, Av darayat ‘holds fast’, OInd (caus.) dharayati
‘holds, preserves’. The Greek form appears to be based on
*dher-h a -\ the other forms show no signs of a laryngeal.
Semantically, Old English, Greek and Armenian all point to a
quality of immobility; such a meaning may have then
developed into ‘dependability’, seen in the Latin and
Lithuanian forms.
*h a eik- possess’. [IEW 298-299 (*eik-)\ Wat 16 (*eik-):
Buck 11.22]. ON eiga ‘possess’, OE agan ‘possess’ (cf. NE
own), OHG eigan ‘possess’, Goth aih ‘have’, Av ise ‘is lord
over’, OInd ise ‘owns, possesses’, TochB aik- ‘know’. The
distribution and comparability of the Germanic and Old Indie
forms suggests PIE status; the Old Indie must be based on a
reduplicated perfect of the root *is-. The Tocharian form is
semantically somewhat distant unless the meaning ‘know’
developed from ‘have power over’, a semantic field suggested
in the Avestan form.
*skabh- ‘hold up’. I/EW916 ( *skabh-)\ GI 101], Lat
scamnum (< *scabnum ) ‘stool, bench’, Av upa-skambam
‘support, prop’, Pashto skam ‘tent pole’, Khot skam- make,
form’ (< *‘prop up’), OInd skabhnati ‘supports, fixes’.
Distribution suggests considerable IE antiquity.
*iem- ‘hold’, [cf. IEW 505 (*jem-)]. Av yam- ‘hold’, OInd
— 270
HONOR
yam- ‘hold, sustain, offer, grant’, TochA yom- ‘achieve, obtain;
reach’, TochB yam- ‘achieve, obtain; reach’ (< *‘come to hold’
or the like), yam- ‘do, commit, make, effect’ (< *iom- originally
an iterative-intensive of ‘achieve, obtain’). At least a word of
the east of the IE world.
See also Bind; Wagon. [M.N., D.Q.A.J
HOLLOW see CAVITY
HONEY
*m6lit (gen *mlit6s) ‘honey’. [IEW 723-724 (*melit-)\
Wat 41 ( *melit-)\ GI 517 ( *mel-i-t h -)\ Buck 5.84; BK 535
( *mal-/*mdl-)\. OIr mil ‘honey’, Weis mel ‘honey’, Lat mel
‘honey’, OE mildeaw ‘mildew’ (< *‘sweet sap’)(> NE mildew),
milisc ‘honey-sweet’, Goth milip ‘honey’. Alb blete (<
*melltih a ) ‘honey-bee’, Grk geXi ‘honey’, /leXiocrot (< melltih a )
‘honey-bee’, Arm melr ‘honey’, melui(< *meluio-) ‘bee’, Hit
militt- (perhaps intended for *malit) ‘honey’, Luv mallit-
‘honey’, Iranian fieXixiov ‘a kind of Scythian drink’. The
distribution indicates PIE status. The clearest and fullest of
the attestations in the six stocks where it is found are in Greek.
Here, a neuter noun for the substance (geXi), a derivative
noun fieXiooa(< melltih a ) ‘honey-bee’, and a zero-grade verb
pXiTTco (< *mlit-ie/o -) ‘rob a hive’, i.e , ‘gather honey’, preserve
evidence of an ablauting athematic stem. Moreover, the same
neuter noun is preserved in Germanic and Anatolian. Lat mel
(gen. mellis ) probably represents an early Italic syncopation
of the same form, i.e., < *melid while OIr mil (gen. melo ) is
an i-stem, analogically refashioned after the u-stem ‘mead’.
Although sometimes claimed to be a western innovation, its
eastern appearance in Armenian and Iranian and especially
the rare, ablauting athematic neuter root assure this word of
PIE antiquity.
*m6dhu ‘mead’. [/EW707 ( *medhu)\ Wat 39 ( *medhu-)\
Gl 517 ( *med h u-)\ Buck 5.84; BK 543 ( *mad w -/*m9d w -)] .
OIr mid ‘mead’, Weis medd ‘mead’ (< Proto-Celtic medu )
and OIr medb ‘intoxicated’, Weis meddw ‘intoxicated’ (<
Proto-Celtic *medhgo-), ON mjpdr 1 mead’, OE meodo ‘mead’
(> NE mead), OHG metu ‘mead’, OPrus meddo ‘honey’, Lith
medus ‘honey’, Latv medus ‘honey, mead’, OCS medd' honey,
wine’, Grk ge9v ‘wine’, Av madu- ‘berry wine’, Oss myd
‘honey’, Sogd mdw' wine’, Olnd madhu ‘honey, wine’, TochB
mit ‘honey’. Gothic may be assumed here as well from
Byzantine glossary notices of medo and Lith midus ‘mead’, a
loanword from Germanic. Tocharian offers a related word,
mot ‘alcoholic beverage’ (= Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit sura )
which probably reflects a vjddhied *medhuom or the like
although some regard this (with some phonological
difficulties) as a borrowing from an Iranian maSu. Cf. also
TochB kuni-mot ‘grape-alcohol’. Although *medhu has been
glossed as ‘honey’, the sense of ‘mead’ is recoverable from six
stocks, three of which, Celtic, Germanic and Baltic, preserve
the original meaning. In three other more centrally located
stocks (Baltic, Slavic, Indie) and Tocharian the innovation of
synecdoche, the process of naming an ingredient from its
product, has caused the word to mean ‘honey’. In three stocks
(late Slavic, Greek, and Indo-lranian) the term has come to
mean another type of alcoholic beverage by a common
semantic association. In addition, Celtic use of the thematic
adjective to mean ‘intoxicated’ points to an onginal intoxicant
rather than a sweetener. The original meaning ‘mead’ is also
clear from the contrast with *melit ‘honey’.
*ki)h a 6nks (gen. *k$h a i}k6s ) ‘honey-colored, golden’.
[IEW 564 ( *k e nako-), Wat 29 ( *kenako -); Buck 5.84; BK
251 ( *k[ h ]un y -/*k[ h jony-)\ . Lat (pi.) canicae ‘bran’, OPrus
cucan (a mishearing or miswriting for *cuncan ) ‘brown’, Grk
KVT)Kog (Doric Kvaxog) pale yellow’, Kvfjicog safflower 1=
Carthamus tinctorius]' , Olnd kanaka- (< *konb a gko-) ‘gold’,
kaiicana- ‘gold’. For all of these the immediate ancestor is
*knh a kos with dissimilatory loss of the second *-n~. From
*kph a onkos: ON hunang ‘honey’, OE hunig ‘honey’ (> NE
honey), OHG honag ~ honang 1 honey’ with Old English and
Old High German [in part] showing dissimilatory loss of the
second *-n-), TochB kronkse ‘bee’ (either < *kph a onkon which
is morphologically expected, i.e., ‘(s)he of the honey’, though
phonologically a little difficult, or *kyh a onkuken- which is
phonologically regular and might be a diminutive, i.e., ‘little
one of the honey’ or ‘little golden one’ — in any case with
dissimilation of *-n.. .n- to *-r...n-). From *kdnh a pkos with a
different full-grade is Olnd kanaka- ‘gold’. A derivative of
*kdh a f ‘wax, honey-comb’, built on the n-stem derivative
*kfr a n-n- with metathesis to *kph a -n-.
See also Bee; Ferment; Sacred Drink; Wax
[M.E.H., D.Q.A.]
HONOR
*dekesr ‘honor’. [IEW 189-190 ( *deik -); Wat 10-11
( *dek -); GI 1 10 ( *feK h -), BK 131 (VaW'7-/*('3/c/'V-)|. OIr
deck ‘best’, Lat decus ‘grace, dignity, honor’, decent is fitting’,
dignus ‘worthy’, doceo ‘make clear, instruct, teach’ (< *‘let
someone accept something’), Grk SeKogai ~ dexogai ‘take,
accept; receive well or graciously’, deiKvvgevog ‘paying
homage’. Arm tasanem (aorist tesi ) see’, Av dasama-
‘deference, respect, veneration’, dasa- ‘goods, possessions’,
dasaOavant- ‘rich’, Khot das- (< *das-ya-) ‘receive, get
(possession), receive with honor’, dasta- rich in, happy with’,
Olnd dasasyatE serves, obliges, favors’, dasnotE serves, obliges,
favors’. The distribution assures PIE antiquity for this word.
Various derivatives mean ‘right’ (as the favorable side), thus
*deRs-(i)-nos in Lith desinas ‘right’, OCS desnu ‘right’, Av
dasina- ‘right, dexterous; southern’ (given an orientation to
the rising sun, the south is to one’s right), Olnd daksina-
right, dexterous; southern’; *deks-(i)-uos in Gaul Dexsiva
dea ‘± favorable goddess’, Goth taihswa ‘right’, Myc de-ki-si-
wo ‘right’; *deEs-(i)-teros in Lat dexter ‘right’, Alb djathte
‘right’, Grk de^irepog ‘right’; *deksos in OIr dess ‘nght; south’.
The semantic development of ‘favorable’ > ‘right’ must be at
least of late PIE age. From *dek- ‘take, accept’.
See also Cosmology; Direction; Right; Sacrifice; Worship.
IE.C.P, D.Q.A.]
271
HOOF
HOOF
*Eoph 26 s ‘hoof’. [1EW 530 ( *kapho-)\ Wat 27
( *kap(h)o-)\ Gl 28 (*Kop h o-)]. ON hofr 1 hoof, OH hofhoof’
(> NE hoof), OHG huof ‘hoof’ (Germanic with lengthened
grade), Rus kopyto ‘hoof’ (with a centum development of
*£-, perhaps influenced by some more western IE language),
Av safa - ‘horse’s hoof’, Olnd sapha- ‘hoof, claw’. Attestations
are sufficiently widespread geographically to assure PIE status.
See also Anatomy; Foot; Horse. [D.Q.A.]
HOOK
*ko(n)gos ‘hook’. [IEW 537-538 ( *keg-)\ Wat 27
( *keg-)\ GI 714; Buck 12.75]. Mir alchaing 1 weapon rack’,
ON haki ‘hook’, OE hoc ‘hook’ (> NE hook), haca ‘bolt, lock’,
OHG hako ‘hook’, ?Lith kenge ‘hook’ (borrowing < MLG
henge ‘hook for hanging something’?), Rus kogotl 1 claw’, Hit
kagas ‘tooth’. Widespread and old in IE. GI suggest that it
may be borrowed from Sumerian gag ‘peg’.
*kleh a yis ‘bolt, bar; (wooden) hook’. [ IEW 604 ( *kleu-)\
GI 771 ( *k h laHw -)]. Lat clavis 1 key, bolt’, Grk icXeiq (Homeric
KXrflq) ‘bar, bolt; catch or hook passed through the door from
the outside to catch the strap attached to the bar on the inside;
key; hook or tongue of a clasp’, kXeico (< *kleh a uie/o -) ‘close’.
Compare also Olr do ‘nail’, MWels do ‘bolt’, Lat davus ‘nail,
spike’, clava (< *kleh a go/eh a - ) ‘knotty branch, rough stick,
club’, Lat claudo ‘close’. Also related in some way would be
OCS kljucl ‘hook, key’. The exact agreement of Latin and
Greek has sometimes been attributed to borrowing (from
Greek to Latin) but the existence of related words in Latin
(and Celtic) makes the hypothesis of borrowing unnecessary.
Admittedly the notion of ‘key’ in anything approaching its
modern sense must clearly be an independent development
in both languages from the more original notion of ‘bar, bolt;
hook’. GI suggest a relation with Semitic, e.g., Akkadian kalu
‘restrain, detain’, Hebrew kala’ ‘lock’ but the phonetic
resemblance is not overly great.
*h a 6nkos (gen. *h^nkos ) ‘something bent, hook’. [ IEW
45-46 ( *anko-)\ Wat 3 ( *ank-)\ GI 626 ( *Hank h -)-, Buck 9.14,
12.75], Olr ecath ‘fishhook’, Weis angad ‘grip’, Lat uncus
‘hook, barb’, ancus ‘one with a crooked arm’, ON angi ‘point’,
OE anga ‘point’, OHG ango ‘fishhook’, Lith anka ‘knot’, OCS
gkotl ‘hook’, Grk oyicog ‘barb (of an arrow)’, Av aka-
(< *h a nk-o-) ‘hook’, Olnd anka - ‘curve, hook’ (in the dual:
‘part of a chariot’). Widespread and old in IE. A root noun
derived from *h a enk- ‘bend’ seen in Olnd ancati ‘bends’.
Related are Grk dyKog ‘valley’, Olnd anka- ‘curve, bend’,
TochA ancal (< *h a onk-el-o -) ‘bow’. The underlying referent
would appear to be anything with a hook-like shape, including
a barb. Fishhooks are known in Europe at least since the
Mesolithic period where they have been found fashioned from
the rib bones of red deer.
See also Tool. [D.Q.A.]
HOOPOE
*hiepop~ *hjopop ‘hoopoe’. [1EW325 {*epop~ *opop)\
Gl 459 (*e/op h op h -)). Lat upupa ‘hoopoe’, NLG hupphupp
‘hoopoe’, Lith puputis ‘hoopoe’, Latv pupulas ‘hoopoe’, Pol
hupek ‘hoopoe’, Grk enoy ‘hoopoe’, Arm popop ‘hoopoe’,
NPers pupu. Though all the various forms are similar, it is
likely that the word for ‘hoopoe’ is entirely onomatopoeic
since those languages which show a sound shift do not exhibit
it for this term. Further, in unrelated Georgian, we have opopi
‘hoopoe’ and in Turkic hupup ‘hoopoe’. These terms are built
on the hoopoe’s cry: hoo-hoo-hoop, or, as Aristophanes had
it: £jto7toi 7107107107107 ^ 07107107101 . The bird is considered, along
with the stork, a devoted child who cares for his aged parents
which is reflected in Olnd putra-putra- ‘hoopoe’ but literally
‘son-son’ after its acknowledged love of progeny and parents.
Where its name is not derived from its cry or paternal
associations, it may be called a ‘dung bird’ from its feeding
custom, e.g., French coq puant, NHG stinkhahn.
The hoopoe is notable for its dramatic crest and for its
call. Although it is frequently included in myths and legends,
references tend to be peripheral.
See also Birds. [j.A.C.G.]
HORN
The several PIE words for ‘horn’ are based on a root *ker-
‘horn’. [/EW574-576 ( *ker-)\ Wat 29 ( *ker-)\ GI 404 ( *k\r-
w/n-)\ Buck 4.17; BK 200 (*tj[ h ]ir-/*td[ h ]er)]. The denvative
*kii^2S, as well as meaning ‘horn’, is the basis for several
words for ‘head’.
*kfnom ‘horn’. Gaul icapwl; ‘trumpet’, Galatian
(Hesychius) Kapvov ‘trumpet’, Weis cam ‘hoof’, Lat cornum
~ cornu ‘horn’, ON horn ‘horn’, OE horn ‘horn’ (> NE hom),
OHG hom ‘horn’, Goth haum ‘hom’, Latv sima ‘roedeer’,
ORus sima ‘roedeer’ (Balto-Slavic < *kyneh a -), Grk Kepvai
(pi.) ‘vertebral processes’ (with new full-grade), Kpayycov
‘shrimp’ (< *‘the horned-shaped’ and a derivative of the
*kfn-go- ‘having a horn’ that, nominalized by retracting the
accent, is reflected in Olnd sfnga- ‘horn’), Luv zarwani(ya)-
‘of horn’, HierLuv zumid ‘horn’ (with unexplained -u- rather
than expected *-a~), Olnd sfnga- horn’, sarabha - ‘(a kind of)
deer’ (< *kembho- with new full grade). Cf. also OHG hrind
‘cow’ ( <*krenteh a - ‘the homed one’ [as opposed to a horse]).
Widespread and old in IE.
*k 6 rl} 2 (s) ‘horn’. From * kerb 2 we have Myc ke-ra horn
(material)’, ke-ra-jo ‘made of horn’. Hit kara war ‘horn’; from
*kerfr2S we have: Grk Kepccg ‘horn’, xepaog ‘having horns’,
(Hesychius) Kapa (< *kfh 2 seh a -) ‘cow; tame goat’, TochB
karse ‘stag’ (< *kfh 2 Sd- ‘horned one’). Not so widespread but
clearly old in IE. See also the next word.
*k6r^2sy ‘horn’. The underlying noun appears nowhere
but it has left its trace in numerous derivatives: Lat crabro (<
*klh 2 sro-on - ) ‘hornet’, NDutch horzel ‘hornet’, Lith sirslys
‘hornet’, sirsud ‘hornet’, OCS sirseni ‘hornet’ (of the hornet’
words, all save Latin show some kind of dissimilation,
including dissimilatory loss, of the sequence *r...r), Myc -ka-
ra-o[r] ‘-horned’, TochA kror ‘crescent (i.e., hom) of the
moon’, TochB krorlya ‘horn’ (Toch < *kfh 2 sr-u(-ieh a )-).
— 272
HORSE
‘X-
*
Widespread and old in IE.
*K dru ‘horn’. Again the underlying noun appears nowhere
but it has left its trace in numerous derivatives: Weis carw
‘stag’, Lat cervus ‘stag’, cervix ‘nape of the neck’, ON hjprtr
‘stag’, OE heorot ‘stag’ (> NE hart), OHG hiruz ‘stag’ (Gmc <
*kerudo~), ON hrutr (with new lengthened grade) ‘ram’,
OPrus sirwis ‘roebuck’, curwis ‘ox’, Lith karve ‘cow’, Rus
korova ‘cow’ (it is noteworthy that these Balto-Slavic forms
for cattle show a centum development of *k-, perhaps under
the influence of some western variety of IE), Grk KopvSoq
‘(crested) lark’, Kopv(pr\ ‘crest (of mountain or horse)’,
KopvKTd) ‘butt with horns’, diKpooq (< *dui-krou-io- ) ‘forked,
cleft’, Av srv- ~ srva- ‘horn; claw, talon’, Ashkun so (< Proto-
Indo-lranian *sarva- = Lat cervus ) ‘mountain goat/markhor’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*Kem- ‘hornless’. \1EW 556 ( *kem-)\ Wat 29 (*kem-)[.
ON hind ‘hind’, OE hind ‘hind’ (> NE hind), OHG hinta ‘hind’,
OPrus camstian ‘sheep’, camnet ‘horse’, Lith smiilas ‘hornless’,
smulis ‘ox without a horn’, smule ‘cow without a hom’, kumele
‘mare’, OCS konl ‘horse’, Rus konl ‘horse’, komonl ‘horse’ (<
*komnio- and *komon- respectively, meaning ‘hornless one’
[as opposed to cattle]), komo/y/ ‘hornless’, Grk Kepaq ‘young
deer’, OInd sama- ‘hornless’. Old Prussian and Slavic
presuppose a non-palatal *k, rather than *k. Widespread and
old in IE. A noteworthy phenomenon in several stocks, most
clearly in Slavic, is the replacement of the original words for
‘cow’ and ‘horse’ by ‘horned’ and ‘hornless’ respectively.
Horn or antler was widely used throughout Eurasia in the
manufacture of tools, e.g., harpoons, mattocks, and as a
hafting mechanism for stone or metal tools. It was also
employed as a musical instrument where horns fashioned
from bronze begin to appear by the late Bronze Age,
particularly in northwest Europe. These latter may have been
modeled on earlier prototypes made from the horns of either
the aurochs or the domestic cow. The hom was also widely
employed as a drinking vessel.
The semantic range of PIE *kem- ‘hornless’ in the various
IE stocks is quite large and is employed to distinguish animals
which would not naturally have horns, e.g., horses, from
horned animals, and also the hornless varieties of otherwise
horned animals. The latter begin to occur quite early. For
example, hornless ewes are already present by 7000 BC in
Iran and they also appear in Europe at an early date while
hornless rams are not found until the Middle Ages.
See also Anatomy; Deer; Goat; Head; Sheep. [D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Golab, Z. (1985) Slavic komonl and kon’i ‘equus’: An attempt at
etymology against the background of the history of domestication.
JIES 13, 415-443.
Nussbaum, A. J. (1986) Head and Hom in Indo-European. Berlin
and New York, de Gruyter.
HORNBEAM
*(s)greh a b(h)~ ‘hornbeam ( Carpinus betula)'. [ IEW 404
( *greb(h)o-s)\ GI 535-537 ( *(s)k’rob h o-)\ Fried 99-106],
Umb Grabovius ‘oak-god’, OPrus wosi-grabis ‘spindle-tree’,
Lith skroblas ‘hornbeam’, Latv skabarde ‘hornbeam’, Rus grab
‘hornbeam’, Pol grab ‘hornbeam’, SC grab ‘hornbeam’, Alb
shkoze ‘hornbeam, oak’, NGrk ypccpovva ‘hornbeam
(loanword?)’. Cf. Lat carpinus ‘hornbeam’ with unexpected
voiceless consonants and metathesis of vowel and -r-, perhaps
the result of some sort of taboo deformation or the result of
borrowing from another IE group where PIE voiced stops
had become voiceless.
The hornbeam is attested in Baltic, Albanian and above all
in several of each of the three substocks of Slavic. In Greek,
like Albanian, IE *(s)greh a b(h)- ‘hornbeam (white beech)’
shifted to ‘oak’ (just as the IE ‘beech’ term shifted to ‘oak’).
Italic, here Umbrian, also indicates or at least strongly suggests
a shift to ‘oak’; the name and derived epithets for an ‘oak god’
occur on one Iguvine tablet in association with Jupiter. The
shift to ‘oak’ in the three southern dialects, Albanian, Greek
and Latin, is not well explained as the distribution of the
pollen of Carpinus betulus during the period c 4000-2000
BC was largely concentrated in the region of these languages,
i.e., all of peninsular Italy, the Balkans and Greece, as well as
in eastern Europe, the presumed homeland of the Balts and
Slavs. The shift to ‘oak’ and/or ‘beech’ in the three southern
stocks may have been motivated metonymically — the
hornbeam grows as understory to both trees — and
metaphorically, in light of its gray bark and sensitivity to
drought. The hornbeam term is phonologically problematic,
involving an initial *g- (or *k- or *sk -) and a final p or
aspirated bh\ such variation might reflect its use in ritual.
During the Neolithic and Bronze Age, the hornbeam was
found from Italy and Greece, across east Central Europe and
the Baltic to the Ukraine and the Caucasus and south into
Anatolia. Sometimes rising to twenty meters, the hornbeam
produces an excellent harvest of nutritious nuts every two
years and its hard, elastic wood is ideal for weapons, armor
and some tools.
See also Trees. [PE]
HORNET
*kfh2sro-(hx)on- ‘hornet’. [IEW 576 ( *kfs-en-)\ Gl 453
(^fs-en-); BK 200 ( *d( h ]ir-/*d[ b ler)\ . Lat crabro ‘hornet’,
NDutch horzel ‘hornet’, OPrus sirsilis ‘hornet’, Lith sirse
‘hornet’, sirslys ‘hornet’, sirsuo ‘hornet’, Latv sirsis ‘hornet’,
OCS slrsenl ‘hornet’, Bulg sturseE hornet’ (all save Latin show
some kind of dissimilation, including dissimilatory loss, of
the sequence *r...r). Cf. OE hymet(u) ~ humitu ‘hornet’ (>
NE hornet), OHG humuz 1 hornet’ (< Proto-Gmc *hurzni/a/
ut-). A derivative of *kerl} 2 S- ‘horn’, either as *‘having
antennae’ (antennae = horns) or, more probably, * ‘having a
stinger’ (stinger = horn).
See also Horn; Insects; Wasp. JD.Q.A.]
HORSE
*hi6lb}OS horse (Equus caballusY . [IEW 301 (*ekuo-s)\
— 273 —
HORSE
Horse a. The distribution of the horse in the fourth-third millennia
BC. The horse may have been more widespread in northern and
central Europe than the broken distribution indicates.
Wat 16 ( *ekwo -); GI 463 ( *ek h wos ); Buck 3.41]. OIr ech
‘horse’, Weis ebol ‘colt’, Gaul epo- ‘horse’, equos (name of a
month), OLat equos ‘horse’, Lat equ us ‘horse’, Venetic (acc.)
ekvon ‘horse’, ON jor 1 horse’, OE eoh ‘horse’, Goth ailva-tundi
‘brambles’ (= ‘horse-thorn’), OPrus aswinan ‘horse-milk’, Lith
as vienis ‘stallion’, Myc i-qo ‘horse’, Grk innog ‘horse’, Arm es
‘horse’, HierLuv azu(wa) ‘horse’, Lycian esbe- ‘horse’, Av aspa-
‘horse’, OPers asa- ‘horse’, Sogd ’sp ‘horse’, Oss jaefs ‘horse’,
OInd asva- ‘horse’, TochA yuk ‘horse’, TochB yakwe ‘horse’.
Cf. the derivative *hiekuo-t-in Lat eques (gen. equitis) ‘rider’,
Grk innoxriq ‘rider’. Practically universal (lacking only in Slavic
and Albanian), it is surely old in IE. This word has been
connected with the PIE word for ‘swift’ (cf. the formula in
Grk dtKeeg innoi ‘swift horses’, Av asu.aspa- ‘owning swift
horses’, OInd asvah asavah ‘swift horses’). Thus *hjekuos
would have been originally ‘the swift one’ or the like. However,
the word for ‘swift’ always shows *ok~, suggesting an original
0- coloring laryngeal, i.e., *hieh 3 k- or the like.
The Greek form for ‘horse’ has often been regarded as a
loan word from an otherwise unattested IE language of the
Mediterranean region since the rough breathing in iKKoq is
unexplained, as also i instead of the expected *e, and the
gemination of the labial stops (-Ttn-, or, in some dialects, the
velar stops, e.g., i'KKog ‘horse’). The expected Greek form is
generally taken to be *enog\ however, as the Mycenaean form
1- qo (/ikk w os/) can be explained as a distinctly Mycenaean
development (e.g., *e > i in Mycenaean in the vicinity of a
labial), there is no reason to look outside of Greece for the
origins of the Greek term for ‘horse’.
The Anatolian forms for ‘horse’ with sibilants, e.g., HierLuv
azu(wa) ‘horse’, Lycian esbe ‘horse’ or the Indo-Aryan
(Mitanni) forms have been sometimes seen as underlying the
words for ‘horse’ found among a number of the non-IE
languages of Anatolia and the Near East, e.g., Human essi,
Akkadian sisu , Ugarit ssw, Abkhaz acy and others. This is
generally seen in the context of the spread of the horse and
its name throughout the region by IE tribes.
*hi6k\feh a - ‘mare’. [/EW301 ( *ekuo-s)\ Buck 3.44], Lat
equa ‘mare’, Lith esva ~ asva ‘mare’, Av aspa ‘mare’, OInd
asva- ‘mare’. A regular feminine derivative, itself of PIE date,
of the previous word.
*m£rkos horse ( Equus caballus)' and ?wild horse ( Equus
przewalskii or gmeliniy. [ IEW 700 ( *marko-)\ Wat 38
( *marko-)\ GI 472 ( *mark h o-)\ Buck 3.41], OIr marc ‘horse’,
Weis march ‘horse’, Gaul Marco- ‘horse’, ON marr ‘horse’,
OE mearh ‘horse’, OHG marah ‘horse’. In Germanic there is a
derived feminine *markih a - (cf. Buck 3.44) in ON men ‘mare’,
OE miere ‘mare’ (> NE mare), OHG meriha ‘mare’. At least a
word of the western region of the IE world. If the supposition
that in animal names a derived feminine in *-eh a - denotes a
domestic animal and a derived feminine in *-ih a - denotes a
wild animal (cf. *u\k w ih a - ‘she-wolf’), it may be the case that
in the western IE dialects showing *markos its meaning in
those stocks was ‘wild horse’ and it was opposed to *h iekuos
‘domesticated horse’. Beyond the certain Celtic and Germanic
cognates it has been suggested that this putative PIE *markos
is related to a series of words for ‘horse’ that extend eastward,
in non-IE languages, all the way to the Yellow Sea. Thus we
have Mongol morin, Chinese ma, Korean mal , Burmese mrau.
Opinion is divided as to whether, if the PIE word belongs
with the others, the PIE word is a borrowing from, say, pre-
Mongol (which would also be the source of the Chinese word
and that in turn the source of the Korean and Burmese) or
the Mongol, Chinese, etc., words are ultimately borrowed
from PIE. Under either borrowing scenario *markos would
have had to have been much more widespread in PIE than its
Celtic and Germanic reflexes would suggest.
*gh6jos ‘horse ( Equus caballus)'. [IEW 424 ( *ghei-)\ GI
441; Buck 3.41], Arm ji ‘horse’, OInd haya- ‘horse’. A
derivative of *ghei- ‘impels, stimulates, drives’. An innovation
of the center and east of the IE world.
??*mendios horse’. [GI 474-475], Romanian (< Dacian)
minz ‘colt’, Thracian Me^qvai (name of horse-riding divinity),
Illyrian mandos ‘small horse’, Messapic Iuppiter Menzanas
(name of divinity to whom horses were sacrificed), Alb mez
‘foal’. Cf. Lat mannus ‘small horse’.
Distribution of Wild Horses
The horse ( Equus caballus) was nearly ubiquitous in
Eurasia during the Pleistocene and is commonly divided into
two subspecies: the tarpan ( Equus ferns ferns or gmelini) and
the taki or Przewalski horse ( Equus ferns przewalskii). The
former was well known on the western steppe, particularly
in the Ukraine, and because of its changing color during the
winter, it has been identified with the ‘white’ horses that Hero-
dotus describes north of the Black Sea. The tarpan was hunted
to extinction in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the
last one dying in a zoo in 1918, although reconstituted
— 274 —
HORSE
tarpans, where horses have been specially bred to reflect the
physical characteristics of the wild tarpan, do exist. It should
be noted that there are those who argue that the tarpan is not
a true sub-species but rather the result of very early feral
horses. The Przewalski horse, somewhat larger than the
tarpan, dominated the more eastern steppe in Asia, especially
Mongolia, but has been virtually hunted to extinction in the
wild although they survive in the hundreds in zoos.
Although the horse was widely hunted in the Pleistocene,
after the Ice Age it became much more restricted in its
distribution, a fact that weighs considerably both in the study
of its domestication and in discussions of the IE homeland.
In general, Europe and western Asia can be divided into three
main areas with regard to the distribution of the 'horse. In
some regions, it appears to have been altogether absent or, at
least, does not appear in the faunal records of early Neolithic
sites. From west to east, these areas would include Ireland,
peninsular Italy, Greece, western Anatolia, the Near East, and
India. In all these regions the earliest horses appear to arrive
from somewhere else, usually after 4000 BC (western Anatolia)
or later (c 2500-2000 BC in Ireland, Italy, Greece, and India
[claims of earlier horses in India and Baluchistan have never
been fully substantiated!). Some of these regions, however,
were not devoid of equids since the ‘wild ass’ ( Equus
hydruntinus) did exist from Iberia across southern Europe
and on into Anatolia although it probably became extinct in
most of these regions by c 3000 BC.
A second region is characterized by the occasional presence
of horses, in all cases presumably wild and hunted, usually
in numbers that suggest marginal exploitation, i.e., 3% or
less of the animal remains. This region comprises Iberia,
Britain, northern Europe (the horse was extensively hunted
here in the Mesolithic), and Danubian Europe (of the over
5000 bones recovered from Linear Ware sites in central
Germany, only seventeen belong to horse) eastwards to the
western Ukraine (early Tripolye culture). Wild horse remains
have been recovered from some early Neolithic sites of
Anatolia but by the fourth millennium their remains appear
so far to have been confined to northern Anatolia (they do
not appear at Troy until the second millennium BC). Generally,
the quantity of horse remains recovered from sites falls off as
one moves from east to west.
The third region of horse exploitation is the steppe and
forest steppe of the Ukraine, southern Russia and Kazakhstan
where the horse flourished in large numbers after the Ice Age.
They are found to be particularly abundant in the Sredny
Stog and Yamna settlements and contemporary sites in the
south Russian and Kazakh steppe. On some sites, such as
Dereivka, they were the most numerous mammals found and
although the Yamna site of Mikhaylovka had greater numbers
of ovicaprids and cattle, there were still the remains of over
650 horses on this site. On some settlements, they constitute
almost the entire faunal assemblage, e.g., Khutor Repin, and
the site of Botai southeast of the Urals in northern Kazakhstan
has yielded horse bones in the hundreds of thousands.
Domestication of the Horse
Distinguishing between wild horses and domesticated
horses and the various stages in between is exceedingly
difficult as horses did not undergo the degree of morphological
change experienced by the other livestock upon
domestication. One of the primary prehistoric sites of Europe
relevant to the entire question of horse domestication is that
of Dereivka, a settlement of the Sredny Stog culture in the
Ukraine, which in the “Kurgan solution” to the IE homeland
problem has often been portrayed as an almost archetypal
settlement of the earliest Indo-Europeans. Initial comparisons
of the skeletal remains of a stallion from Dereivka with that
of the tarpan, Przewalski horse, and what are presumed to be
early domesticated horses led to the conclusion that the
Dereivka stallion more closely resembled the domestic than
the wild horse but such a proposition has been disputed on
the grounds that we have a very imperfect knowledge of the
range of variability among wild horses (the comparative tarpan
sample comprised only two specimens). Another approach
to distinguishing wild from domestic horses is the age-
slaughter pattern since this is expected to differ between horses
that have been simply hunted against domesticated horse,
especially when they have been bred for other uses such as
riding or even for their meat. Again the results have been
contradictory with some claiming that the horses from
Dereivka reflected the pattern of horse-keeping among
Mongolians while others have argued that it could be better
explained by hunting though possibly assisted by horse-
mounted hunters.
Other approaches to determining horse domestication are
technological. At Dereivka and other sites of the Sredny Stog
and Yamna cultures, perforated pieces of antler have been
recovered that have been interpreted as cheek-pieces (or
— 275 —
HORSE
psalia ), devices for securing the bit in the horses mouth. The
presence of horse -bits presumes horse-riding and it has been
argued that it would be impossible to secure horses alive in
the wild or to control and herd them without also being able
to ride them. But it has also been argued that the objects
interpreted as cheek-pieces may not have served in that
capacity. There is no unequivocal association of a pair of such
devices, for example, with horse remains (although two were
found at Dereivka) nor do we find such devices after these
Copper Age cultures for at least a millennium or more when
indisputable metal cheek pieces appear in the Bronze Age.
Nevertheless, experiments have been conducted that have
demonstrated such antler objects could have served as cheek-
pieces although that need not have been their intended
function.
One further line of evidence for the use of the bit has been
suggested by the analysis of bit-wear on the horse’s teeth since
a ridden horse with a bit in its mouth may cast off the bit
from the soft tissue where it will then ride against the horse’s
premolars and leave characteristic marks on the enamel. Such
marks have been discovered on the stallion from Dereivka
and other sites of the steppe region that suggest at least some
of the horses were ridden although there is no evidence that
all were ridden. The Dereivka stallion, upon which so much
evidence for the earliest horse domestication rests, has been
variously seen (by the excavators and others) to have been
part of a cult deposition where the head and forelegs (a “head
and hooves” offering) were associated with similar remains
from two dogs, or, as others have suggested, a later horse
skull was deposited among the remains of earlier kitchen
debris. While there is a series of radiocarbon dates that
indicates that Dereivka was occupied c 4200-3700 BC, a
sample from the stallion’s skull dated to c 2900 BC. This date
offers little comfort to either side as it is too late for the Sredny
Stog culture but too early to be associated with a later Bronze
Age intrusion.
It is clear then that the precise date of the origin of horse-
keeping and riding is still disputed. What is not at issue is
the fact that in the southern Ukraine, south Russia and
Kazakhstan there was intense and selective exploitation of
the horse from at least c 4500 BC onwards. Whether it was
based on selective breeding of horses, more generalized
keeping, a combination of the two, or something far less
structured remains problematic. So also does the assignment
of the domestic horse to a series of late Neolithic or Copper
Age cultures in northern and central Europe. It has been
suggested that while horse remains are minimal on early
Neolithic sites of the region, their numbers are such on some
of the later Neolithic settlements to indicate that they may
have been domesticated. The Altheim culture (c 3600 BC),
Bemburg culture and some late sites of the TRB culture have
been cited but the evidence has not been scrutinized in such
a way to permit solid conclusions. The rise in horse remains
on later Neolithic sites has also been attributed to climatic
change that favored the expansion of wild horses at the time.
The current model of a steppe origin for horse domes-
tication makes sense with respect to the abundance of the
horse remains encountered in this region, the unequivocal
development of horse-riding in this region in later prehistoric
times, and the subsequent appearance of the horse in regions
adjacent to the steppe region, e g., the earliest domestic horses
to the south appear first in the Caucasus and then eastern
Anatolia while those in Central Asia appear to derive from
the steppelands to the north. But analysis of horse remains
from central European and north European sites of the later
Neolithic and subsequent periods also suggests that there are
marked differences between the steppe horses and those of
other parts of Europe and one cannot speak of a replacement
of the native European horses by steppe horses. In western
Europe, for example, where the domestic horse appears by c
2500 BC in contexts of the Beaker culture, there is great
variation in the size and presumably origin of horses from
Ireland to Iberia. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that
the spread of the domestic horse entailed not only the
movement of the horses but, in some or many instances,
merely the spread of the idea of horse domestication. Analysis
of horse remains, for example, from Sweden suggests that
the domestic horses of the Bronze Age here were derived
directly from the native horses following the Ice Age and
similar claims can be made for early domestic horses in central
Europe. Although some have sought distant eastern links for
*markos ‘horse’, which in Indo-European is confined to the
northwest stocks (Celtic and Germanic), it is difficult to see
how one can match the western distribution of the IE cognates
with the eastern distribution of its putatively non-IE
borrowings or loans. The only major east to west movement
of horses, after their initial domestication, was in the Iron
Age where we have steppe horses which were introduced into
the Carpathian basin by the Scythians. These were
subsequently brought to Austria and Italy by exchange. At a
withers height of over 136 cm, they were larger than the native
Celtic horses of the time (126 cm) and so it is difficult to see
how an “eastern” name would have been introduced into
western Europe and assigned to a different variety of native
horse. It seems more likely that such an isogloss could be
better explained as the name of the local wild horses of western
Europe or the name applied to the native domesticates of this
same region.
Exploitation of the Horse
Irrespective of where one finds remains of Neolithic horses,
it is clear that the horse was exploited primarily for its meat,
and on some sites it constituted the primary, sometimes
virtually the exclusive, source of meat. Prohibitions against
eating horse-flesh do not seem to appear until the Bronze
Age. At some time over the period c 4500-2000 BC, the use
of the horse as a means of transport and for the management
of herds was also developed. It is often presumed that the
small size of the steppe horses, generally about 136 cm at the
withers, would have left them unsuited to pulling the type of
— 276 —
HORSE
I'
i
!;
$
heavy carts or wagons with disc wheels that we find in the
Copper Age and it would not be until the invention of the
lighter spoked-wheeled chariot that the horse became an
effective draft animal. Another limiting factor in so far as the
employment of horses for draft was the harnessing
mechanisms that we find employed across at least the later
Europeans which appeared to be designed to suit the physique
of an ox rather than that of a horse, and were, consequently,
extremely inefficient. Other than the possible carrying or
pulling of loads (cf. the travois of the American Indian), the
primary role of the horse in transportation was presumably
riding.
It has long been regarded impossible to reconstruct to PIE
a word for ‘ride a horse’ as we generally encounter new
formations, themselves built on the word for ‘horse’, in the
various IE stocks, e g., Gaul marcosior‘1 would like to ride’
from *markos , and a series of words rebuilt on *hiekuos
‘horse’, e g., Lat equitare ‘to ride’, Grk innevm ‘ride a horse’,
OInd asvayati ‘rides a horse’. But Wolfgang Meid has suggested
that *hiekqo-t- ‘rider’, which is attested in Lat eques (gen.
equitis) and Grk iKKOxqq, may point to a word of some
antiquity.
The linguistic evidence aside, the existence of horse-riding
among the early Indo-Europeans has been challenged as a
comparatively late phenomenon as opposed to the use of the
horse in pulling the light, spoke-wheeled chariot, which was
developed in the centuries before 2000 BC and which
accompanies much of the earliest equestrian evidence for the
Indo-Europeans, specifically the Mycenaeans, Hittites, (lndo-
Aryan element in) Mitanni, Iranian and Indo-Aryan.
Nevertheless, there are also clear instances of horse-riding as
well and it is exceedingly difficult to imagine a system of horse
domestication that did not first involve the riding of horses
in order to control herds. Among the Hittites the horse is
most closely associated with the god Pirwa who is both
described and, in the form of statues or on seals, depicted as
riding a horse. Indie tradition also offers early evidence for
horse riding, e.g., in the Rgvedai 1.162,17) ahorse is goaded
forward with whips and heels, certainly implying that it is
ridden, and the horse’s saddle is mentioned in RV 5.61,2-3.
Riding is specifically attributed also to the Maruts, the youth-
bands of early Indo-Aryan tradition. On the other hand, in
descriptions of aristocratic warfare, it is invariably the horse-
drawn war chariot that is employed, as can be seen in the
epic literature of various IE stocks (e.g., the Ulster Cycle
among the early Irish, the Homeric poems among the Greeks,
the Rgveda and other works among the early Indians). It is-
also the impact of chariot driving that plays such an important
role in the borrowed Indo-Aryan vocabulary found among
the Mitanni of northern Syria and subsequently borrowed
into Hittite.
The impact of horse-riding has been regarded as
revolutionary since it provided a high-bulk means of transport
and permitted high-speed movement from one territory to
another. It has been suggested on the basis of evidence from
American Indian ethnographies that the introduction of the
horse-riding in Eurasia would have permitted communities
to exploit territories up to five-times larger than were
previously occupied and the area of social groups might
increase ten-fold. With the introduction of the horse,
populations occupying river systems of the steppe could now
exploit the open grasslands and begin incipient pastoral
nomadism (the evidence for semi-mobile pastoralists has been
employed as secondary proof of horse domestication in the
fourth and third millennia BC). Horse-riding also would grant
to those communities that possessed it a decisive military
advantage over their neighbors, both in terms of swift raids
and also in avoiding pursuit. As was the case with the
American Indians, who gained the domestic horse only after
European contact, horse-riding would itself stimulate the
emergence of a complex of horse-associated system of values
(wealth, prestige, and ethics of warfare).
The Horse in Indo-European Myth
The horse had developed a powerful imaginal presence in
IE sources even before it became a prime mark there, as the
ubiquitous mount of a warrior-noble (as expressed in the terms
ritter, cavalier , caballero and others). As an adjunct to the
warrior, the horse seems first to be presented (in the archaic
Greek and Indie sources) as one of a chariot pair, propelling
the hero- warrior toward his enemy. The Irish insistence on
the war-chariot’s use in their own heroic literature is not borne
out by archaeology and may be a late borrowing. Eventually,
as in the western medieval context, the horse shows up as
the Second Function (F2) figure par excellence , as in the
widely known trifunctional collective of Knight, Horse and
Hound: Knight emblematic of directing intelligence or, better,
esprit ; Horse signing warlike energy; Hound expressive of
faithful service.
The association of horse and IE horse-riding hero can begin
with the extraordinary birth of this hero, when a horse is
“twinned” to him by being foaled at the same time he is born,
this is seen, for instance, with the Irish hero Cu Chulainn
and the Welsh Pryderi. The essential identity of the two is
reinforced if the hero is called ‘mare -suckled’ (we have ancient
Greek and medieval Serb evidence) or if, in reverse, the animal
is given specifically human traits. So Xanthos, chariot-horse
of Akhilleus, had oracular powers, and the horse of the
legendary Serb hero Marko Kraljevic, Sarac, knew human
speech and drank wine like his master. Myth very often
“mixes” the two, horse and hero: the Greek god Poseidon, in
stallion-shape, sired at least three sets of human twins while
Pegasus and a human hero, Khrusaor, were sired by Zeus,
also in the shape of a stallion, on Medusa: the two were “born”
together when their monster-mother was beheaded by
Perseus.
Another set of beliefs connects the natural and animal
powers of the horse to a natural locus of power such as the
wind — and mares in ancient Thrace were thought to be
impregnated by the North Wind — or by or in water.
— 277
HORSE
Extraordinary horses in the Armenian and Serb epic-heroic
contexts were ‘water-born’, emerging from a lake (or sired by
a stallion who came from a lake), and so were the chariot-
horses of the Irish Cu Chulainn. The theme of twinning of
horse and hero also continues in Armenian epic where the
founding figures of a great heroic line were bom after their
mother had been impregnated in a lake, so they were
considered ‘water-bom’ while the Old Indie Mahabharata
(1(3)154) relates how Indra “obtained the horse Vaisvanara,
the ancient fruit of the waters, as his mount”. Water-horses
may simply be hostile and monstrous, however, as they are
in Norse folk-tradition.
The monstrous aspect of the horse indeed can show itself
variously: in Greek legend there are flesh-eating horses that
kill their master (these, too, were Thracian) and one of the
widely-circulated tales about Alexander the Great had it that
his horse, Bucephalos, was a man-eater. Other horses may be
monstrous in their shape, like the eight-legged Sleipnir in
Norse myth or the six-legged Lazky in the Armenian epos;
the term ‘winged’ for a hero’s mount, especially known in the
Serb epos, evidently may be taken either figuratively or
literally. But the monstrous aspect of the horse is also most
closely associated with its fatal significance as a “horse of
death”, bearing its master on to his inevitable end. In Hades
the Lord of the dead was “famous for his horses’ and is
associated with the shades of the underworld. So, as the horse
may be a sign in the IE-speaking world, of wealth, prestige,
and rank, in the world of the imagination it occupies an
ambiguous and often threatening and fatal place: in terms of
the IE hero-figure — the primary horse-rider — and his various
traditions the horse accompanies this human or superhuman
exemplar from cradle to grave.
Other aspects of the horse, though widespread, are also
found outside of IE traditions so that their specific attribution
to PIE is suspect. For example, the concept of the sun (god or
goddess) coursing the sky in a chariot or wagon drawn by
white horses is widespread. Baltic tradition depicts the sun
goddess Saule travelling across the sky in a wagon drawn by
four white horses. Among the Greeks, the sun god Helios
also travelled across the sky in a horse-drawn chariot while
the Old Indie sun god Surya had seven horses to pull him
across the sky. The antiquity of such a motif can be seen in
late Bronze Age Denmark where the bronze model of a horse
pulling a golden sun-disk was recovered from a bog at
Trundholm. But this motif is hardly confined to the IE world,
e.g., there is evidence for the association of the solar deity
with a horse-drawn wagon also in Mesopotamia.
Another mythic motif that has been projected into the PIE
past is that of the horse tethered to the Cosmic Tree. The
OInd asvauha - ‘horse tree’ is interpreted as the Cosmic Tree
or axis mundi of the ancient Indians and, it is argued, finds a
Germanic parallel in the ON Ygg-drasill , the Germanic Cosmic
Tree, the name of which literally means ‘Odinn’s (Ygg is a by-
name for Odinn that means ‘terrible, rough’) horse’.
Horse Sacrifice
Many if not most IE stocks reveal evidence for the sacrifice
of horses. These may range from mortuary offerings to specific
horse sacrifices, often as part of an inauguration ritual. This
latter, it has been suggested, may well have its roots in PIE
ritual since vestiges of it have been found in Celtic, Latin and
Old Indie traditions. The clearest expression is to be found in
the Indie asvamedha , the inauguration ceremony of a king.
Although a highly complicated affair, the pertinent com-
parative elements that are usually invoked are the following:
1) the sacrifice was concerned with the elevation of a member
of the warrior-caste and although Prajapati was the recipient,
the original recipient is believed to have been the warrior
deity Indra; 2) the ceremony took place in the spring; 3) the
horse, a stallion, is described as grey or white; 4) the stallion
selected was that which excelled on the right side of the
chariot; 5) the stallion was bathed in water in which a dog
was sacrificed and deposited; 6) the stallion was sacrificed
along with a hornless ram and a he-goat (and many other
animals were also dispatched); 7) the queen underwent a
mock “coupling” with the stallion; 8) the stallion was then
cut up, portions being awarded to different deities who
bestowed the canonical three functional gifts of spiritual
strength, physical strength, and wealth.
Parallels for this ritual have been sought in the Roman
Equus October. These include: 1) the victim was offered to
the warrior deity Mars; 2) the sacrifice took place during
September-October, the Roman equivalent of the Old Indie
month Asvayuja- ‘(month of the) yoked horses’; 2) the victim
was a stallion which excelled on the right side of a chariot; 3)
the victim was dismembered, the head and the tail (some
would argue a euphemism for penis) going to different
locations.
The Irish analogue to all this was recorded in the Middle
Ages by the Norman Geraldus Cambrensis who described
the inauguration ceremony of a king in Ulster. Similarities
with the other rituals comprise: 1) the high probability
(Geraldus is not entirely explicit) that the king couples with
the mare to be sacrificed; 2) the victim is dismembered (and
is placed in a large cauldron to be cooked and then consumed
by the king who also enters the cauldron).
The underlying structure of this ritual, which is supported
by elements of IE myth, involve the coupling of a king with a
mare, the latter which is seen as a representative of the tri-
functional goddess of IE myth, i.e., the goddess who can
impart to her chosen mate the blessings of the three
“functions” of IE society. Some lexical support for this
ceremony is claimed by the similarity of the Gaulish personal
name Epomeduos and OInd asvamedha. The Celtic form is a
compound of ‘horse’ and *medhu ‘mead, intoxicating drink’
while the Indie compound is composed of horse’ and either
‘drunk’ (< *mad-dho -) or ‘strength’ (< *mei-dho-). This
coupling, incidentally, produces the Divine Twins of IE myth.
There are also numerous problems involved here which have
been widely debated, e.g., the Roman myth has nothing to
— 278
HORSE GODDESS
do with a royal inauguration, the manner of execution of the
horse (strangulation in India and a spear in Rome), and the
degree to which the various rituals would appear to be
concerned with fertility rites. Some, such as Edgar Polome,
regard the reconstruction of the horse sacrifice to PIE as
unjustified given the differences between the various
traditions.
The primary archaeological context for the ritual use of
the horse is in burials. The tradition of accompanying burials
with the full or partial remains of horses extends from the
Copper Age down well into the historical period. Nearly three
hundred cemeteries with horse burials are known from
England to central Europe during the Middle Ages, for
example, while the Baltic region displays an abundance of
horse burials as well. The execution of horses upon the death
of a Scythian king is described by Herodotus and royal tombs
of the Iron Age steppe may number horses in the hundreds.
This practice is widely found from the Ukraine to the Altai
mountains. The horse was also frequently deposited with
burials in Iron Age India. Horse burials are by no means
confined to IE populations and are also widely known among
the Turkic peoples, including the Avars of eastern Europe.
The earliest evidence for horse burial, however, has been
presented as a marker of IE-speaking communities by some
scholars who have emphasized the importance of the horse
among the earliest Indo-Europeans which should also find a
resonance in ritual. Some of the earliest ritual evidence cited
is the horse skull from Dereivka which was accompanied by
the forelegs of another horse and the remains of two dogs.
This evidence has been interpreted by those who see it as a
ritual deposit as an example of a “head and hooves” cult, i.e.,
where the head and hooves of the animal were mounted
upright on a pole which subsequently collapsed. Horse skulls
have also been recovered from the soil overlying the Khvalynsk
cemetery of the middle Volga region. In both cases, their
attribution to a deliberate ritual has been challenged. More
certain are the depositions of horse remains within actual
burials. This practice occurs on occasion in both the Yamna
and Catacomb cultures where we find the skulls, hooves, and
“head and hooves” buried with the deceased; sometimes this
is in conjunction with other animals (cattle, sheep/goat, dogs).
Horse skulls have been recovered on occasion from burials
of the Globular Amphora, Corded Ware and Beaker cultures.
These attest the suitability of the horse in the mortuary ritual
of these various cultures but do not insure that the depositions
are of domestic horses since all of these cultures buried wild
as well as domestic animals with their deceased.
See also Dereivka; Divine Twins; Horse Goddess; Mammals;
Sacrifice; Sredny Stog Culture; Transfunctional Goddess.
[D.Q.A., J.PM., D.A.M.]
Further Readings
Anthony, D. W (1986) The “Kurgan Culture”. Indo-European origins,
and the domestication of the horse. A reconsideration. Current
Anthropology 27 ,4 , 291-313.
Anthony, D. W and D. Brown (1991) The origins of horseback riding.
Antiquity 65, 22-38.
Doniger, W (1990) The tail of the Indo-European horse sacrifice.
Incognita 1,1,1 8-3 7 .
Hansel, B. and S. Zimmer (1994). Die Indogermanen und das Pferd.
Budapest, Archaeolingua.
Koppers, W (1936) Pferdeopfer und Pferdekult der Indogermanen,
in Die Indogermanen- und Germanenfrage. Salzburg, Pustet,
279-412.
Mallory, J. P (1981) The ritual treatment of the horse in the early
Kurgan tradition. JIES 9, 205-226.
Polome, E. C. (1994) L’asvamedha est-il un ntuel de date indo-
europeenne? Nomina Rerum 13, 349-361.
Puhvel, J. (1970) Aspects of equine functionality, in Myth and Law
among the Indo-Europeans , ed. J. Puhvel, Berkeley and Los
Angeles, University of California, 159-172.
'Uerpmann, H.-P (1995) Domestication of the horse — when, where,
and why? Le cheval et les autres equides: aspects de I’histoire de
leur insertion dans les activites humaines, Colloques d’histoire
des connaissances zoologiques 6, Liege, Universite de Liege,
15-29.
HORSE GODDESS
Various Indo-European mythologies reflect the existence
of a Horse goddess. Although the names of the divinities are
not always cognate with one another, there are enough shared
linguistic elements to reveal a common structural theme that
may have been absorbed into the existing mythology of pre-
Indo-European peoples. The horse goddesses are best
represented in Old Indie tradition and among the Celts as
the Gaulish Epona, the Welsh Rhiannon and the Irish Macha.
Celtic
The Irish goddess Macha was personified as three distinct
mythological female figures. The first Macha was a prophetess
(= First Function), wife of Nemed, The sacred one’. Macha
foretold the suffering of the Ulstermen who fought in the
Tain Bo Cuailnge , the “Cattle Raid of Cooley”. The second
Macha, the warrior Macha Mongruad, ‘red-maned Macha’,
fought the sons of King Dithorba for the right to finish her
father’s term of office as ruler of all Ireland. Macha was
victorious, and she ruled for seven years. She later compelled
the sons of Dithorba to build a fortress for her, the fort of
Emain, shaping the boundaries of the fort with her brooch.
That fort became the capital of Ulster. Macha later fell in battle,
slain by the warrior Rechtaid ‘red-wrist’. The color red
underlines Macha’s martial characteristics. (Similarly, the Indie
goddess Devi becomes the ‘red-toothed’ after battling, and
consuming, the Asuras; cf. Devimahatmyam 11.44-45).
The third Macha, she who fulfilled the Third Function,
upon marrying a farmer, greatly increased his wealth, and
became pregnant with his children. Superimposed upon her
Third-Function fertility traits is the element of hippo-
morphism found also in the Welsh Rhiannon and Greek
Demeter. Macha was compelled to take on the function of a
— 279 —
HORSE GODDESS
horse, racing King Conchobor’s horses, even though her
pregnancy was at term. As she reached the finish line,
victorious, she gave birth to twins, a mare and a boy, and
then she died of the exertion ( Metrical Dindshenchas “Ard
Macha” 93 ff ), cursing the Ulstermen as she died. Each man
and his descendants, through several generations, would in
time of need be as weak as a woman in childbed, suffering
the “pangs of Ulster”. Later, when the Ulstermen battled the
men of Connacht in the Tain , the men were for a long time
incapacitated by these “pangs”.
Macha may be seen as a “transfunctional” or “tripartite”
goddess, serving the three Indo-European functions of priest
(prophetess), warrior, and fertility figure. To these functions
was superimposed the function of horse, probably the horse
which was sacrificed in the Indo-European horse sacrifice:
the Indie asvamedha, the Roman Equus October. This asso-
ciation receives some linguistic support in the thematically
cognate figure of Queen Medb.
The epic Queen Medb was depicted as two figures: Medb
of Connacht and Medb of Leinster (‘Medb Lethderg’). She
has the same character traits in both of her embodiments and
she is obviously one female figure, a trans functional goddess.
As queen of Connacht, Medb had several husbands, each
of whom became king when he married her. She set rules for
her husbands: they must be ‘without stinginess, without
jealousy, without fear’ ( Tain Bo Cuailnge 27-28). In the Tain ,
Medb’s wealth was equal to that of her husband Ailill, save
one bull; Medb, in order to match her husband, and to
maintain an economic and thus social equalitarianism with
him, decided to steal a brown bull which belonged to the
people of Ulster, the brown bull of Cooley, and she therefore
initiated the war of the Tain.
Medb was queen in her own right ( Metrical Dindshenchas,
“Ath Luain” 17); a warrior who led the campaign against the
province of Ulster; and a nurturing figure, ‘the best (of all her
sisters) in pledges and bestowal (of gifts)’ ( Tain 15-16). She
was in reality a transfunctional goddess who conferred
sovereignty upon her mate. Lexically, OIr medb is ‘strong,
intoxicating’. Flaith , an Irish sovereignty figure, in Old Irish
meant ‘sovereignty, rule’, but in Modem Irish it also means
‘ale’. In the Scela Cano Meic Gartnain 452-453, a man will
not ‘be a king over Ireland if the ale of Cuala does not come
to him.’ In the Book of Leinster (6416), Medb of Leinster is
called ‘the daughter of Conan of Cuala’. So Queen Medb is
the ale of Cuala, and it is she who brings the sovereignty over
Ireland.
Rhiannon, the Welsh goddess, perhaps ‘great queen’ (cf.
Weis rhiain ‘maiden’, OIr rigain ‘queen’), was associated with
birds and horses. She appeared in the first branch or chapter
of the Mabinogi riding a white horse. She married the hero
Pwyll, and subsequently gave birth to a son, later named
Pryderi; the child was stolen at birth, and her serving women,
swearing that Rhiannon had murdered her son, substituted
the bones and blood of an animal for the body of the baby.
Rhiannon was made to suffer penance for this crime: she must
sit near a horse-block outside the city gate, and offer to carry
passersby on her back to the king’s fortress. In a later chapter
of the Mabinogi, Rhiannon was made to wear around her
neck the collars of donkeys. She was thus a horse-substitute.
At the very time of Pryderi’s birth, the horse of Teyrnon Twrf
Liant bore a colt. Moments later, Teyrnon Twrf Liant found a
child, of obviously noble birth, lying just outside his door.
Liant and his wife raised the boy, along with the colt, and
subsequently, hearing of Rhiannon’s misfortune, brought the
boy to her. Thus Rhiannon, herself treated as a horse, gives
birth to a child who is reared along with a horse (cf. Demeter
and Macha, both of whom give birth to both a horse and a
child). Rhiannon is also connected with birds; the birds of
Rhiannon sing while the bodiless head of Bendigeidfran, son
of Llyr, talks to his seven friends for seven years.
Epona was the Gaulish Horse goddess. Her name appears
in a multitude of Roman Celtic inscriptions, and the goddess
is depicted in about two hundred images as a female figure
sitting upon a mare, or flanked by horses. She is depicted
with cornucopiae, fruit, corn and sometimes dogs. Epona
herself has no mythology, but the equine myths of both Macha
and Rhiannon probably are similar to those of Epona. The
Greek Apuleius described an image and shrine of Epona ( The
Golden Ass 3.27); according to the Roman satirist Juvenal,
soldiers worshipped Epona, hanging her picture in their
‘smelly stalls’ ( Satires 8.156.7). Plutarch gives her a mortal
origin: she is the product of Fulvius Stella, who hated women,
and a mare (Moralia 312E). The latter description, as well as
Celtic myth, may point to the Indo-European ritual horse-
sacrifice, known in India as the asvamedha.
Greek
The Greek Demeter (Roman Ceres), although essentially a
cereal goddess, the goddess of vegetation, offers some parallels
with the other horse goddesses. The most famous hymn to
her is Homeric Hymn Two, which describes her daughter
Persephone’s abduction by the underworld god, Hades,
Demeter’s world-wide search for her daughter, and her
eventual arrival in Eleusis, where she established the
Eleusinian Mysteries, a Greek mystery religion which probably
celebrated death and regeneration. As long as Persephone was
in the underworld with Hades, Demeter allowed no vegetation
to grow; the land and living creatures were barren. Finally
Persephone was allowed to return to Demeter and the upper
world, albeit for only part of the year. While searching for
Persephone, Demeter was pursued by Poseidon; she
transformed herself into a mare, in order to elude him, but
he metamorphosed into a stallion and raped her. Demeter
subsequently bore twins: a daughter, the Despoina, and a
horse, Areion. In this form the goddess was called Demeter
Erinys. A similar myth is told of the Indie Saranyu, who fled
from her husband Vivasvat, having assumed the form of a
mare. Vivasvat metamorphosed into a stallion and caught up
with her, and of their intercourse were born the twin Asvins.
— 280 —
HOUSE
Indie
Madhavi, an Indie epic heroine, was given by her father
Yayati to a young brahman, to enable the youth to fulfill a
vow which he made to his guru: to obtain eight hundred
horses, each the color of the moon, and each characterized
by one black ear. The brahman gave Madhavi in marriage to
three kings in succession, receiving as purchase price from
each king two hundred of the rare horses. Since these six
hundred horses were the only moon-colored black-eared
horses in existence, the guru accepted Madhavi in place of
the last two hundred horses. Madhavi bore a son to each of
her four husbands, and she recovered her virginity upon the
conclusion of each marriage.
After the fourth marriage, Yayati held a svayamvara for
Madhavi. The svayamvara was a ceremony in which a young
woman selected a husband from among a number of suitors.
But Madhavi chose vana , the forest, and an ascetic life, and
she thus became a perpetual virgin. In this virginal,
autonomous state, she became recharged with energy and
virtue.
Many years later, Yayati died and went to heaven; while
there, becoming guilty of great pride, he fell back from heaven
to earth. As he descended, he prayed that he might land in
the middle of good men. He landed among his four grandsons,
as they were performing sacrificial rites. The grandsons, along
with Madhavi, who came out from her forest hermitage, each
gave to Yayati a portion of his virtue, and Yayati was enabled
to ascend to heaven once again.
The name Madhavi has the root found in the OIr Medb
(and Gaulish Meduna and Medugenus). The Old Indie reflex
of the root is madhu ‘sweet drink, honey, soma, milk’. The
root underlying the Indie Asvamedha which is sometimes
compared here may be connected with Olnd mad- ‘boil,
rejoice, get drunk’, again indicating an intoxicating substance
although by a different word; this substance played a part in
the Indo-European ritual of the horse-sacrifice, the ritual
which established the sovereignty of a king. The ritual of a
sacrificed mare became the myths of Madhavi exchanged for
horses, of Medb the intermediary of sovereignty, and of the
Celtic Macha and Rhiannon, forced to perform the functions
of horses.
Although it is not possible to reconstruct a PIE * ‘Horse
goddess’ in the strict sense, there is considerable evidence for
the existence of a bundle of IE themes concerning horse, twins,
marriage to or legitimation of a king and intoxication that
were incorporated into the structures of previously non-IE
pantheons.
See also Horse; Transfunctional Goddess. [M.R.D.]
Further Readings
Dexter, M. R. (1990) The Hippomorphic Goddess and her offspring.
J1ES 18, 137-144.
Dumezil, G. (1966) La Religion Romaine Archaique. Paris, Payot,
217-229.
Gricourt, Jean (1954) Epona-Rhiannon-Macha. Ogam 8, 82-83.
Grottanelli, C. (1986) Yoked horses, twins and the powerful lady:
India, Greece, Ireland and elsewhere . JIES 14, 125-152.
Puhvel,J. (1970) Aspects of Equine Functionality, in Myth and Law
Among the Indo-Europeans, ed. ]. Puhvel, Los Angeles, University
of California Press, 159-172.
HORSE SACRIFICE see HORSE
HOSTILE
*dusmen£s ‘hostile’. [IEW 727 ( *men-)\ G1 683, BK 154
(*t y aw-/*t’ y 9w-)\. Grk dvapevrfg hostile’, Av dusmanah-
‘hostile’, Olnd durmanis ‘sad’. Distribution is limited to late
IE innovating dialects. From *dus-‘bad‘ and *men- ‘thought’.
See also Bad; Hate. [E.C.R]
HOUSE
*d6m( gen. *d£ms) ‘house’. [IEW 198-199 ,(*domo-)\ Wat
11 ( *dema-)\ GI 645 (*t‘om); Buck 7.12, 7.122; BK 133
(*t’im-/*t’em-)]. Grk 5d> ‘house’, Arm tun (gen. tan) ‘house’,
Av dam- ‘house’, Olnd dam ‘house’. Though attested only in
the center and east of the IE world, its archaic formation makes
it almost certain to reflect an old PIE term. Cf. *dems-poti-
‘master of the house’ in Grk deGnovqq ‘master, lord, owner’,
Av dang pati- ‘master, lord, ruler’, Olnd dam-pati- ‘master,
lord, ruler’.
*d6m(h a )os house’. \IEW 198-199 ( *domo-)\ Wat 11
( *dema-)\ GI 645 ( *t‘om); Buck 7.12, 7.122; BK 133
(*t’im-/*t’em-)\. Lat domus ‘house’, dominus ‘master of the
household’, Lith namas (with assimilation of *d- to the nasality
of the following -m-) ‘house’, OCS domu ‘house’, Rus dom
‘house’, Grk Sopog ‘house; course of bricks’, Olnd dama-
‘house’. Directly derived from *dem(h 3 )- ‘build’ or a thematici-
zation of the previous word. Whatever the exact morpho-
logical history, clearly of PIE status.
*h 2 Vdstu ‘dwelling’. [IEW 1170-1171 ( *ues-)\ Wat 78
(*wes-); GI 645 ( *Hwes-)\ Buck 7.12, 7.122; BK 368 (*aw-/
*aw-)]. Grk (f)dcTTv‘cny\ Olnd vastu ‘place, seat, thing’, cf.
vastu- (< *h 2 uestu) ‘house, dwelling’, TochA wast ‘house’,
TochB ost ‘house’. Cf. also Olr i foss ‘at home’, Weis gwas (<
*h 2 Uostos) ‘abode’, ON vist (< *h 2 uestis ) ‘sojourn’. A deriva-
tive of *h 2 ues- ‘dwell, pass the night, stay’, as seen for instance
in Grk vvktcc a(f)eoa ‘1 passed the night’ or Hit hues- 'be
(alive)’. Both Greek and Hittite presuppose a PIE *h 2 ues- for
the underlying verb which is incompatible with a direct
relationship with Grk (f)aorv. Perhaps Proto-Greek *wastu ,
with its admittedly difficult root vowel, is a borrowing from
some non-Greek but Indo-European language of the Balkans
which had already lost the initial laryngeal. In any case,
*h 2 udstu would appear to be of PIE age. Difficult also is a
relationship with Lat Vesta (goddess of the hearth) and Grk
ecrus ‘hearth, altar; house, family’, since they too show no
sign of an initial laryngeal. Perhaps we have a variant *yes- of
*hjeus - ‘burn’ in this case.
*trebs (acc. *tr6bip , gen. *tfbds) ‘dwelling’. [IEW 1090
( *treb-)\ Wat 71 ( *treb-)\ Buck 7.122], OIr treb ‘habitation,
— 281
HOUSE
The Proto-Indo-European House
Celt
Ital
Gmc
Balt
Slav
Alb
Grk
Arm
Anat
Iran
Indi
Toch
doorjamb
*h a 6nhxt(e)h a
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
X
-
X
X
-
door
*dhydr
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
floor
*difl-pedom
-
-
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
house
*ddm
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
-
X
X
-
*d6m(h a )os
-
X
-
X
X
-
X
-
-
-
X
-
dwelling
*h2\}6stu
X?
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
X
X
*trebs
X
X
X
X
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
*solo/eh a
-
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
room
*M-
X
X
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
X
-
*ket-
-
-
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
X
X
-
plank
*bh6lhags
-
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
*klhx-ro-s
X
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
*plut-
-
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*s(u)el-
-
-
X
-
-
?
X
-
-
-
-
-
post
*kllts
X
-
X
X
-
-
X
-
-
-
X
-
*ksulom
-
-
-
X
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
*kroku-
X
-
-
X
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
*mlts
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
X
-
*masdos
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*perg-
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*(s)teg-
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
?
-
-
-
-
*rehipo/eh a -
-
-
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*reh\t-
-
X
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*steh 2 bho/eh a -
X
-
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*steh2ur
-
-
X
-
-
-
X
X?
-
-
X
-
*st\neh a -
-
-
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
*s\jer-
-
X
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
X
-
*\}&lsos
-
X
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
X?
-
roof
*kropos
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*hirebh-
-
-
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
*(s)t£ges-
X
X
X
X
-
-
X
-
-
-
X
-
family, tribe’, Weis tref ‘village’, a-dref' at home’, Lat trabs ~
trabes ‘beam, timber, rafter; roof-tree’ (with analogical zero-
grade), Osc triIbo-{< *trebeh a - ) ‘house’, ON porp ‘farm, estate;
grave mound’, prep ‘vault’, -prep ‘estate’, OHG dorf ‘village,
estate’, Goth paurp ‘field, land, property’, Lith troba ‘house,
building’, La tv traba ‘building’. Cf. *trebno- in Umb tremnu
‘(augural) tent’, Grk xepapva ~ repepva (< *terbno- with an
intrusive medial vowel breaking up the difficult consonant
cluster) ‘house, dwelling’. Widespread in the west and center
of the IE world.
*solo/eh a - ‘dwelling, settlement’. [IEW 898 ( *sel-)\ Wat
57 {*sel-)\ GI 649 ( *sef-)] . From *solo/eh a -: ON salr ‘building,
room’, OE saeT room, hall, castle’, OHG sal ‘building, room’,
Goth saljan ‘stay; be the guest of (denominative verb to an
unattested *sals ‘dwelling, room’), Lith (dial.) sala ‘village’,
Latv sala ‘village’; from *so/elitueh a - : OE sselp ‘dwelling,
house’, OHG selida ‘dwelling, house’, Goth (pi.) salipwds‘ inn,
dwelling’, OCS selitva ‘dwelling’; other formations: ON sel
‘chalet, mountain dairy’, OE se/e‘hall, house, dwelling; prison’,
gesele ‘tabernacle’ (ON/OE < *so/jo-), seld hall, palace,
residence’, OCS selo ‘field, village’, Rus seld ‘village’.
Northwestern dialectal term.
*kels (gen. *EQ)lds) ‘(store)room’. [/EW553-554 {*kel-)\
Wat 28 ( *kel-)\. Lat cella (< *cela with length reassigned from
vowel to consonant) ‘store-room, cell, granary’, clam ‘secretly,
privately’, Grk kocXw (< Pre-Grk *kal-is-ia-l ) ‘wooden
dwelling, hut; nest; shrine, grotto’, NPers saray ‘abode’, OInd
sala ‘building, house, room’, salam ‘at home’. Cf. Olr cuile (<
*koliieh a -) ‘storeroom, kitchen’, and also ON hpll ‘great hall’,
OE heall ‘hall’ (> NE hall), OHG halla ‘hall’ (as if
< *Kolneh a -). A root nominalization from *kel- ‘protect,
conceal’ with a sufficiently wide distribution to suggest PIE
antiquity.
*ket- ‘room’. [IEW 586-587 (*ket-)\ GI 126 ( *k h et h - ~
*k h ot h -)]. OE heador ‘enclosure, prison’, Goth hepjd ‘room’,
OCS kot ici ‘chamber’, Rus kotec ‘fish weir’, Av kata- ‘chamber’,
— 282 —
HOUSE
NPers kad ‘house’, Olnd catta- ‘hidden’. Grk kotvXti ‘cup’
has been also been assigned here but this may be disputed.
Distribution indicates PIE status. This word was borrowed
into Finno-Ugric, e.g., Finnish kota ‘dwelling, tent, hut’,
Estonian koda ‘house’, Mordvin kudo ‘house’.
*gubho/eh a - ‘(store-)room, alcove’. [IEW 395 (*gupa)\ Wat
33 ( *ku-)\ Buck 7.13, 7.21). ON kofi ‘room’, OE cofa ‘cove,
bedchamber’ (> NE cove), OHG kubisi ‘hovel’, Bajui bidya]
(< Proto-Iranian *pati-gubhaka - ) ‘lower part of storeroom’.
The apparent agreement of Germanic and Iranian is strongly
suggestive of PIE status for this word. Perhaps from the rather
amorphous root *geu- ‘± bend’.
?*p6r (gen. *ppi6s ) ‘house’. [GI 645; BK 61 ( *p[ h lie-/
*pl h ]er-)\. Hit per (gen. parnas ) ‘house’, parna- ‘house’,
parnant- ‘house’, pamawa(i)- ‘build’, Luv parna- ‘house’,
HierLuv parna- ‘house’, Lycian prnnawa- ‘build’. The
nominative *p£r is the phonologically expected outcome of
the morphologically regular *perp Attested as such only in
Anatolian, the word is not securely PIE in status. In favor of
such status is the obviously archaic shape of its paradigm
and the possibility, allowed by some, denied by others, of
relating to this word the widespread *prihxOS ‘dear, beloved’
(< *‘of the (same] household’). There is also perhaps one
possible cognate outside of Anatolian in Iranian where we
find Khot pira- (< *ppo~) ‘± house’. Against attributing PIE
status to this word is, of course (if one does not accept the
Iranian word is cognate), its restriction to Anatolian and the
existence of words of a similar shape in non-IE languages of
Asia and Africa, e.g., Egyptian pr ‘house’, Hurrian pur(u)Ii
‘house’.
The Proto-Indo-European House
The range of architectural forms which a house might have
taken during the period of PIE antiquity is considerable. The
structure might be set either on the surface or sunk into the
ground, i.e., semi- subterranean. Its walls may have consisted
of stone, stone foundations with mud-brick superstructure,
wooden planks, posts interwoven with wattle and daub, or
walls constructed of stacked sods. The shape of the house
might range from circular, small rectangular, rectangular with
an apsidal end, to a long house and the number of rooms
may have varied from a single to many. Other appurtences
may have included a porch or an interior court. Although
most structures were single-storied, there is also some
evidence for two-storied structures as well. Entrance was
almost always through a doorway although in Anatolia there
is also evidence of entrance portals through the roof.
Settlement in most areas of Europe and Asia was nucleated,
i.e., a series of houses clustered together to form a village
although there is also evidence of dispersed single-house
settlements, especially on the northwestern peripheries of
Europe.
The terminology associated with Indo-European domestic
architecture permits at best the most general description of
its structure. The primary words for ‘house’ would appear to
have been *d6m or *ddm(h a )os with *h 2 ydstu ‘dwelling’ as
a term both vague in meaning and derivative in construction.
Reconstructing words for the various parts of the house is
more difficult. One can easily reconstruct a word for ‘hearth’
but the presence of a hearth is, of course, not diagnostic of
any particular culture or construction type. The ‘floor’ of the
house is limited to a Germanic-Greek isogloss, *drp-pedom.
For ‘roof’ we have much stronger evidence in the form of a
reconstructed *hirebh- ‘cover with a roof’. The more general
*(s)teg- ‘cover’ is also used for ‘roof’ in several stocks and, by
metonymy, for ‘house’ in general. This use of *(s)teg- for ‘roof’
may well be the result of independent developments in the
several stocks that show it. In both Germanic and Greek words
for ‘roof’ overlap with words for ‘thatch’ and that overlap may
be significant but one should note that the Iranian descendant
of *hirebh- means ‘plank’. On the other hand, the TochB
word for ‘roof’ is sim from PIE *sih 2 mQ ‘± what is bound
together’ and might well have originally referred to a bundle
of thatch.
There are abundant terms for ‘post’ but none seems
necessarily to have meant ‘house-post’ or the like. Nor do the
words for ‘plank’, in any case restricted to the European
branches of IE, demonstrate anything more than that the
Proto-Indo-Europeans were familiar with worked wood of
one sort or another, whether used in house -construction or
for other things. More significant for the insights it might
give us into PIE house-construction is *kred- ‘framework of
wood’. The presence of such a word suggests at least one
building technique. So does the best attested component of
the house, namely the *dhijor ‘door’ which is practically
universal in the various IE stocks, and which was apparently
set between *h a enh x t(e)h a ‘doorjambs’, a term whose
distribution also guarantees it PIE status. A house with doors
and a wooden framework will, practically of necessity, also
have walls. The word that would appear to fill this piece of
semantic space may have been *dlghs though its original
referent may have been to something other than the sides of
a house. It seems more likely then that its association with
words indicating ‘dough’ and hence ‘clay’ refers to an earthen
bank surrounding a settlement though its extension to the
wattle and daub component of a house wall would have been
natural enough.
The structural terms associated with the house were also
extended to the social unit inhabiting it. For example, as with
the term ‘house’ in English, so does PIE *dom(h a )os ‘house’
refer to both the structure and the family inhabiting it while
the tatpuru$a compounds with PIE *potis ‘lord’ designate the
patriarch. Thus: Lat domus ‘house’ and dominus ‘head of
household’; Grk Sopoq ‘house’ and Seonorriq ‘householder’;
Olnd dama- ‘house’ and dam-pati- ‘master of the house’; cf.
also Grk 8pcoq ‘slave’ and dgwr) ‘female slave’.
Proto-forms have also been reconstructed for the unit
formed by several joint families: PIE ueik-/*uoik- from *uik-
‘to settle’. The o-grade form gives *uoikos which designates
the physical construction and even stresses topographic
— 283 —
HOUSE
clustering: Lat vlcus ‘village, dwelling cluster’, Grk oixog
‘house, homestead of joint family’. The zero-grade root-noun
*uik- refers mostly to the social unit.
See also Build; Door; Family; Fence; Floor; Fort;
Framework; Ground; Hearth; Master; Plank; Post;
Roof; Village; Wall. [A.D.V., D.Q.A., J.PM.]
Further Reading
Knobloch, J. (1980) Ergologische Etymologie des indogermanischen
Hausbaus. Sprachwissenschaft 5 , 172-200.
HOUSEHOLD see FAMILY
HOW (MANY) see PRONOUNS (INTERROGATIVE)
HOWL
*bukk- ‘howl’ (pres. *biikketi) [1EW 97 ( *b(e)u - -
*bh(e)u -)] . SC bukati ‘howl’, Grk pvKtrig ‘howling’, Av buxti-
‘howling’, OInd bukkati ‘bark’. Perhaps an onomatopoeic
formation of PIE date.
See also Animal Cry; Bark 2 . [D.Q.A.l
HUB see NAVE
HUM
*kem- ‘hum’. [IEW 556 ( *kem-)\ Wat 29 (*kem-)]- ME
hummen ‘hum’ (> NE hum), MHG hummen ‘hum’, OPrus
camus ‘bumble-bee’, Lith kimstu ‘become hoarse’, Latv
kamines ‘bee, bumble-bee’, Rus cmelV bumble-bee’. Though
possibly of onomatopoeic origin, there is reason to suppose
that in this word we have something of late (northwestern)
dialectal IE date.
See also Bee. [D.Q.A.l
HUMBLE
*kaunos ‘humble, lowly’. [LEW 535 ( *kau-no-s)\ Buck
16.45]. OE hean ‘lowly, despised’, hynan ‘despise’, hlenja(o)
‘disgrace’, OHG honi ‘despised’, honen ‘despise’, honida
‘shame’, hona ‘mockery’, Goth ha uns ‘humble’, Lith Kaunas
(place name, second city of Lithuania, originally ‘Low Place’),
Latv kauns ‘shame, disgrace’, kaumgs ‘bashful’, kauneties'be
ashamed’, Grk (Hesychius) xccvvoq ‘bad, evil’. More distantly
related are ON had (< *hawipa - ) ‘mockery’, Lith kuvetis ‘be
ashamed’. The Greek gloss rhymes with the other Hesychius
gloss Kccvpog ‘evil’. A word of the west and center of the IE
world.
[E.C.P]
HUNGER
*Kos-t- ‘hunger’. [GI 607; Del 84] . Hit kast- ‘hunger’, TochA
kast ‘hunger’, TochB kest ‘hunger’. Secure connection only
between Hittite and Tocharian with a variety of questionable
suggestions (reviewed in detail by Tischler). The most
plausible, to OInd jasuri- ‘hungry’, would find support in
HierLuv astar on the reading ‘by/from hunger’ and would
moreover support a voiced initial. While this might lead to
positing *ges-, earlier proposed connections to *g w es-
‘extinguish’ are not tenable.
*kenk- ‘hunger’ (< ‘to burn, hurt’). [IEW 565 ( *kenk-)\
Wat 29 {*kenk-)\ Buck 5.14]. ON hungr ‘hunger’, OE hungor
‘hunger’ (> NE hunger), OHG hungar ‘hunger’, Goth huhrus
‘hunger’, Lith kanka ‘pain, torment’, Grk (Hesychius) keykei
‘be hungry’, Kdyxoivog ‘dry’; OInd kakate ‘is thirsty’ is cited
in IEW but is a ghost word. This represents more likely an
independent semantic extension of the root *kenk- ‘to bum,
hurt’ than a PIE form.
See also Eat and Drink; Pain. [J.C.S.]
HUNT
*leuhx- ‘hunt’. Preserved as such only in Slavic: OCS /ovD
‘hunt’, loviti 1 to hunt’, Rus lov ‘capture, catch’, lovitl ‘chase,
hunt; capture, catch’. A derivative *leuhxon (gen. *luh x nds)
‘the one of the hunt’ persists in Grk Xechv ‘lion’ (< *‘the
hunter’), TochA lu ‘animal’, TochB luwo ‘animal’ (< *‘the
hunted’). (From Grk Xecqv was borrowed Lat led, whence the
word for ‘lion’ in most western European languages.) The
Greek-Slavic-Tocharian distribution strongly suggests a PIE
word.
*y reg- ‘track, hunt, follow’, [cf. VW 454] . Lat urgere ‘press,
urge’, ON reka ‘push, chase; punish’, OE wrecan ‘push, impel;
drive out, punish’ (> NE wreak), Goth wrikan ‘persecute’.
Hit urki- (< *uygi-) ‘track, trail’, TochA wark ‘hunt, hunting’,
TochB werke ‘chase, hunt, hunting’. The distribution assures
the PIE status for this word.
*haegreh a -‘ hunt’. [IEW 6 (*ag-ra)\ cf. Wat 1 {ag-)[. OIr ar
‘carnage (especially by dogs), battlefield’, Weis aer ‘battle’,
Grk aypp ‘hunt’, Av azro- ‘hunt’. Although all are derived
from *h a eg- ‘drive’, the antiquity of this loose set of
comparisons is not clear. The Avestan term occurs in a
compound hapax -azro-daidim as an epithet of a she-wolf
and is also translated as ‘roaming in the fields’; cf. also OInd
ghase-ajra- ‘stimulating the appetite’.
See also Lion; Release. [E.C.P, D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Vendryes, J. (1949) Sur quelques mots de la langue des chasseurs.
Archivum Linguisticum 1, 23-29.
HURRY
*speud- ‘hurry’. [IEW 998-999 ( *(s)p(h)eu-d-)\ Lith
spausti ‘press’, Grk onevdco ‘hurry’. Cf. the derivative
*spoudeh a -: Lith spauda ‘press’, Grk onovdr\ ‘haste’, NPers
poy ‘haste’, Parth pwd ‘course, run’, Alb pune(< *pudneh a -)
‘work’, punoj (vb.) ‘work’, Arm p l oyt‘ ‘zeal’. Cf. also ON spjot
‘spear’, OHG spioz ‘battlespear’. With derivatives, widely
enough attested to be assigned PIE status.
*spergh- ‘move energetically’. [IEW 998 ( *spergh-)\ Wat
64 ( *spergh-)\ ■ ON springa ‘spring’, sprengja ‘sprinkle’, sproga
‘spring, run’, OE springan ‘spring’ (> NE spring), sprengan
‘burst, sprinkle, sow’, OHG springan ‘spring’, sprengan ‘make
— 284
i<PS£
HURRY
Widespread and old in IH.
?*krob- hurry’. [IEW934-935(*($)km-b-)\ VW 196], Mir
crip ~ crib (< *kfb-) ‘quick’, ON hrapa ‘fall; hurry’, MLG rap
‘quick’, sik reppen ‘hurry’ (Gmc < *krob -), TochAB karpa-
‘descend, come down, step down’ (Toch < *korb-). if all these
words belong together, and the Tocharian is admittedly
semantically distant, then we have good evidence for a PIE
term. If Tocharian does not belong here, then we have evidence
for a dialect term of the IE west.
See also Drive; Fast; Jump; Run; Set in Motion. [D.Q. A.]
(a horse) jump; sprinkle, strew’, Grk ojtepxco ‘drive, press’,
OK£p%opai ‘hurry’, Av a-sparaza- ‘be excited’, OInd spfhayaii
‘desires’, TochAB spark- ‘disappear, perish’. Sufficiently
widespread to guarantee its PIE status.
*sel - ‘move quickly’, (cf. IEW 899 ( *sel- ), 909-910
(*ser-)]. ON selja ‘deliver, sell’, sala ‘sale’, OE sellan ‘deliver,
sell’ (> NE sell ), sala ‘sale’ (> NE sale), OHG sellen ‘deliver,
sell’, Goth saljan ‘present, sacrifice’, OCS sQlQ ‘messenger’,
suljp ‘send’, Arm ylem (if < *y-lem) ‘send’, OInd ucchalati
‘hurries forward’, sisarti ‘stretches out, extends’, sisrate ‘they
rush off, stretch out’, TochAB hal- ‘fly’, 2 sal- ‘throw (down)’.
I
ICE
*ieg - ‘ice, icicle’. [IEW 503 {*ieg-)\ Wat 79 ( *yeg-)\ GI
588 ( *(y)ek'- ); Buck 1.77], Olr aig( gen. ega) (< *iegi- ) ‘ice’,
Weis ia ‘ice’, ON jaki (< *ekan- < *jekan-) ‘piece of ice’, jpkull
(< *ekula-) ‘icicle’, OE gicel(a)' icicle’ (> NE icicle ), OHG ihilla
‘icicle’, Hit eka ‘ice’. Probably PIE status. A PIE origin would
be more certain if Sarikoli yoz ‘glacier’, Wakhi yaz ‘glacier’,
reflecting a Proto-Indo-Iranian *yaza -, comes from PIE
*iegeh a -.
?*hieihx- ice’. [IEW 301 (*et-s-); Wat 16 (*eis-); GI 588
(*eis-); Buck 1.77]. ON iss ‘ice’, OE is ‘ice’ (> NE ice), OHG
is ‘ice’ (Gmc < *isa~), Lith ynis ‘glazed frost’, OCS inlje
‘hoarfrost’, Rus inej ‘hoarfrost’, Av aexa- ‘frost, ice’, isu- ‘icy’,
Oss yex , ix (< *aixa- ) ‘ice’. The Baltic and Slavic forms have
*(h x )ih K -ni-. The Germanic forms may derive from either
*(hx)ihx~ or hiei(hx)-. Neither Avestan -x- nor -s- can derive
from a PIE -s-; they continue -khx- (< *-kh2~o~ < *-keti2~ ■?)
and *-k- respectively. This leaves only a root etymology for
PIE ‘ice’.
*ghel(fy2)d- ~ *ghl(h2)-ed-l ‘hail’. [IEW 435 ( *ghehd-)\
Wat 22 ( *ghehd-)} . OCS zledica (< *eld-) ‘freezing rain’, Rus
zledica ‘freezing rain’, Grk ‘hail’, NPers zala
(< *alda~) ‘hail’. Greek points to *d, which would agree with
Slavic as this has an acute tone. The Greek form requires a
laryngeal, *ghl(h2)-ed-. At least late PIE status.
?*kaghlos ‘hail’. [IEW 518 (*kaghlo~)\ Wat 26
( *kaghb')] . ON hagl ‘hail’, OE hagol ‘hail’ (> NE hail), OHG
hagai ‘hail’ (< Gmc *hagla-), Goth haal (name of a rune sign),
Grk Kocxk t?£ ‘small stone, gravel in a river’, (late)
This set should be abandoned as non-IE. As PIE had no *a,
we would have to posit *k^2gh~, which does not inspire confi-
dence. The Greek word has been considered onomatopoeic
(cf. Kccxha^co) or a substrate word, related to £aAt£ ‘cup’
(whence Lat calx). Cf. also Grk £«A ctC,a ‘hail’.
*Ker(s)no- - *Kor(mo/meh a )- ‘hoarfrost, frozen snow’.
[IEW 573-574 ( *ker-no-)[ . ON hjam (< *her(z)na-) ‘frozen
snow’, Lith sarma (< *kormeh a -) ‘frost’, serksnas ~ sirksnas
(< *k(e)r-sno~) ‘hoarfrost’, Latv sarma ‘frost’, sgrsns, sgrsna
‘frost’, ORus serenu (< *semu-) ‘frozen snow’, Rus seren , seren
‘frozen snow’, Arm sarn (gen. sarin ) ‘ice’, sarnum (< *kor-)
‘freeze’. At least of late IE status.
*preus- ~ *prus- ‘frost’. [IEW 846 ( *preus-)\ Wat 53
( *preus-)\ GI 589 (*p^reu-so-)\. Lat pruina (< *prusuma ?)
‘hoarfrost’, ON fror ~ frer(< *fruza-) ‘frost’, frost ‘frost’, OE
forst ‘frost’ (> NE frost), OHG frost (< * frusta-) ‘frost’, Goth
frius(< *freus-) ‘frost’, OInd prusva- prusva ‘hoarfrost’ (but
perhaps rather ‘dew, drop’ < *prus- ‘sprinkle’?). ON fror and
Gothic point to a root noun *preus ~ *prus- with *prus-to-
and *prus-uo- ‘frozen’? Uncertain are the possible Celtic
cognates: Olr reud ( DIL redd) 'strong cold’, and Weis rhew
‘strong cold’. The root ultimately derives from *preus- ‘to
freeze’. With the Old Indie cognate uncertain, this need not
reflect anything other than a northwest dialectal term in
late IE.
See also Snow. (R.S.PB.l
ILLYRIAN LANGUAGE
Illyrian was the major although scantily attested IE language
of the northwest Balkans spoken over the territory of ancient
Illyria, later the Roman province of lllyricum. The Illyrians
constituted a loose tribal confederation that occupied Albania,
Dalmatia, Bosnia and Croatia although the earliest historical
accounts and place names suggest that as an ethno-lmguistic
group, they were largely confined to the south of this territory
while further north very different tribes were often incor-
porated into the geographical entity of “Illyria" by various
— 287 —
ILLYRIAN LANGUAGE
classical authors. A pan-lllyrian theory was promulgated by
a number of modem linguists who made the Illyrians
coincident with the eastern Umfield culture and sought them
over most of central and much of eastern Europe; they were
even tracked as far west as Ireland! In actual fact, the Illyrian
language is only marginally attested in glosses in Greek texts,
place and personal names. A putatively Illyrian inscription of
three words on a ring from Kalaja Dalmages in Albania was
originally read ana oeOe iser and translated as a votive to the
sacred goddess Oe0e until it was shown that the ring was
actually Byzantine and when read from bottom to top clearly
read in Byzantine Greek ‘Lord, help Anna’.
Illyrian is generally presumed to have been closely related
to Messapic, a language known in a series of Iron Age
inscriptions from southeast Italy. The Messapi were supposed
by Roman historians to have come to southeastern Italy from
Illyria in late prehistoric times (the name of the Daunians of
the same region in Italy was derived from that of a rich Illyrian
by the name of Daunus), so a linguistic relationship between
Messapic and Illyrian would be reasonable. However, the
marginal attestation of Messapic and the almost complete lack
of Illyrian data make a Messapic-Illyrian connection an
assumption and nothing more. In that the Albanians occupy
part of the former territory of the Illyrians, it is also possible
that the Albanian language continues the earlier Illyrian. Again
such a connection is not demonstrable. Illyrian is too little
known and Albanian is first attested only in the fifteenth
century, already having undergone very substantial
phonological changes.
Historically, Illyrian tribes such as the Dardani and Paeones
appear in the Iliad as allies of the Trojans where they occupy
a traditional position as one of the opponents of the Greeks
due to their opposing interests in controlling the Adriatic
seaways. The Greeks established a colony in the south of Illyria
by the seventh century BC. The later Illyrian kings came into
conflict also with the Macedonians while Queen Teuta, in the
late third century BC, antagonized the Romans with her fleet
and set in train a series of wars that brought about the conquest
of Illyria by the Romans. In 168 BC Gentius (Genthius), the
last Illyrian king, surrendered to the Romans, lllyricum
became a military recruiting ground for the Roman Empire
producing not only many of its troops but also some of its
more notable emperors, including Diocletian and Constantine
the Great. During the sixth and seventh centuries AD Illyrian
territory was overrun by Slavic tribes who spread their
language over the entire region, except for Albania.
Description
There is just enough evidence to make it relatively certain
that Illyrian was Indo-European. The Illyrian personal name
Teuta (< *Teutana ) and the identical tribal name Teuta , for
example, are clearly relatable to OIr tuath ‘a people’, Weis
tud ‘country’, Osc touto ‘community’, Umb (acc) totam
‘citizenry’, ON pjod 1 folk’, OE peod' folk’, OHG diot ‘people’,
Goth piuda ‘folk’, OPrus tauto ‘country’, OLith taute ‘people’,
Latv tauta ‘people’, etc., all from PIE *teuteh a -. Personal names,
built on the numerals as in Latin, e.g. , Tritanus , Tritano ‘Third’,
Sestus, Sextus , Sexto ‘Sixth’, also appear to be fairly
transparent. To go beyond this becomes increasingly difficult
since all further evidence is largely confined to place- and
personal names whose etymologies may be challenged. If,
for example, the name of the Illyrian king Gentius ( Genthius )
is derived from *gen- ‘be born’, then we have evidence of a
centum language; but if the name Zanatis is similarly derived
(or from *gen- ‘know’), then we have evidence of a satam
language or, perhaps, later palatalization. Similarly, mixed
possibilities may be seen in the place-name Asamum if from
*h a e£- ‘sharp’ (cf. OInd a£man- ‘stone, rock’), an etymology
that receives some support from a medieval reference to
Asamum as Lapida ‘stone’ while the same root is also said to
underlie the personal name Acrabanus where there is no
evidence of palatalization. Edgar Polome has summarized the
existing phonetic rules of Illyrian as involving the merger of
aspirates and non-aspirates (e.g., *g/*gh>g), syllabic *fand
*1 > ur and ul, and preservation of only the diphthongs ai, au
and eu. To these might possibly be added delabialization of
the labio- velars and *o > a.
— 288 —
IMPELLER
Illyrian Origins
The Roman author Appian ( The Illyrian Wars 2) suggested
that the Illyrians, along with the Celts and Galatians, all
stemmed from three children of the cyclops Polyphemus and
emigrated to their historical locations from Sicily. This theory
is not much less creditable than that of the pan-Illyrian
enthusiasts who sought the Illyrians specifically in the Umfield
culture as this is precisely the archaeological phenomenon
that is unattested in those territories (Albania, Bosnia) with
the greatest claim to being considered Illyrian from an
historical perspective.
Generally, most recent discussions of Illyrian origins discern
a mixture of autochthonous pre-IE elements over which a
layer of intrusive IE elements was superimposed. Such models
must be seen as reflexes of much larger solutions to IE
dispersals in general and the best that can be argued is that
items characteristic of IE lexical-cultural reconstruction do
not appear in the region of the Illyrians until the early Bronze
Age. A pre-Illyrian (non-IE) substrate is consequently sought
in the earlier Neolithic. In the core region of the Illyrians, the
Neolithic culture is identified as the Hvar-Lisicici culture
whose own origins lie in the Impressed Ware cultures of the
central Mediterranean. By the late Neolithic influences are
seen from Salcuia-Bubanj, a culture whose origins lie further
east in the Balkans but which either expanded or was pushed
westwards at the end of the Neolithic (fourth millennium
BC). By the end of the Copper Age, influences are seen to
derive from the northern Baden and later Vucedol cultures
from Croatia and the Carpathian basin which have been
identified by supporters of the “Kurgan model” of IE dispersals
as early IE-speakers in the Balkans.
By the beginning of the Bronze Age c 3000 BC, tumulus
burials are common across Illyrian territory, fortified sites
begin to appear and a coarse ware is widely found and
interpreted as primary evidence for the gradual expansion of
a new people who mixed with the earlier inhabitants. These
changes are regarded as evidence of the last major cultural
intrusion which might explain the arrival of Indo-Europeans
in the region. Putatively local Illyrian evolution is particularly
seen in the continuous development of the Glasinac culture
of the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age in Bosnia.
Subsequent developments such as continuity of settlement
and culture in the Albanian Bronze Age or further north in
Croatia are interpreted by some as evidence of the stabilization
of the Proto-Illyrian identity of the region. Also, during the
Bronze Age there is evidence of the spread of ceramics and-
mortuary ritual across the Adriatic into southern Italy which
may play some part in the presumed similarities between the
Illyrian and Messapic languages. The later expansion of the
Umfield culture into the region was limited to the deep interior
while the coastal region more properly associated with the
earliest Illyrians developed as a series of local cultures derived
from the early Bronze Age which preserved the inhumation
burial rite. The creation of local cultural groups in the centuries
around 1000 BC which continued into the Iron Age (eighth-
sixth centuries BC) is seen to mirror the later presence of a
number of the major tribal groups of Illyria.
See also Albanian Language; Glasinac Culture; Italic
Languages; Messapic Language. [J PM 1
Further Readings
Language
Hamp, E. P (1966) The position of Albanian’, in Ancient Indo-
European Dialects, eds. J. Puhvel and H. Birnbaum, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, Univ. of California, 97-122.
Krahe, H. (1955) Die Sprachen der Ulyrier. 2 vols. Wiesbaden,
Harrassowitz.
KatiCic, R. (1976) Ancient Languages of the Balkans. The Hague,
Mouton.
Polome,E. C. (1966). The position oflllynan and Venetic’ in Ancient
Indo-European Dialects, eds. J. Puhvel and H. Birnbaum, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, Univ. of California, 59-76.
Polome, E. C. (1982) Balkan languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-
Moesian), in The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. Ill, part 1,
eds. J. Boardman et al., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
866 - 888 .
Origins and Culture
Covic, B. (1986) Die Ethnogenese der lllyrier aus der Schicht der
Vor- und Fruhgeschichte. Ethnogenese Europaischer Volker, ed.
W Bernhard and A. Kandler-Palsson, Stuttgart and New York,
55-74.
Stipcevic, A. (1977). The Illyrians. New Jersey, Noyes Press.
Wilkes, J. (1992) The Illyrians. Oxford, Blackwell.
IMPELLER
??*s€yify x tdr impeller’. [/EW914 (*seu-)j. Lat Saturnus
(god), OInd Savitar- (god). The two deities involved in this
comparison have linguistically nothing in common. The deity
corresponding to the Lat Saturn in ancient India is rather
Sani , the son of Surya ‘the Sun’ and Chaya ‘the Shade’, whose
cult is associated with occultism and the origin of the Vratyas.
The name Savitar- is from *seu(i x tor ‘the impeller’ < *seuh x -
‘bend, impel’. He owes his immortality to the Rbhus; offers
brought to him yield treasures; he ‘impels’ the sun (i.e. , his
golden arm pushes the sun between heaven and earth); he
destroys the darkness and all ills tied with it; he wakes and
takes to sleep men and animals. Related are OInd suvati ‘brings
in motion, presses, drives’, cf. OIr sold ‘turns’, Lith sukti ‘turn’
(with underlying alternating stems; *seuhx- [OInd savz'-J and
*suhxe- [OInd suva- j). Saturnus, on the other hand, is an old
Italic god, whose name was connected folk-etymologically
with Lat sero ‘cut’ or satus ‘sown’, i.e., god of the harvest. In
the Roman interpretation, Saturnus is equated with the Greek
Kronos and this provides the only structural basis for a
comparison between the Roman Saturnus, Greek Kronos, and
the Old Indie Savitf.
In the IE cosmological system proposed by Jean Haudry,
the early Indo-Europeans envisaged a universe consisting of
three skies: a diurnal sky which was home to the celestial
— 289 -
IMPELLER
deities, a night sky which had its own specific deities and the
spirits of the dead, and a third transitional sky which
comprised both dawn and twilight. The transitional celestial
deities are represented by the Greek Kronos (who in the
theogony of Hesiod is intermediate between the representative
of the night sky, Ouranos, and that of the diurnal sky, Zeus),
the Indie Savitf whose association with the rising and setting
of the sun are familiar motifs in the Vedas, and the Roman
Satumus. The feast of the latter, the Saturnalia, mark the
period immediately preceding the winter solstice, i.e., the
‘twilight’ of the year (as Savity is associated with the twilight
of the day ; cf. also the Old Irish feast of samain which marked
the end of the Celtic year). The derivation of Satumus (and
its doublet Saeturnus) is obscure and also includes a possible
Etruscan loan although Haudry mentions the possibility that
it may be related to Savitj (cf. Hit sawatar ‘horn’ [< suwai-
‘strike’l with an underlying *suh x trom ) and come into Latin
by way of Siculan, a poorly known Italic language.
See also Creator. [E.C.P, J.PM.]
Further Reading
Haudry, J. (1987) Le religion cosmiquedes Indo-Europeens. Milan,
Paris, Arche, 45-80.
IN
*hien(i) in, into’. [/£W3 11-314 (*en); Wat 17 (*en); BK
432 (*in-/*en-)]. OIr in ‘in(to)’, Weis yn ‘in(to)’, OLat en
l in(to)’, Lat in ‘in(to)’, ON I ‘in’, OE in ‘in’ (> NE in), OHG in
‘in’, Goth in ‘in(to), because’, OPrus en ‘in’, Lith j ~ in ‘in’. Alb
n- ‘in, on’, inj ‘up to’, Grk ev ~ evi ‘in’, eiq (< *en-s) ‘into, to’,
Arm i ‘in’, TochAB y- ~ yn- ‘in, among’. A variant *hion ‘in’
occurs in OCS on ‘in’, Hit an- ‘in’, TochA -am ‘in, to’, TochB
-ne‘ in, to’, enem ‘within’. Cf. *hinitiosin Goth nipjis ‘relative’,
OInd nitya- ‘one’s own’ (i.e., < *‘within one’s own group’).
*hi€n-do into’, [cf. 7EW198 ( *dem -), 311-314 (en); BK
432 ( *in-/*en-)\ . Lat endo ‘in’, Alb nde ‘in’, Grk evSov ‘within’,
Hit anda(n) ‘in’. Widespread and old in IE.
See also Adpreps; Between. [D.Q.A.]
INDO-EUROPEAN HOMELAND
One of the longest standing and still unresolved problems,
not only of Indo-European studies but also general prehistoric
research, is the time and place of origin of the Indo-European
language family and the nature of its dispersal. Solutions to
the problem have been derived from the Bible and mythology,
linguistics, physical anthropology, genetics, and archaeology.
Background to the Problem
The Indo-European languages begin to appear in the
written record in the Bronze and Iron ages. The earliest attested
languages are first encountered between Greece and northern
India and consist of: Anatolian, the proper names of which
are first attested in Akkadian trading documents of c 1900
BC; Indo- Aryan first emerges in northern Syria in the Mitanni
kingdom by c 1600-1500 BC; and Greek which is known
from the palace documents of the Mycenaeans, in the so-
called Linear B script, from at least c 1300 BC. By the Iron
Age (c 700-1 BC) we have evidence for the Italic, Messapic,
Celtic and Germanic stocks in the west, the Balkan languages
such as Thracian, Dacian and Illyrian, Phrygian in Anatolia
and first hand evidence of Iranian. The other IE languages,
other than occasional parahistorical references, do not appear
in written records until the first millennium AD or later.
Although this evidence allows us to see the full “historical”
distribution of the Indo-European languages of Eurasia, there
are substantial reasons for rejecting the notion that this
distribution had been stable for many thousands of years.
First, there is some evidence for the existence of relic non-
IE populations that preceded IE expansions into their
territories. In the Iberian peninsula there are Iron Age
inscriptions in what would appear to have been two different
non-IE languages known as Tartessian and Iberian while the
modern (non-IE) Basque language, situated in nonhem Iberia
and southern France, reinforces the notion that Spain and
Portugal were the subject and not the source of IE expansions.
Similarly, central and northern Italy offers the remains of the
Etmscan, a language that is generally, although not quite
universally, regarded as a non-IE language, while fleeting
inscriptions in a number of other meagerly attested languages
(e.g., North Picene) have also been held to reflect the existence
of relic non-IE populations in Iron Age Italy. Central Anatolia,
the historical seat of the Hittites, was apparently previously
occupied by the non-IE Hatti who have left some texts,
primarily religious. It is generally accepted that the Hittites
themselves established their state in Hattie territory (from
whom they borrowed their name) where they absorbed the
previous occupants along with sections of their vocabulary
pertaining to both the running of the state and religion. Eastern
Anatolia, territories historically occupied by the Luvians and
Armenians, were previously settled by the non-IE Hurrians
and their linguistic cousins, the Urartians, and so this territory
is also traditionally excluded from the earliest IE-speakers, as
is northern Syria where the earliest attested traces of Indo-
Aryan appear among the Hurrian-speaking Mitanni. The
Iranian languages emerge beyond the limits of the earliest
historical records but expanded southwards into the kingdom
of Elam in southern Iran whose language was clearly non- IE.
Finally, the Indo-Aryan languages still share the Indian
subcontinent with the non-IE Dravidian and Munda language
families and their presence indicates that this enormous region
was also the subject of later IE expansions. Thus, the written
record tends to suggest that the IE languages spread from
somewhere north of Iberia, Italy, central and eastern Anatolia,
northern Mesopotamia, southern Iran and India-Pakistan.
The second line of evidence is primarily theoretical. There
are finite limits to the size of area that any language may
occupy without separating into different dialects and gradually
unintelligible languages. Language is constantly changing and
without a written standard and other artifices of modem media
exchange, it is impossible for the various speakers of a
— 290
INDO-EUROPEAN HOMELAND
language, spread over a broad territory through time, to enjoy
sufficient inter-communication that they experience the same
course of linguistic change through time. This process is self
evident among various IE stocks where Latin and Common
Slavic of the early mediaeval period have both differentiated
into the modern Romance and Slavic languages respectively.
Studies of North American Indian languages suggest that the
area they occupied ranged from about 530 to 660,000 sq km,
averaging about 19,000 sq km, about the size of the modern
state of Israel. The area occupied by a single language will be
dependent on many factors such as terrain and the nature
(and mobility) of the economy but the probable maximum
upper range of a prehistoric language would be on the order
of 250,000 to a million sq km (i.e. , the size of the United
Kingdom to about one and a half times the size of the Ukraine).
The theoretical limits then suggest that the IE language family,
at some time in its prehistoric existence, should have occupied
a territory far more confined than that which is evident in its
earliest historically attested distribution.
History of the Problem
Attempts to locate the earliest Indo-Europeans have existed
since the discovery of the IE language family itself. Initially,
the IE language family was explained by reference to the Bible
where Japhet, one of the sons of Noah, was regarded as the
source of all those languages neither Semitic (from Noah’s
son Shem) nor Hamitic (Ham) and hence Mount Ararat in
Armenia, the reputed resting place of the Ark, served as a
convenient homeland. The rise in interest in the early literature
of the Indo-Aryans and Iranians, coupled with an exaggerated
conception of their antiquity, encouraged the belief that the
earliest IE peoples derived from the territory between the
Caspian Sea and Bactria, part of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and
Tadzhikistan, and the cradle of the Indo-Europeans was set
variously in mountainous areas such as the Hindu-Kush. Such
a homeland stimulated romantic notions of how the earliest
Indo-Europeans nurtured their language and culture in
isolation and then burst forth from their homeland to spread
their higher culture to Europe and the rest of Asia.
The consensus of an Asian homeland, although still widely
accepted throughout the nineteenth century, received its first
attack in 1851 when the English philologist, Roger Latham,
argued on linguistic grounds that an Asian homeland was
contrary to the linguistic evidence. Employing the biological
model of the relationship between species and genus, Latham
argued that the similarity between Indo-Aryan and Iranian,
what today we recognize as the Indo-Iranian superstock, is
such to suggest that it represented a more recent expansion
from Europe where a much greater number of linguistic stocks
(species) existed, suggesting that the original territory of the
language family (genus) was Europe and not Asia. Although
Latham’s arguments were not widely accepted, they were
augmented during the 1870s and 1880s by a variety of
scholars who confused language and race and argued that
the earliest Indo-Europeans, now frequently designated with
the Indo-Iranian ethnonym “Aryans”, must have derived from
the lightest pigmented Caucasian physical type. Once the
concept of the tall, long-headed, blue-eyed blond Aryan was
accepted, the homeland was shifted to southern Scandinavia
or northern Germany and a new consensus emerged.
By the turn of the century, this newer consensus began to
crack and the various schools of thought emerged and set the
course for most of the solutions of the twentieth century.
Although Europe was almost universally accepted as the IE
homeland, the precise location of the homeland became very
much a matter of dispute. The case for northern Europe
persisted and the earlier racial arguments were augmented
by archaeology that associated the earliest Indo-Europeans
with the Corded Ware (Battle-Ax) cultural horizon that
covered northern and central Europe. A Baltic origin was
further supported by linguists who found in Lithuanian the
most conservative IE language. That conservatism suggested,
in their opinion, that it had travelled least from the original
homeland.
The northern homeland theories (in whatever guise) were
opposed by those who became increasingly convinced that
the earliest Indo-Europeans were pnmanly steppe pastoralists
and the homeland was variously set to the Ukraine, south
Russia, and occasionally as far east as Kazakhstan. Other
proposed homelands were within the territory of the Linear
Ware culture that spanned the Danubian drainage from the
Netherlands and France in the west to the Ukraine in the east
or the Neolithic cultures of south-eastern Europe, centered
on the northwest corner of the Black Sea and stretching from
the Balkans again to the western Ukraine. The only part of
Europe universally rejected as potential homeland territory
was the Atlantic periphery and the Mediterranean, the former
on geographical grounds and the latter on the exclusion
principle as it was the one region that possessed evidence of
non-IE populations. Now even this latter principle has been
partially breached by a number of solutions that seek the IE
homeland in Anatolia and Armenia, either on linguistic
grounds that the IE language family is closely related to
language families of the Near East and southern Caucasus, or
on archaeological grounds that the Indo-Europeans should
be linked to the earliest spread of agriculture from Anatolia
to Europe.
The path to the current indecision has hardly been straight
and in addition to the various broad schools of thought, there
have been numerous less widely accepted solutions. These
range from proposals to set the homeland at both the North
and the South poles, North Africa, Egypt, India, and as early
as the Neanderthals or as late as c 1600 BC.
Linguistic Solutions
Solutions to the IE homeland problem have often derived
from the field of linguistics and these can be categorized into
five different approaches.
The first approach involves the external relationships of
the IE family. Just as the stocks of a language family may be
— 291 —
INDO-EUROPEAN HOMELAND
Homeland I The shaded area indicates the generalized distribution
of the Nostratic language family. The darker shaded area indicates
the Nostratic homeland c 15,000 BC according to Allan Bomhard.
more or less similar (and presumably once geographically
proximate) to one another, so also one may argue that similar
relationships exist between different language families. Within
the area of homeland studies, these types of relationships are
argued either on a one-to-one basis or as part of a larger
linguistic entity that itself comprises different language
families. For example, there have been frequent attempts to
demonstrate that the IE languages share broad grammatical
features and individual items of vocabulary with the Semitic,
Kartvelian, North Caucasian and Uralic families. The putative
“super-family” that would include Indo-European and these
other language families is usually called “Nostratic” (derived
from Lat noster ‘our’). On such evidence the location of the
homeland has been set to the Black and Caspian sea areas
because of the close relationship between Proto-Indo-
European and Uralic to its north or North Caucasian to its
south or the proposed relationships between IE and Semitic
or Kartvelian have been employed to support an IE homeland
south of the Caucasus, in Anatolia, or Central Asia. The
“ultimate” homeland has even been pulled so far south as
Egypt in some solutions to Nostratic origins although they
generally lie somewhere in southwest Asia. Since all of these
other language families are at least geographically proximate
to the earliest attested IE languages, the solutions are possible
but the levels of similarity which are proposed between the
language families fall vastly short of those found between the
individual stocks of Indo-European. Lexical items that
reputedly link different language families are often dismissed
as undemonstrated or the products of widespread borrowing
while grammatical similarities are often rejected as hopelessly
vague. In short, no extra-familial relationship with Indo-
European has been demonstrated at a level that would enjoy
anything other than partisan support. The only exception here
is that there is clear evidence for some form of substantial
contact between the IE and Uralic families but these may have
occurred at too late a date (i.e., pre-Proto-lndo-Iranian or
later) to be relevant to the homeland problem.
A second linguistic approach derives from an examination
of the mutual relationships of the different IE stocks under
the assumption that their internal configuration will reveal
their original position. Theoretically, such an approach usually
embraces the “center of gravity” principle wherein it is
assumed that where the IE languages have existed longest,
we should expect the greatest differentiation since this would
be the area which has had the greatest opportunity to
experience language change. The corollary of this is that those
stocks who seem to be most similar to one another have
probably occupied their relative positions most recently hence
their lack of marked differentiation. On the basis of this, the
Indo-Iranian superstock, for example, would be regarded as
a relatively recent expansion into their historical seats,
presumably during the Bronze Age. Possibly much the same
could be said of the Celtic languages that occupied much of
western and central Europe during the Iron Age. The greatest
density of IE languages seems to appear between about 20
and 40 degrees longitude, the area between Poland and
Albania on the west eastwards to the Dnieper to central or
eastern Anatolia. This area would appear to be central and,
indeed, it tends to be the area where the IE homeland is most
often sought with territories to the west and east being
regarded increasingly peripheral to the homeland. There are,
however, several problems with such a line of argument.
First, while the Indo-Iranian superstock may be regarded
as relatively late, it is not specially related to the Tocharian
languages to its east which have generally been regarded as
more closely associated with the languages from the
supposedly central zone. Second, any attempt to employ the
“center of gravity” principle should be undertaken with
languages that are contemporary with one another which is
virtually impossible when studying the IE languages since
some languages, e.g., most of the Anatolian stock, were already
extinct long before other stocks, e g., most of the European
languages, had emerged in the written record. Very often the
“center of gravity” proposed by linguists for Indo-European
tends to be a palimpsest of different linguistic periods,
particularly for those who argue a Balkans homeland. Here
we have numerous marginally attested languages to pile into
the IE nucleus. In actual fact, a similar exercise could put the
homeland in Italy where the nucleus of (marginally attested)
IE languages and stocks is even greater. Finally, the theoretical
premise of the arguments rests on the notion that the only or
at least primary factor in linguistic differentiation is time, and
it therefore ignores other possible reasons for language change,
e.g., some would explain the heterogeneity of the Balkan
languages with reference to different non-IE substrates or to
the mountainous topography that impedes communication
and thus hastens linguistic fragmentation.
In addition to time then, another major factor often cited
— 292 —
INDO-EUROPEAN HOMELAND
0 * 10 * 20 ' 30 * 40 * 50 ' 60 ' 70 ' 80 ' 90 '
Homeland II The traditional representation of the “center of
gravity" of the IE stocks has often been employed to support a
homeland in the Balkans. However, it is filled with languages
that are either minimally known, e.g. , Venetic, Thracian, Illyrian,
Messapic, or whose Balkan origins are assumed rather than
demonstrated, e.g., Phrygian, Armenian.
Homeland III When compared with the Balkans, Italy offers as many
ill-attested Indo-European dialects to suggest a different “center of
gravity”. If the “center of gravity” principle is to be credited with any
validity, it must be employed using well attested languages derived
from the same time depth.
in language change is the impact of foreign substrates on an
expanding language. The theoretical assumption is that when
a language spreads over an existing population, the native
language with its presumably different phonetic and
grammatical systems will influence the way its speakers
articulate the new language. Conversely, where languages seem
to preserve the greatest number of early IE features, this lack
of change is credited to their speakers having occupied their
home region the longest and involved the incorporation of
few if any foreign speakers. The identification of foreign
substrates is most easily accomplished when one also has
documents in the foreigner’s language. Hence the presence of
Hattie or Hurrian vocabulary in Hittite suggests foreign
contacts in central and east Anatolian while the Armenian
language appears to have borrowed terms for their own native
environment from Hurrian or Urartian and the occasional
Dravidian loanword is uncovered in Old Indie. These
examples, however, do not gain much since there is already
historical documentation for the various substrate languages
in these territories. The evidence of foreign lexical items,
however, has also been extended to Greek and many of the
other languages of Europe where even cognate forms tend to
throw up reconstructions that look suspiciously non-IE
because of their root structure or (unstable) root vocalism or
perhaps because of the instability of the reconstruction that
suggests different IE groups adopting a foreign term from a
substrate and assimilating it differently from one region to
the next. A classic example is the designation for ‘hemp’. In
the various Indo-European languages w T here this particular
word is attested we have a variety of only partially compatible
forms: Lat cannabis , ON hampr, OE hxnep (whence NE
hemp), NHG hanf \ OPrus knapios , Lith kanapes, Grk
Kawapig , OInd £ana-. The Latin, Germanic, and Greek forms
might reflect a putative PIE *kannabis which would be
phonologically unusual in the two *a-’s, the double *-n- and
the presence of the rare *-b-. Baltic shows *-p- rather than
*-b- (borrowed from Germanic?) while Old Indie shows a
palatal *k- and no labial at all. (Similar words are found in
non-Indo-European languages as well, e.g., Turkish kenevir ,
Karakalpak kenep.) In addition to primarily lexical arguments,
linguists have also proposed substrate influences on the basis
of broader linguistic features such as the supposed
restructuring of the insular Celtic or Anatolian languages from
their IE ancestor, the Germanic sound shift, the abandonment
of the free accent in west European languages, etc. Finally,
linguists have frequently examined the other side of the coin
and sought out the least altered IE language. Most often this
distinction is awarded to the Baltic stock, in particular
Lithuanian which, although only attested in the last four
hundred years, still reveals a remarkable conservatism which
has stimulated arguments for an IE homeland in the Baltic
region.
Both the logical and methodological premises of the search
for foreign substrates is open to serious questions. It assumes
that language change is primarily a product of linguistic
expansion across foreign substrates but in actual fact language
change does not respond so symmetrically to substrate effects,
even when they are well known. For example. Old English
behaves very much as any other early Germanic language
despite the fact that it was superimposed on a native British
(Celtic-speaking) population. In any case, reference to possible
substrates as agents of linguistic change can only be tested
when the substrate is known. When the presumed substrate
has been completely replaced long before the supposedly
— 293 —
INDO-EUROPEAN HOMELAND
Homeland IV According to W Schmidt the shaded area bears early
“Indo-European” river names while the dots indicate where the such
“Indo-European” names might be found elsewhere in Europe.
Schmidt suggested that the concentration of early names in the Baltic
region supported this region’s claim to have been the Indo-European
homeland.
influenced language is recorded, the very existence of the
substrate, much less the kinds of influences it may have had,
is completely speculative. Moreover, if the mechanisms of
language change are really quite variable, then distinctions
between supposedly conservative languages such as Baltic and
much altered ones such as Albanian may have nothing
whatsoever to do with the prior location of their linguistic
ancestors. Indeed, the principle that a language will remain
most archaic where it has existed longest is an apparent
contradiction of the previously discussed “center of gravity”
approach that would assume that such a language area would
have experienced the greatest rather than least linguistic
fragmentation.
Finally, some linguists have argued that the most direct
testimony of the location of the IE homeland can be found in
the examination of river names. Other than a few attempts to
situate the earliest Indo-Europeans either between the Kura
and Araxes rivers in Armenia or along the banks of the Volga
because the Indo-Iranians appeared to share a common name
for these rivers, most attempts to employ rivers as indicators
of the homeland have been based on systematic hydronomies.
The logic of the approach rests on the widely recognized
phenomenon that river names often appear to be the oldest
and most conservative place names on a landscape and can,
therefore, be used to indicate the distribution of earlier
populations. The prehistoric limits of the Balts and Celts, for
example, have been assigned on such a basis. The existence
of such British river names as Thames and Severn in England
is a historically verifiable case in point. The largest such system
within the early IE-speaking world is generally known as Old
European ( Alteuropaisch ) which was proposed by Hans
Krahe. His hydronymic system comprised a series of
frequently recurring river names that were believed to have
been established by the common linguistic ancestor of the
Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Illyrian, Venetic and Baltic stocks c
1500 BC. This construct was then pushed eastwards by
Wolfgang Schmid to also include the Slavs as far east as the
Dnieper and, more importantly, it was also pushed further
back in time to Proto-Indo-European. Observing that the
Baltic region seemed to be both the geographical center of
the distribution and the territory possessing the most early
river names, Schmid proposed that the homeland should then
be sought in the Baltic region.
Hydronymic arguments for the homeland are empirically
quite controversial since they are based on assuming that
similarity of river names in different areas must derive from a
common proto-form, a statement with very little hope of verifi-
cation. Moreover, much of the evidence rests on river names
with a root vocalism in a which is widely thought to be either
late, i.e., not PIE, or a marker of the assimilation of a non-IE
word by IE speakers in Europe. Hydronymic evidence for
the IE homeland (as opposed to the distribution of individual
IE stocks) does not enjoy much currency beyond the limits
of those few specialists concerned with such research.
Lexico-geographical Approach
In addition to purely linguistic approaches to resolving
the homeland problem, there are also a series of arguments
where linguistics is combined with some other discipline such
as geography or archaeology to locate the territory of the
earliest IE speakers.
Lexico-geographical analysis utilizes the reconstructed
vocabulary to determine the geographical borders of the proto-
language and is a technique widely applied not only in IE
studies but also in determining the location of most other
language families, e.g., Uralic, Semitic, Algonquin. The
primary data is drawn from the semantic fields concerned
with flora and fauna which tend to have restricted ranges. In
the search for the IE homeland, special prominence has been
accorded to the beech and salmon. The significance of the
former is the famous “beech line”, the eastern limit of the
beech ( Fagus silvatica ) which ran from the Baltic (Kaliningrad/
Konigsberg) south to the northwest comer of the Black Sea
(Odessa). It was widely accepted that the existence of PIE
*bhagos ‘beech’ indicated that the Indo-Europeans could not
have originated east of this line. However, this argument loses
much of its force when it is noted that the reconstruction of
the word is confined to European stocks, that its reconstructed
semantic range is not unambiguous (the cognates yield ‘elm’
in Slavic and ‘oak’ in both Albanian and Greek), and the range
of the Caucasian beech ( Fagus orientalis ) is known from the
Caucasus region and could therefore extend the area of a
potential homeland east to the Caspian Sea. The second term
*loEs ‘salmon’ was generally taken to be the sea salmon ( Salmo
salar) which might only be found in the rivers draining into
— 294 —
: TjP‘
INDO-EUROPEAN HOMELAND
the Baltic Sea and, therefore, argued for a homeland
somewhere between north Germany and Latvia. This
argument has proven even less robust than the beech line
since the semantic reconstruction would now seem to be the
ubiquitous Salmo trutta , the trout, that is found widely
throughout much of Eurasia, thus denying this term any utility
in determining the IE homeland. Other terms that have at
least enjoyed some currency in the history of the problem are
words for ‘eel’, which also reputedly demonstrated a north
European homeland (despite the fact that it is not strongly
ascribed linguistically to PIE nor is it restricted geographically
to the Baltic) and the ‘tortoise’, whose distribution was seen
to exclude the far north of Europe. Attempts to employ other
environmental terms are numerous but even less conse-
quential. Example can be found in the recent attempts of T.
Gamkrelidze and V Ivanov to assert that since the PIE lexicon
shared words for mountains and fast running water, the
homeland was most logically set to the Caucasus mountains.
The distribution of cognate sets and shifts in the semantics
of reconstructed forms have also been employed to trace the
location of the homeland. The reconstruction of a PIE term
for the ‘birch’, *bherhxgos , for example, which would exclude
Anatolia from the homeland, has been dismissed by one
linguist because it is etymologically transparent, i.e., it
indicates the ‘bright one’, and it is a late o-stem, therefore, it
is ascribed not to the homeland but only to those Indo-
Europeans who had left their Anatolian homeland and entered
Europe. On the other hand, semantic shifts in the meanings
of reconstructed arboreal terms in Greek and Latin, for
example, the Latin cognate for the ‘birch’ word denotes the
‘ash’, are employed to demonstrate that the Indo-Europeans
originated north of the Mediterranean and when they did
not find the same trees in their new environments, they
reapplied the inherited names to different trees. The most
extensive attempts to employ semantic shifts as a marker of
the homeland appeared in the works of Wilhelm Brandenstein
who sought to demonstrate that cognate sets between Indo-
lranian and the other European languages indicated that the
former preserved the earlier non-agricultural meaning, e.g.,
OInd ajra- ‘open field, pasture’ but Lat ager ‘cultivated field’,
and that the Europeans had innovated with many terms for
their new, wetter and more forested environment when they
had moved from a homeland in Kazakhstan.
Finally, the lexicon has been employed to provide negative
evidence for the location of the homeland where, for example,
the presumed absence of terms for ‘oil’, ‘cypress’, ‘olive’, ‘ass’,
‘lion’, etc., have been employed to show that the Indo-
Europeans did not originally inhabit the Mediterranean or
Anatolia while the absence of terms for such items as ‘amber’
have been used to exclude a Baltic homeland.
Lexico-archaeological Approach
The most direct testimony for the early culture of the Indo-
Europeans is the reconstructed vocabulary which provides
the only direct bridge between Indo-European as a primarily
linguistic concept and the hard data of archaeology. The
reconstructed vocabulary for domestic animals (‘sheep’, ‘goat’,
‘cattle’, ‘pig’, ‘dog’) and ‘grain’, coupled with terms for
agricultural implements, e.g., ‘sickle’, ‘grinding stone’,
‘pottery’, all attest an agricultural or Neolithic economy which
should not have existed anywhere proximate to the Indo-
European world prior to c 7000 BC. Other terms suggesting
the use of animals for draft or secondary products such as
‘wheeled vehicles’, ‘yoke’, ‘plow’, ‘milk’, ‘wool’, as well as ‘silver’
and the ascription to the PIE community of the domestic
‘horse’ tend to lower the earliest date for the common IE
lexicon to c 4000 BC. This date does not necessarily pertain
to the movements of IE-speaking communities but only marks
the time by which those communities, whether they had
expanded or not, still showed no signs of significant linguistic
separation. By c 2500 BC, it is widely regarded that at least
some of the IE stocks had already become so significantly
different from the reconstructed proto-language that items of
vocabulary should be recognized as loan words rather than
inherited. In the intervening period, between c4000 BC and
2500 BC there is hardly an item of culture, diagnostic for the
reconstruction of PIE culture, that had not expanded from
one end of Eurasia to the other, regardless of where it had
first appeared.
The other terms relating to the culture of the earliest Indo-
Europeans are not particularly diagnostic. Concepts such as
the ‘house’ or even some form of ‘enclosure’ , ‘village’ or even
‘fortified settlement’ are nearly ubiquitous across the Eurasian
Neolithic. The PIE arsenal of ‘knife’, ‘spear’, ‘bow’, and ‘arrow’
are similarly found over all Eurasia while IE social institutions,
including the detailed evidence for its kinship system, are
not credibly retrievable from the archaeological record.
Assessing Homeland Solutions
One of the major reasons for the abundance of homeland
solutions (and scepticism that any of them is correct) is the
absence of a commonly agreed upon set of criteria by which
one can evaluate the validity of any particular solution. There
are, nevertheless, some criteria that appear so widespread that
they constitute an essential suite of principles. A homeland
solution should be robust enough to satisfy or, at least, not
violate the following basic principles.
1 . Exclusion principle. It is widely argued that the homeland
should not be set in an area where there is evidence of
prior non-IE occupation. This has generally provided
grounds for excluding areas such as Iberia (Tartessian,
Iberian, Basque), Italy (Etruscan, ?North Picene), north-
central (Hattie) and eastern (Hurrian) Anatolia, the
Caucasus, almost the entire Near East (Semitic, Sumerian),
southern Iran (Elamite) and much if not all of the Indian
subcontinent (Dra vidian, Munda). The limitations of this
principle is that establishing the presence of non-IE
speakers in a particular region does not necessanly establish
their priority there, e.g., the current language of Anatolia
is Turkic yet we know that it was previously Indo-European
295
INDO-EUROPEAN HOMELAND
Homeland V The exclusion principle is indicated in this map of
Eurasia which indicates where non-IE languages were solidly attested
or presumed to underlie the expansion of the Indo-Europeans.
Tartessian, Iberian and the modem Basque generally exclude Iberia.
The Etruscans are commonly regarded as non-IE. North and east
Anatolia was occupied by non-IE languages during the Bronze Age
while to the south and east were the Hurrian, Semitic, Sumerian
and Elamite languages, the last of which may be related to the Dravid-
ian of southern India (i.e. , Elamo-Dravidian). The Uralic homeland
and the early dispersal of the Uralic languages (indicated by question
marks) is generally set to the forest zone of either side of the Urals.
(i.e., Greek, Phrygian, and the several Anatolian languages).
Generally, the antiquity of out attestations, e.g., for the
Bronze Age in Anatolia and the Near East and the Iron Age
in Iberia, has suggested that our evidence for non-IE
languages is close enough to the date of early IE dispersals
that we may assume that they were indeed “substrates”
and not later intruders. This example also emphasizes that
the exclusion principle is of limited application because it
can only be applied where there is certain evidence of non-
IE populations which, for most of Eurasia, could only be
known (one way or the other) with the spread of writing
in the last centuries BC or first centuries AD. It is impossible
to pronounce on whether there were non-IE languages,
for example, in the Baltic territory before our earliest
evidence for Baltic languages.
2. Temporal principle. Any homeland solution should be set
within the broad temporal constraints of the lexical-cultural
evidence for Proto-Indo-European. The lexico-cultural
evidence indicates that the Proto-Indo-European
vocabulary cannot predate the Neolithic, i.e., the
establishment of a settled way of life based on domesticated
plants and animals and the technology associated with such
a subsistence base. On the other hand, any date after c
2500 BC is unlikely to accommodate the degree of linguistic
differentiation we already encounter in the second
millennium BC. If the full range of the reconstructed
vocabulary is taken into consideration, including those
items of material culture that only appear at the end of the
Neolithic or early Bronze Age, the date of PIE should be
broadly set to the period c 4500 -2500 BC.
3. Relationship principle. The interrelationships of the IE
languages suggest that their dispersal was not uni-
directional but appears to involve a series of interrelation-
ships. While the specific nature of the “branching” of the
IE stocks is subject to debate, there are certain broad
patterns that are generally agreed upon. These would
comprise the following:
A. Anatolian would appear to have separated early from
the other IE stocks (or the reverse).
B. A core of “Late” IE stocks formed which comprised
Greek, Armenian, Indo-lranian.
C. A “Northwestern” group of languages formed
comprising Germanic, Baltic and Slavic.
D. The western stocks of Celtic and Italic seem to be more
closely associated with the Northwestern rather than
the Late IE stocks.
E. The position of Tocharian is disputed but it does not
appear to be in any particular close association with
Indo-lranian.
These broad relationships should be accommodated within
any solution to the homeland problem and description of
IE dispersals.
4. Cultural principle. The minimum cultural and environ-
mental picture derived from the reconstructed PIE lexicon
should be accommodated within a homeland solution. In
general, much of the reconstructed lexicon attests environ-
mental or cultural features that are found broadly over
much of Eurasia and are not particularly diagnostic. In
some instances, where we have an animal such as the horse
which is both fully reconstructible to PIE (notwithstanding
debate as to whether it was wild or domestic) and appears
to have had a limited distribution in the prehistoric record,
it may be employed as a test of a solution’s plausibility.
Such tests, however, are also dependent on time, i.e.,
although limited in distribution at 4500 BC, the horse was
found over a much broader area of Eurasia by c 2500 BC.
Diagnostic cultural items are hence time factored, i.e., they
only have meaning if one can control for time as well.
5. Archaeological principle. Although ignored in some purely
linguistic solutions to the problem, it is difficult to accept
any homeland solution that lacks some form of confirming
evidence for dispersals in the archaeological record. While
archaeologists will freely acknowledge that there is great
uncertainty as to what constitutes evidence for population
dispersals in the archaeological record (much less how that
evidence should be “read” linguistically), the archaeological
record does indicate trajectories that require some spatial
and social mechanism of explanation and it also can
evaluate to some extent the conditions of social change
under which linguistic replacement may have occurred.
Fragile although it may be, archaeology offers one of the
— 296 —
INDO-EUROPEAN HOMELAND
Homeland VI Baltic-Pontic homeland set to the Mesolithic.
few forms of confirming evidence to purely linguistic
arguments.
6. Total distribution principle. Probably one of the single
greatest reasons for rejecting many solutions to the IE
homeland problem are breaches of the total distribution
principle. Any homeland solution must account for the
dispersal of all the IE stocks. Numerous solutions proposed
in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries made
vigorous defences of how Indo-Europeans spread from,
for example, a Baltic homeland through the rest of Europe
without providing the slightest evidence of how dispersals
from this area carried IE stocks into Anatolia or Asia;
conversely, the Asiatic homelands proposed in the
nineteenth century and more recently by some scholars
provide no explanation whatsoever how the IE stocks
reached Europe. No solution is acceptable unless it explains
the distribution of all IE stocks.
Current Homeland Solutions
From the great number of homeland solutions one can
select four that enjoy fairly wide currency. Each differs not
only with respect to where its sets the homeland but also
when it initiates IE dispersals.
1 . The Baltic-Pontic solution. This solution argues that a PIE
linguistic continuum already existed during the Mesolithic,
i.e., c 8500-5000 BC, in the area between the Baltic and
Black/Caspian seas. The Neolithic cultures that emerge
across this enormous region are then ancestral to their
respective regional IE stocks, e.g., the northwest IE
languages emerge in the TRB culture of the north European
plain, while Indo-lranian develops in the steppelands of
the Ukraine and south Russia and pushes eastwards into
Asia. A central tenet of this solution, at least as argued by
archaeologists, is that there is a major cultural border
Homeland VII The Anatolian or Neolithic “wave of advance" model
seeks IE origins in Anatolia in the eighth-seventh millennium BC.
between the steppe cultures and those of temperate Europe
which provides the foundation for the split between Asiatic
and European languages as this cultural border was not
seriously transgressed at any period from the Neolithic
onwards (except during the Iron Age where the late spread
of Iranian nomads to eastern Europe is irrelevant to IE
dispersals).
The Baltic-Pontic theory cannot be evaluated according
to the exclusion principle. It fails both the temporal and
cultural principles in that there is no way that a homeland
set among hunter-gatherers can explain the agricultural
and specific technological vocabulary reconstructed to PIE.
It can accommodate the relationship principle but does
not fully satisfy the archaeological or total distribution
principles in that, other than the movement of lE-speakers
to Asia, it does not account for their spread into the Balkans
or Anatolia. In sum, this solution attempts to embrace two
conflicting alternative solutions, i.e., the central Europe/
Balkan and the Pontic-Caspian solutions, into a single
model pushed back further in time.
2. The Anatolian solution. There are several variations on an
Anatolian homeland. The most widely accepted is that
which seeks to associate the dispersal of the Indo-
Europeans with the spread of agriculture from Anatolia
into Europe. This spread, set to the c 7000-6500 BC, is
attributed to a movement of peoples (demic diffusion) over
generations as farming populations increased and moved
progressively through Europe at about a rate of 1 km per
year. In this way putatively l E-speaking farming colonists
absorbed (culturally, genetically and linguistically) the
previous occupants of Europe as they expanded in a “wave
of advance”. Expansion into Asia is accounted for in one
of two models. One requires that the Neolithic economy
spread eastwards from Anatolia into Iran and India. The
— 297 —
INDO-EUROPEAN HOMELAND
other model continues that of the first (and all other
solutions) by attributing IE dispersals into Asia to
populations previously occupying the steppelands of the
Black and Caspian seas. In this model, these steppe-nomads
are ultimately derived from the same farmers who migrated
from Anatolia through the Balkans and then eastwards
around the northwest shore of the Black Sea.
This solution comes very close to violating the exclusion
principle if it does not directly do so since broad areas of
central and eastern Anatolia can be attributed to non-IE
populations with the emergence of written records within
the region from the third millennium BC onwards. It might
be emphasized that the clearest evidence for a local
transition from hunting-gathering to farming occurs in the
southeast of Anatolia and that it is just as plausible to
assume that if any new language spread to Europe with
farming it was probably not an IE language. The solution
can avoid violation of the exclusion principle only by
shifting the IE heartland to western Anatolia where
linguistic evidence for non- IE Bronze Age populations is
lacking.
The Anatolian solution also seems to be a bit early to
accommodate the temporal principle. Although Anatolia
does produce evidence for basic domestic plants and
animals, the cultural reconstructions which appear to date
to the end of the Neolithic or early Bronze Age, e.g.,
wheeled vehicles, plow, wool, cannot be attributed to the
seventh millennium BC. With respect to the cultural
principle , there is no evidence of the horse (domestic or
otherwise) in western Anatolia or in neighboring Greece,
the first region “Indo-Europeanized” according to this
solution, until c2000 BC. Even the relationship principle ,
which can normally be satisfied with a little cartographical
legerdemain, seems to be violated as this model suggests
dispersals that run Anatolia > Greece > Italy, which
implicitly suggests linguistic relationships
unaccommodated by any linguistic evidence. The model
has been adjusted by some who have argued that
population movements were limited to the Balkans and
central Europe and that later Bronze and Iron Age
expansions must account for the distribution of the IE
languages on the European periphery.
The archaeological principle has been the strongest
element in support of this theory in that the spread of
agriculture can be followed in the archaeological record
and could offer the social conditions for large-scale
language replacement. Insofar as the spread to Asia is
concerned, the model that ties the Asiatic Indo-Europeans
to the initial spread of agriculture seems very unlikely in
that the transition to agriculture in Iran and India can be
explained by sources far closer than Anatolia. This model
falls on just about every possible matter of assessment,
e.g., the exclusion principle as the area between eastern
Anatolia and the Indo-Iranian world was clearly occupied
by non-IE language families (Human, Urartian, Semitic,
Homeland VIII The Balkan-central European homeland associates
the earliest Indo-Europeans with the Linear Ware culture and early
Neolithic cultures of southeast Europe.
Sumerian, Elamite), it is no better at satisfying the temporal
and cultural principles, it does not explain the relationship
between the “late” IE stocks of Greek, Armenian, Indo-
Iranian. The alternative model of Asiatic expansions is
questionable since there is some evidence that the Pontic-
Caspian region received its Neolithic economy not from
the Balkans but from the Caucasus.
Other solutions based on an Anatolian homeland are
set later, i.e., c 5000-2000 BC. These mitigate the impact
of the temporal and cultural principles but still do not
resolve the problem of the exclusion principle. Nor is the
archaeological evidence for such expansions particularly
strong (in some cases it is non-existent).
3. The Central Europe-Balkan solution. This theory has
generally been driven by recognition that the exclusion
principle appeared to remove Anatolia and Greece (on the
acceptance of the secondary evidence for a non-IE Greek
substrate) from consideration and the positive fact that
such a homeland fitted the “center of gravity” principle. It
places the homeland in central Europe (the Linear Ware
culture), including perhaps the Balkans, from the Neolithic
onwards. It can be adjusted (if one accepts a late date of c
5000-3000 BC) to accommodate the temporal and cultural
principles but suffers in terms of the archaeological and
total distribution principles. It is difficult to employ this
INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
model to explain the Indo-Europeans of Asia or Anatolia.
In fact, by ignoring the relationships between Anatolia and
Greece and the Balkans, it unaccountably attributes a non-
IE language to the Neolithic cultures of Anatolia and Greece
and yet finds grounds to assign an IE identity to their later
descendants in the Balkans and central Europe.
4. The Pontic-Caspian solution. This is the theory that places
IE dispersals in the most recent period, i.e., c 4500-2500
BC. It suggests that the homeland lay among mixed
agricultural and increasingly mobile pastoralist tribes that
emerged in the steppe and forest-steppe of the south
Ukraine and south Russia and then expanded both to the
east and west. The western expansion, seen as the “Kurgan
model” of IE origins (the kurgan or tumulus is one of the
typical markers of this expansion), involves the spread of
populations into southeast Europe and their progressive
domination or acculturation of non-IE peoples across
Europe. This model meets almost all requirements except
the archaeological principle where many would argue that
the evidence for expansions from the steppe was limited
(the hard evidence seems to end with the river Tisza in
Hungary) and so it is very difficult to explain IE dispersals
in much of Europe nor is the evidence for intrusions into
either Greece or Anatolia particularly strong.
The solution to the IE homeland problem thus remains
elusive despite periodic announcements to the contrary.
Geographically and archaeologically, the major issue of
dispute appears to occur north of the Black Sea between
the rivers Dniester and Dnieper since this has traditionally
formed a division between two cultural “worlds”. The
Baltic-Pontic solution attempts to reconcile this division
by retreating back in time to the Mesolithic and drawing a
circle around both areas. The Anatolian and central Euro-
pean solutions argue that the Indo-Europeans transgressed
this Dniester-Dnieper fault line from the west while the
Pontic-Caspian solution suggests that it was transgressed
from the east. How this particular issue can be resolved
and whether its resolution can accommodate the other
assessment principles invoked here will be essential to
resolving the Indo-European homeland problem.
See also Albanian Language; Anatolian Languages;
Armenian Language; Baltic Languages; Celtic Languages;
Dacian Language; Germanic Languages; Greek Language;
Illyrian Language; Indo-European Languages; Indo-
Iranian Languages; Italic Languages; Kurgan Tradition;
Macedonian Language; Messapic Language; Phrygian
Language; Physical Anthropology; Picene Languages;
Slavic Languages; Subgrouping; Thracian Language; Time-
Depth; Tocharian Languages; Venetic Language. Q.P.M.]
Homeland IX The “Kurgan solution” seeks the origin of the Indo-
Europeans in expansions from the Pontic-Caspian steppelands c
4500-2500 BC.
Dolgopolsky, A. (1987) The Indo-European homeland and lexical
contacts of Proto-Indo-European with other languages.
Mediterranean Language Review 3, 7-31.
Evret, C. (1988) Language change and the material correlates of
language and ethnic shift. Antiquity 62, 564-574.
Gimbutas, M. (1991) The Gvilization of the Goddess. San Francisco,
Harper.
Mallory, J. R (1989) In Search of the Indo-Europeans. London,
Thames and Hudson.
Renfrew, C. (1987) Archaeology and Language. London, Jonathan
Cape.
Sherratt, A. and S. Sherratt (1988) The archaeology of Indo-
European: an alternative view. Antiquity 62, 584-595.
Zvelebil, M. and K. (1988) Agricultural transition and Indo-European
dispersals. Antiquity 62, 574—583.
INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
Approximately two billion people or about a half of the
world’s population presently speak an Indo-European
language. Yet the Indo-European language family is but one
of about twenty language families spoken throughout the
world and is followed in numbers by the Sino-Tibetan (which
includes Chinese) which numbers close to one billion
speakers. Other major language families include Altaic (with
Turkic and Mongolian) with 250 million speakers, Austro-
nesian (c 180 million speakers), Afro-Asiatic (which includes
the Semitic languages) with c 175 million speakers, etc.
The concept of a language family expresses the genetic
relationship of a group of different languages that shares a
common ancestor. The Indo-European family consists of about
140 languages divided into approximately twelve major
‘stocks’ (and a number of isolated languages) which stand in
Further Readings
Anthony, D. (1991) The archaeology of Indo-European origins. J/ES
19,193-222.
Diakonoff, I. (1985) Oh the original home of the speakers of Indo-
European. JIES 13, 92-174.
INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
Indo-European Generalized distribution of the major stocks of the
Indo-European family (c 1000-100 BC).
varying degrees of relationship to one another. In some
instances the relationship is so close that the languages are
actually mutually intelligible, for example, Spanish and
Portuguese or Norwegian and Danish while other language
relationships are considerably more distant, for example,
English and Polish. The similarity or dissimilarity is, to a
considerable extent, dependent on their temporal and spatial
distance from one another, i.e., how long their speakers (and
the ancestors of their speakers) have been out of mutual
contact with one another, and how distantly from one another
they have been separated. Hence the relationships between
the individual Scandinavian languages or the Slavic languages,
which are not only mutually contiguous with one another
but also began to diverge only within the last one to two
thousand years, permits varying but significant degrees of
mutual intelligibility. On the other hand, it is by no means
easy to even recognize the affinity between languages separated
distant in time such as Hittite, already extinct by about 1100
BC and Albanian, attested only from about the fifteenth
century AD. Nevertheless, all languages that have been
assigned to the Indo-European family are closely enough
related that one can be confident that they do derive from a
common ancestor, i.e., a prehistoric language or chain of
mutually related dialects. This common descent, of course,
does not deny that many of the various Indo-European
languages or their earlier ancestral languages have also been
in contact with one another and loan words abound between
the various Indo-European languages.
The Indo-European Stocks
The position of the Indo-European languages from their
earliest historical attestation and prior to their historically
recorded colonizations extended from Ireland in the west to
Chinese Turkestan and India in the east. Most of the IE
languages may be ascribed to the following major stocks,
summarily described here from west to east.
Celtic
During the Iron Age the Celts were not only the western-
most lE-speakers but they were also attested over most of
southern and central Europe and even parts of Asia Minor.
They may be traced in the historical record of the classical
world, sacking Rome in 390 BC and Delphi in 279 BC. These
latter invaders settled in present day Turkey in 270 BC and
became the Galatians to whom Paul addressed an epistle. The
Celtic languages are traditionally divided into two groups —
Continental and Insular Celtic. Less than one hundred
inscriptions, mostly from France, survive to record the Gaulish
language while Lepontic, a sparsely attested language of
northern Italy, has also proved to be Celtic. The third main
branch of Continental Celtic is variously known as Hispano-
Celtic or Celt-Iberian and is recorded in inscriptions in the
Iberian peninsula.
The surviving Celtic languages all belong to the Insular
Celtic group and derive from ancient languages spoken in
the British Isles. The Goidelic division consists of Archaic
Irish, known from ogham inscriptions from about the fourth
century AD, and Old Irish, known from at least the seventh
century AD, and its more recent derivatives, Middle Irish,
(New) Irish, (Scots) Gaelic and the recently extinct Manx.
The Celtic language(s) of early Britain provides the ancestor
of later Old Welsh, Middle Welsh and (New) Welsh as well as
the now extinct Cornish, primarily known from late medieval
dramas. The most widely spoken Celtic language is Breton,
which was transplanted to northwest France by British settlers
who may have encountered remnant Gaulish speakers on the
continent.
Italic
The earliest Italic inscriptions date to the sixth century BC
and indicate the existence of two sub-groups, Latino- Faliscan
and Osco-Umbrian. Oscan was the native language of Pompeii
and much of Campania. Umbrian is best known from a long
series of ritual texts, the Iguvine Tables. Closely related to
Osco-Umbrian are the Sabine dialects of Paelignian,
Marrucinian and Vestinian.
The other major group consists of Faliscan and a series of
archaic inscriptions such as those in Praenestine and Lanuvian
as well as Latin, the language that ultimately came to dominate
in Italy. As the official language of the Roman Empire, Latin
was the only language of the Italic group to survive post-
imperial times, becoming a lingua franca of the west European
Middle Ages. From spoken Vulgar or Common Latin derive
the modern Romance languages of Portuguese, Spanish,
Catalan (all spoken in Iberia), French, Provencal (both spoken
in France), Romansch (spoken in Switzerland), Sardinian,
Italian, Ladin, Friulian (all spoken in Italy), and Romanian.
Dalmatian, now extinct, was formerly spoken on the east
Adriatic coast.
— 300 —
INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
A possible third sub-group of Italic, if not an independent
Indo-European “branch”, is Venetic, recorded in a series of
inscriptions from the Iron Age in the Veneto. Other Indo-
European languages recorded in ancient Italy include
Messapic, spoken in the sixth to first centuries BC in Apulia
and Calabria and possibly closely related to the so-called
Illyrian language of the east Adriatic. South Picene or South
East Italic and the four Sicel inscriptions from Sicily are
thought to be related in some fashion to Italic.
Germanic
The earliest attested Germanic languages derive from the
East Germanic group. Extensive documents first appear in
the fourth century AD in the form of a translation of the
Gospels into a Visigothic dialect, usually called Gothic for '
short. Proper names from other Gothic tribes as well as the
Vandals, Burgundians and other such tribes, a few runic
inscriptions, a list of rune-names preserved in a later
manuscript and a short list of Crimean Gothic words made
in the sixteenth century before its last speakers died out
complete the roster of East Germanic material.
North Germanic material consists of early Norse runic
inscriptions, a considerable body of Old Norse literature,
especially in its western or Icelandic dialect. The modem
descendant of the more western variety of Old Norse are
(New) Icelandic, Faroese, Norn (once spoken on the Shetland
and Orkney islands off of northern Scotland), and Norwegian.
The eastern subdivision of North Germanic consists of
Swedish, Gutnish and Danish.
Western or Maritime Germanic includes Old English and
its later descendants Middle English and (New) English. Also
in this group are Old Frisian with its modem descendant,
Frisian, which was first continuously recorded in the late
thirteenth century. The Old Saxon of the ninth century is the
ancestor of the modem northern or Low German patois. The
Continental West Germanic languages include Old High
German, attested from the eighth century, Middle High
German and (New) High German. High Germanic influence
on other West Germanic languages such as Old Low Franco-
nian and its later survivals — Dutch, Flemish and Afrikaans —
obscure their relationship with Maritime Germanic.
The Baltic languages Lithuanian and Latvian (or Lettish)
are the sole surviving members of the eastern subgroup of a
family that once stretched as far east as Moscow. The earliest
Lithuanian text dates from 1 503 with a catechism from 1547;
Latvian texts begin somewhat later at 1 586. Among the extinct
East Baltic languages, recorded only in onomastic sources,
are Curonian, Selonian and Zemgalian. A Western Baltic
subgroup is reflected most extensively in Old Prussian which
was first recorded in the fifteenth century and ceased to be
spoken in the eighteenth, and Yotvingian, for which our sole
evidence, apart from onomastics, may be a recently discovered
wordlist with Polish glosses.
Slavic names first appear in Byzantine records a century
after the collapse of Attilas empire as sixth-century Slavic tribes
moved south to fill the political vacuum left in central Europe.
By the time Slavic texts were first committed to writing in the
ninth century (the traditional date of the mission of Saints
Cyril and Methodius who converted the Slavs and devised an
earlier form of the “Cyrillic” alphabet is 863), dialect diversity
was already evident. Old Church Slavonic, the liturgical
language of the Eastern Orthodox Church, is based on the
Thessalonican dialect of Old Macedonian, one of the South
Slavic languages. Modern South Slavic languages are
Macedonian and the closely related Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian
and Slovenian. The present East Slavic languages consist of
Russian, Belorussian (or White Russian) and Ukrainian. The
Western Slavic languages are the closely related Moravian
dialects of Czech and Slovak, the Pomeranian dialects of
Kashubian, Slovincian and the extinct Polabian, and Upper
Sorbian, Lower Sorbian (or Wendish or Lusatian) and Polish.
Albanian
The first short text in Albanian dates from 1462 and during
the following centuries sporadic documentation occurs,
generally in the northern or Gheg dialect. A continuous literary
tradition was not established until the nineteenth century and
the modern standard is based on the southern dialect, Tosk.
Albanian has a considerable number of loans from Turkish,
Slavic and Latin and a few from classical Greek. The ancient
language of modern Albania was Illyrian, attested only in
glosses and proper names although quite possibly reflected
also in the Messapic inscriptions of southern Italy. To the east
of the Illyrians one finds Thracian and Dacian. The first is
known from only a few inscriptions, glosses and proper names
while even less is known of Dacian, the language of ancient
Romania.
Greek
Greek has been documented since at least the thirteenth
century BC in the form of Linear B, attested in territories
controlled by the ancient Mycenaeans. Greek is traditionally
divided into two major divisions. The eastern dialects consist
of Attic-Ionic, the most important dialectal group in Greek
antiquity, Aeolic, as well as the more archaic appearing
Arcadian and Cypriot; possibly the obscure Pamphylian may
also belong here.
The western group is more diverse and comprises nine
dialects. In the northwest is Phocian, the language of the
Delphic oracle, Locrian, Elean and a northwest koine or lingua
franca used by the Aetolian League. Doric is a diverse group
of eight local dialects that include Laconian, the language of
ancient Sparta, Messenian, Megarian, Corinthian, Argolic,
Rhodian, Coan, Theran and Cretan.
The Tsakonian dialect of Modem Greek has words derived
from ancient Laconian; otherwise. Modern Greek or
Dhimotiki continues the triumph of Attic over its competitors.
301 —
INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES
However, in earlier times the dialects had considerable value
in literature and there are numerous unassignable dialect
words, especially recorded in the compendium of the Greek
lexicon compiled by Hesychius of Alexandria in the fifth
century AD.
Armenian
Classical Armenian reflects biblical religious literature
traditionally ascribed to the fifth but more probably dating
from the ninth century AD. Situated between several of the
ancient civilizations, the Armenian vocabulary has been
extensively affected by Greek, Iranian, Caucasian and Semitic
languages.
Phrygian
The ancient language of Phrygia, although situated in
central Anatolia, is not closely related to the Anatolian stock
and represents apparently a separate subgroup of Indo-
European. From the eighth to the third century BC we have
about 240 Old Phrygian inscriptions while about a hundred
New Phrygian inscriptions belong to the first century AD.
The latter texts, which are brief and repetitive, seem to reflect
the funerary use of a dying language. Another language
sometimes and without any really solid linguistic evidence
presumed to be related to Phrygian is Mysian, a language
attested in a single seven-line inscription dating from the third
or fourth century BC.
Anatolian
The Anatolian languages of ancient Turkey provide the
oldest traces of the Indo-European family. Hittite and Palaic
texts written in cuneiform provide the terminus a quo in the
eighteenth century BC for a documentation that extends to
the fourth century BC with alphabetic inscriptions in Lycian
and Lydian. Hittite, textually the most important of these
languages, stands somewhat apart from the others. After the
fall of the Hittite Empire at the beginning of the twelfth century
BC, records in this official court language abruptly cease. In
the south, the popular idioms, Luvian and especially its near
relative — perhaps best regarded as just an eastern dialect —
Hieroglyphic Luvian, formerly called Hieroglyphic Hittite
before decipherment confirmed its closer relation to Luvian,
continued for several centuries as spoken and written
languages of the Neo-Hittite kingdoms. A more divergent
western variant, Lycian, is recorded in about 1 50 inscriptions
and another fifty coin legends in a Greek-derived alphabet of
the Hellenistic era. Several of these inscriptions contain
passages in a different, perhaps more archaic dialect, Lycian
B or Milyan. Palaic, possibly already an extinct liturgical
language, preserved only in a handful of religious texts among
the Hittite archives at Bogazkoy, shows some similarities with
both Luvian and Hittite. Unlike Lycian, Lydian, known from
more than fifty inscriptions, has no clear antecedent or relative
in the earlier cuneiform texts, and its closer relations within
the Anatolian stock are unclear. Certain languages such as
Cappadocian, Cilician, Isaurian, Lycaoman, Paphlagoman,
Pisidian and Sidetic are known from proper names or glosses
recorded in antiquity or, in the case of Carian, nearly seventy-
six inscriptions, and they have been suspected of being
members of the Anatolian stock, but such interpretation is
still debatable.
Indo-Iranian
Indo-Iranian forms a superstock consisting of three sub-
stocks: Indie, Iranian and Nuristani, of which only the first
two were recorded in antiquity. Indie is sometimes called Indo-
Aryan to distinguish it from the non-Indo-European languages
of India. The earliest Old Indie languages are frequently
distinguished as Vedic Sanskrit, the language of the earliest
ritual texts, and Classical Sanskrit. These texts were not
recorded during their period of composition and were
transmitted orally until the Middle Indie period. Other than
traces of Indo-Aryan terms and names in Hittite and Mitanni
documents, the earliest written evidence for Indie dates from
the reign of the emperor ASoka (269-232 BC). During the
later Middle Indie period emerged the Prakrits, the most
significant of which was Pali, the language of the Buddhist
scriptures. The other early Prakrit languages include
Maharastri, Ardhmagadhi, Magadhi, SaurasenI, Jaugada,
Dhauli, Kalsi, Girna, Mansehra and Shahbazjarhi.
The modern languages of the Indian subcontinent derive
largely from the earlier Prakrit languages. In the northwest
are found Panjabi, Lahnda, Sindhi and the Pahari group,
spoken near the Himalayas, which includes Nepali in the east ,
Kumauni and Garhwali in the center and western Pahari.
Romany, the language of the Gypsies who migrated into
Europe during the Middle Ages, appears to be a northwest
Indie dialect as well. The central division is the largest and
consists of a number of closely related dialects such as Hindi-
Urdu, Bagheli, Awadhi, Chattisgarhi, Braj-Bhasa, and Bundeli,
as well as the Bihari group, of which Magadhi, Maithili and
Bhojpuri are representative. Also, members of the central
division are the Rajasthani group, consisting of Mewati,
Ahirwati, Harauti, Malvi, Nimadi, Marwari and Rajasthani;
to this also belongs the Bhili group as well as Khandeshi and
Tharu. The southwest division consists of Gujarati, Marathi,
Konkani, Sinhalese and Maldivian. The eastern division
consists of Assamese, Bengali and Oriya. The Dardic languages
did not derive from a Prakrit but seem to have evolved from
an Old Indie dialect. The eastern Dardic languages consist of
Kashmiri, the only Dardic language with a literary history,
the Shina group consisting of Dumaki, Phalura and Shina
proper and the Kohistani group — Baskarlk, Maiya, Tirahi,
Torwali and Wotapuri-Katarqalai. The western division
consists of Darnell, Gawarbati, Shumashti and Pisai. The
Chitral languages, Kalasa and Khowar, form the central
division.
Isolated in the Hindu-Kush are the Nuristani (or Kafir!)
languages — Kati, Prasun, Waigali and Ashkun and their
dialects — which constitute the smallest of the sub-stocks of
— 302
INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES
Indo-Iranian. They derive from an ancient Indo-Iranian
language or chain of dialects that was distinct from both Indo-
Aryan and Iranian.
The Iranian sub-stock was already divided into three
divisions when the first written monuments of Iranian, the
sixth century inscriptions of Darius the Great, were carved
into the face of a cliff at Behistun. The Old Persian of the
Achaemenian dynasty is the earliest representative of the
southwestern division. The inscriptions also reveal occasional
words derived from Median, a northwest Iranian dialect. In
the Middle Iranian period, this or a similar northwest dialect
formed the basis of the Arsacid Pahlavi of the Arsacid dynasty
(250 BC-226 AD). During the Sassanian period (226-652
AD), the southwest dialect re-emerged as Sassanian Pahlavi
and Middle Persian. The northeastern division is represented
by the Avesta , liturgical texts originally transmitted orally like
the Indie vedas. The Avesta is written in two slightly divergent
dialects, one of which is Gathic, the language of the prophet
ZaraGustra (or Zoroaster) who is reputed to have composed
the hymns that reflect the earliest evidence of the Iranian
language. The greater part of the Avesta , usually termed
Younger Avestan or simply Avestan, is linguistically
comparable to the earliest Old Persian inscriptions. The
northeastern languages of the Middle Iranian period are
Sogdian, Khorasmian, Khotanese Saka and Tumshuqese. The
latter two languages are thought to be related to that of the
Iron Age Scythians of the Old Iranian period.
Of the modern northeast dialects, Yaghnobi seems to be
most akin to Sogdian. The Pamir dialects consist of Shughni,
Yazghulami, and the extinct Wanchi. Pashto, the chief
language of Afghanistan, is a northeastern Iranian language
as are also: Wakhi, of which Zebaki is perhaps a dialect, the
Ishkashimi-Sanglechi group, Munji, the now apparently
extinct Sargulami and Yidgha, and perhaps Pakhpo for which
there is no reliable data. Finally, the most displaced of the
northeastern languages is Ossetic, thought to be the
descendant of the language of the Alans of classical history,
which is found now in the Caucasus, the territory otherwise
occupied by northwestern languages.
The northwestern Iranian languages of the Caucasus
include the Caspian dialects of Mazandarani, Gilaki, Talishi,
Zaza, Harzan, Galinqaya, Gorani and Kurdish. The tribal
movements that propelled Ossetic into the Caucasus also help
explain the appearance of northwestern dialects such as
Baluchi in southeast Iran and Pakistan and Parachi and Ormuri
in Afghanistan. Some confusion reigns over the dialectal
placement of some Tati dialects (labeled northwestern but-
said to resemble Persian to the southwest), Semnani, Bashkard
and Lur dialects which have been variously labeled
northwestern or southwestern.
The main southwestern dialect is Farsi or Persian which is
called Tajik in the former Soviet Union where it is also
indigenous. Southwestern dialects closely related to Persian
include Somghuni, Papuni, Masarmi, Buringuni and perhaps
Luristani. Kumzari is spoken across the Persian Gulf.
Tocharian
The Tocharian group first became known to European
scholarship when fragments of Buddhist texts from Xinjiang
(Chinese Turkestan) began appearing in the 1890s. It was
not until the 1906-08 expedition of Sir Aurel Stein that these
texts could be placed in their proper context and dated
between the sixth and eighth centuries AD. This group derives
its name from the (probably) erroneous notion that they were
the same people the Greeks called ‘Tokharoi’, who in fact
were more likely to have been an Iranian-speaking tribe.
Two Tocharian languages are recognized. Tocharian A, a
liturgical language employed in the oases of Turfan and
Qarasahr, the territory of the ancient kingdom of Agm, is
also known as Turfanian or Agnean. The western language,
Tocharian B, was employed in the kingdom of Kuci and is
sometimes known as Kuchean.
See also Albanian Language; Anatolian Languages; Armenian
Language; Baltic Languages; Celtic Languages; Dacian
Language; Germanic Languages; Greek Language; Illyrian
Language; Indo-European Homeland; Indo-Iranian
Languages; Italic Languages; Messapic Language; Picene
Languages; Proto-Indo-European, Reconstruction;
Schleicher’s Tale; Slavic Languages; Thracian Language;
T ocharian Languages ; Venetic Language . [ M . E . H . ) .
Further Readings
Baldi, P (1983) An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages .
Carbondale and Edwardsville, Southern Illinois University Press
Lockwood, W B. (1972) A Panorama of Indo-European Languages.
London, Hutchinson.
INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES
The Indo-Iranian branch is the only undisputed super-
stock of IE languages, i.e., a stock comprised of two or more
major language divisions. The divisions of the Indo-Iranian
stock consist of Indo-Aryan, Iranian and a much smaller group
of languages, Nuristani, whose position as a separate division
is agreed by many although perhaps not all linguists. The
Indo-Iranian languages also have the largest territorial
distribution and were spoken from north of the Black Sea
eastwards to the Yenisei and south through Iran, Afghanistan,
the western borders of China and the northern two- thirds of
the Indian sub-continent. In the historical period, Iranian
nomads of the Ukrainian steppe pushed into the Danubian
basin: tribes belonging to the Sarmatian confederation settled
in Hungary until they were absorbed by expanding German
and Slavic tribes (some Sarmatians were even posted to Britain
as part of the Roman army). The Alans, another east Iranian-
speaking people, allied themselves with the Huns and crossed
the entire length of Europe to Iberia and then moved on to
settle in north Africa. A probable remnant group of the Alans,
the Ossetes, is to be found in the central Caucasus.
The Indo-Iranian languages clearly derive from an ancestor
intermediate between Proto-Indo-European and the earliest
individual Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages, i.e., one can
— 303 —
1ND0-IRAN1AN LANGUAGES
reconstruct a Proto-Indo-Iranian language. The close similarity
of the earliest attested lndo-lranian languages is clearly evident
if we extract several lines from the Avestan hymn to the Iranian
god MiGra, and provide it with an interlinear translation in
the language of the Rgveda of ancient India (and the recon-
structed Proto-lndo-lranian forms).
Yast 10.6
Avestan
tarn amavantam yazatam
Old Indie
tarn amavantam yajatam
Proto-lndo-lranian
*tam amavantam yajatam
This powerful deity
Avestan
suram damohu savistam
Old Indie
suram dMmasu savistham
Proto-lndo-lranian
*curam dMmasu cavistham
strong, among the living the strongest
Avestan
miOram yazai zaoOrabyd
Old Indie
mitram yajai hotrabhyah
Proto-lndo-lranian
*mitram yajai jhautrabhyas
MiGra, I honor with libations
Our ability to reconstruct a Proto-lndo-lranian intermediate
between Proto-Indo-European on the one hand and Proto-
Indic and Proto-Iranian is also supported by the self-
designation, *aryo- (OInd arya -, Av airya -, OPers ariya-)
‘Aryan’, shared by both Indie and Iranian. The old genitive
plural *aryanam is preserved on the Iranian side in the name
of the Alans, in Iron, the self-designation of the eastern
Ossetes, and most importantly in Iran ‘Iran’. Linguists remark
that the similarity between Iranian and Indie is not only one
of grammar and general lexicon but even the references to
the means of ritual offerings in the two languages derive from
a common ancestor which speaks for a common cultural
background. This common background is also reflected in
the sharing of names for rivers and common deities (albeit
some of the earlier deities common to both were demonized
in the later religious reform of ZaraGustra).
Indo-Iranian Phonology and Grammar
From a phonological point of view the Indo-Iranian
languages, at least in their earliest forms, are relatively
conservative. Indie, alone of the various IE stocks, preserves
the three-way distinction in manner of the PIE stops in the
way they are traditionally reconstructed: voiceless (i.e., *k),
voiced (*g), and voiced aspirate ( *gh ). In Iranian the latter
two series have become merged as simple voiced stops.
Indo-Iranian is innovative in four important ways. First,
Indo-Iranian are satam languages, meaning that the dorso-
palatals of PIE (e.g., *k) appear as affricates or continuants
(OInd s', Av s) while the labio-velars (e.g., *k w ) have lost all
trace of their labialization (Old Indie and Avestan If). Secondly,
Indo-Iranian has merged PIE *e, *a, and *o (and *e, *a, and
*6) as a (and a). The merger had tremendous morphological
impact, in that it abolished the frequently used distinction
between *e and *o , e.g., the present tense of a verb might
have *e while the perfect *o (since PIE *o was lengthened in
an open syllable before a resonant [r, /, n, m) , at times the PIE
distinction between *e and *o was preserved as Indo-Iranian
a vs. a). It should be noted that this merger occurred only
after original (labio-)velars had been palatalized before original
front vowels. PIE *k w e gives OInd ca ‘and’ while *k w 6s gives
kah ‘who’. It was this “law of palatals” that convinced
nineteenth century Indo-Europeanists that the uniform a of
Indo-Iranian was actually an innovation vis-a-vis the e, a,
and o found in Greek and Latin. Thirdly, there has been a
strong tendency to merge *r and *1 The merger is complete
(as r) in Iranian (Is found in later Iranian have a different
origin). In Old Indie the situation is more complex. There
appear to have been western dialects that merged the two as
r, just as in Iranian, and eastern dialects that merged them as
/, while central dialects preserved the distinction, at least in
part. Finally, Indo-Iranian shares with Baltic and Slavic the
so-called ruki- rule whereby PIE *s was retracted after *i, *u,
*k, and *r. Thus PIE *h 3 ok w s(i) (one form of the word for)
‘eye’ appears as OInd aksi ‘eye’ and Av asi ‘eye’. Separate from
Iranian, Indie has developed a series of retroflexed consonants,
t, d , s, n. The second s comes from PIE *s when the latter has
undergone the ruki- rule. The others come from borrowings
or other internal developments (e.g., PIE *nisdos gives OInd
nlda- ‘nest’). Iranian on the other hand is characterized by
the change of stops to continuants before resonants (e.g., PIE
*kruh a ros ‘bloody’ gives Av xrura- ‘bloody’).
As in all branches save Anatolian and Albanian, the PIE
laryngeals have been lost as separate phonemes in Indo-Iran-
ian. However, that loss would appear to have been very late
and both Old Indie and Avestan preserve a trace of their pre-
sence in uncontracted vowels (i.e., *-ah x a- remains as -a-a-
rather than as *-a~). Between consonants Old Indie almost
always vocalizes the laryngeals as -i- while in Iranian they are
vocalized as -i- only in initial and final syllables. The choice
of -i- as the vocalization of laryngeals sets Indo-Iranian apart
from other IE stocks where the vocalization is -a- (though in
Greek -e-, -a-, or -o- depending on the laryngeal). The results
of these changes (and others of a less sweeping nature) can
be seen in the accompanying Indo-Iranian phonological table.
The Nuristani languages stand a bit apart from both Indie
and Iranian in their phonological development. They share
with Iranian (and Baltic, Slavic, and Anatolian) the merger of
the voiced and voiced aspirates, series which in Indie remain
independent. However, they preserve PIE *k as an affricate,
unlike both Indie and Iranian where it has become a
continuant (OInd dasa ‘ten’ and Av dasa ‘ten’ compared to
Kati duts ‘ten’). There is also some evidence that they did not
undergo the ruki- rule change (e.g., Kati masa ‘mouse’, cf. OInd
mus- ‘mouse’). All this may suggest that the Nuristani group
was originally peripheral to the rest of lndo-lranian,
presumably because the speakers of Proto-Ntiristani were
already in the mountains of northeastern Afghanistan where
— 304 —
INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES
Proto-Indo-European and Indo-Iranian Phonological Correspondences
PIE
Olnd
Av
PIE
Olnd
Av
*p
>
P
P
*pl) a ter ‘father’
pita ‘father’
pitar- ‘father’
*b
>
b
b
*bel- ‘strong’
b£am ‘strength’
-
*bh
>
bh
b
*bhreh a ter ‘brother’
bhritar- ‘brother’
bratar- ‘brother’
*t
>
t
t
*tuh x om ‘thou’
tuvam ‘thou’
tvoin ‘thou’
*d
>
d
d
*doru ‘wood’
daru ‘wood’
dauru ‘wood’
*dh
>
dh
d
*dhoh x neh a - ‘grain’
dhana- ‘grain’
dana- ‘grain’
*k
>
s
s
*deEtji ‘ten’
da&a ‘ten’
dasa ‘ten’
*g
>
j
z
*gonu ‘knee’
janu ‘knee’
zanu- ‘knee’
*gh
>
h
z
*ghimos ‘cold’
hima- ‘cold, frost’
zamaka- ‘winterstorm’
*k
>
k - c
x~ c
*kruh a ros ‘bloody’
krura- ‘bloody’
xrura- ‘bloody’
*teket ‘may he run’
-
taCat ‘may he run’
*g
>
g~j
g~ z
*h a euges- ‘strength’
ojas- ‘strength’
aojah strength’
*h a ugrds ‘strong’
ugra- ‘strong’
ugra- ‘strong’
*gh
>
g ~ h
g~Z
*d]hxgh6s ‘long’
dlrgha- ‘long’
daroga- ‘long’
*dleh x ghistos ‘longest’
-
drajista- ‘longest’
*k w
>
k ~ c
k ~ c
*k w os ‘who’
kah ‘who’
kd ‘who’
*k w e ‘and’
ca ‘and’
Ca ‘and’
*g w
>
g~j
g~J
*g w ou- ‘cow’
gav- ‘cow’
gau- ‘cow’
*g w ih ]Uos ‘alive’
jiva- ‘alive’
OPer Jiva- ‘living’
*gWh
>
gh ~b
■g~J
*g w hnenti ‘strike’ (pi.)
ghnanti ‘strike’ (pi.)
-
*g w henti ‘strikes’
hanti ‘strikes’
Jamti ‘strikes’
*s
>
s
h
*septiji ‘seven’
sapta ‘seven’
hapta ‘seven’
*1
>
y
y
*iugom ‘yoke’
yugam ‘yoke’
yuga- ‘yoke’
*u
>
V
V
*yegheti ‘drives, rides’
vahati ‘drives’
vazaiti ‘travels’
*m
>
m
m
*meh a ter ‘mother’
matar- ‘mother’
matar- ‘mother’
*n
>
n
n
*nos ‘us’
nas ‘us’
no ‘us’
*1
>
1, r
r
*linek w ti ‘leaves’
rinakti ‘leaves’
irinaxti ‘releases’
*r
>
r
r
*kruh a rds ‘bloody’
krura- ‘bloody’
xrura- ‘bloody’
>
a
a
‘un-’
a- ‘un-’
a- ‘un’
*rp
>
a
a
*kqit6m ‘hundred’
satam ‘hundred’
satam ‘hundred’
*1
>
r
arer
*u\k w os ‘wolf’
v/ica- ‘wolf’
vahrka- ‘wolf’
*r
>
r
arar
*kpd- ‘heart’
hfd- ‘heart’
zarad- ‘heart’
*i
>
i
i
*linek w ti ‘leaves’
rinakti ‘leaves’
irinaxti ‘releases’
*e
>
a
a
*dikrp ‘ten’
disa ‘ten’
dasa ‘ten’
*e
>
a
a
*h a nir ‘man’
na ‘man’
na ‘man’
*a
>
a
a
*h a 6geti ‘drives’
ijati ‘drives’
azaiti ‘drives’
*a
>
a
a
*m6h a ter ‘mother’
mata ‘mother’
matar- ‘mother’
*0
>
a ~ a
a ~ a
*g6mbhos ‘tooth, peg’
j&mbha- ‘tooth, tusk’
-
*g6nu ‘knee’
janu ‘knee’
z&nu- ‘knee’
*0
>
a
a
*dhoh x neh a - ‘grain’
dhana- ‘grain’
d&na- ‘grain’
*u
>
u
u
*iugdm ‘yoke’
yugam ‘yoke’
yuga- ‘yoke’
*u
>
u
u
*mtls ‘mouse’
mQs- ‘mouse’
NPers mQs ‘mouse’
*hi
>
0
0
*hiesti ‘is’
asti ‘is’
asti ‘is’
*h 2
>
0
0
*h 2 ftkos ‘bear’
fksa- ‘bear’
arasa- ‘bear’
*h 3
>
0
0
*h 3 ok w s(i) ‘eye’
aksi ‘eye’
asi ‘eye’
*h 4
>
0
0
*h 4 orghis ‘testicle’
-
arazi- ‘testicle’
— 305
INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES
their descendants are found (at a time when the Proto-lndic
speakers were still somewhere on the Iranian Plateau), and
thus not subject to all the innovations that otherwise affected
lndo-lranian. Their current, geographically central, position
with Indo-Iranian results from their being “outflanked” by
the Indo-Aryan speakers who moved around them into the
Punjab and ultimately throughout northern and central India.
The Indo-Iranian languages are also conservative
representatives, at least in their earliest attestations, of the
PIE morphological system. Old Indie and Avestan both
preserve all eight of the PIE nominal and adjectival cases
(vocative, nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, locative,
ablative, and instrumental) as well as the three numbers
(singular, dual, and plural) and three genders (masculine,
feminine, and neuter) reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European.
The verb is equally elaborate, having three persons (first,
second, and third), three numbers (singular, dual, plural),
three aspects or ways which the speaker can “view” an action
(“present”, aorist, and perfect), three tenses (present, past,
future) and four moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive,
and optative). In this complexity it matches Greek and clearly
reflects at least a late, dialectal situation in Proto-Indo-
European though for Proto-Indo-European as a whole it is
doubtful that we can reconstruct a future (tense), a perfect
(aspect), or a subjunctive (mood).
Indo-Aryan
The earliest attested representatives of the Indo-Aryan
languages are to be found in north Syria and in India. The
evidence from northern Syria appears as loan words in the
language of the Mitanni, a group of people speaking the non-
IE Hurrian language who were in diplomatic and cultural
contact with the Hittites and Egyptians. The Indo-Aryan
element of the Mitanni vocabulary is evident in treaties and
other works found in the archives of both their neighbors:
the archives of the Mitanni themselves remain unknown. The
relevant Mitanni texts date to c 1400-1330 BC. The evidence
for an Indo-Aryan language rests primarily with the names of
some Mitanni leaders, the deities they swore by (Mitanni
Indara , Mitrasil , Nasatianna , and Uruvanassil = OInd Indra ,
Mitra, Nasatya and Varuna), and terms associated with the
horse-drawn chariot which are most notably found in a Hittite
horse-training manual attributed to Kikkuli ‘the Mitanni’. The
evidence for Indo-Aryan terms are seen in the numerals
preceding the various ‘turns’ (Mitanni wa-ar-ta-an-na, OInd
varta-) of the race-course, e.g., Mitanni a-i-ka ‘one’ (OInd
eka-), Mitanni ti-e-ra- ‘three’ (OInd tri-), Mitanni pa-an-za
‘five’ (OInd panca) and Mitanni na-wa ‘nine (OInd nava ). The
close association between the Indo-Aryan element and the
war-chariot has generally prompted the conclusion that the
Mitanni were briefly subjugated by Indo-Aryans who
possessed the chariot and introduced it into northern Meso-
potamia. After a number of generations, however, the Indo-
Aryan element declined to the status of a (dead) linguistic
residue in an otherwise Hurrian-speaking population.
The earliest evidence for the Old Indie language is to be
found in the massive corpus of Indie religious literature, the
earliest of which is the Rgveda. The Rgveda consists of 1028
hymns (more than 10,000 strophes or about the size of the
Iliad and Odyssey combined), associated largely with various
clans or families of northwest India, and is one of the four
main branches of the vedas. As an oral literature, passed down
through the generations by priestly memory and recitation,
the dates of its original creation can only be vague but they
are generally set to the period c 1500-1000 BC. The oral text
was “edited” about the seventh century BC by Sakalya and
the earliest written manuscripts date to the eleventh century
AD. Other prominent Vedic liturgical texts include the Athar-
vaveda and the Brahmana (manuals for undertaking the sacri-
ficial rites). There is also an enormous later classical literature,
most prominent being the two major epics, the Mahabharata ,
the longest epic poem in the word (with c 100,000 double
verses) and the Ramayana plus a vast quantity of other works.
The language of ancient India was codified or ‘put together’,
(i.e., OInd sam-skfta- > Sanskrit) by the great Indie gram-
marian Panini c 400 BC. All of this literature was originally
produced orally and the earliest evidence for written Old Indie
to survive is in the numerous inscriptions attributed to the
reign of the emperor Asoka in the third century BC. The corpus
of the Old Indie lexicon is enormous and provides one of the
main sources of comparanda for reconstructing the IE lexicon.
The Middle Indie languages or Prakrit (< OInd prakft ‘made
before’, i.e., ‘natural’ or ‘vernacular’ in contrast to the more
artificially governed Sanskrit) are the “natural” or vernacular
languages of early India that were spoken before c 400 BC to
1100 AD. Their initial date is difficult to determine but they
seem to have existed alongside some of the later Vedic
compositions which reflect Prakrit influences. The Prakrits
emerged during a period when the impact of the Dravidian
languages on Indo-Aryan became much more apparent.
Among the Middle Indie languages are Old Prakrit, the Prakrit
language found, for example in, the Asoka inscriptions and
Pali, the liturgical language of Buddhism which also emerges
by about the fourth century BC. Other Prakrits include
Magadhl, Saurasem and Maharastri. In classical Sanskrit
drama, kings and brahmins would speak Sanskrit while the
dialogue of women, children and the lower classes would be
written in Prakrit.
The modem Indo-Aryan languages began to emerge from
Prakrit about 1100 AD. These provide the largest of the spoken
languages of lndia-Pakistan today The Midland dialectal group
comprises Hindi-Urdu, Bihari, Rajasthani while the Western
languages are Gujarati, Marathi, Sinhalese (in Sri Lanka), and
Konkani. Other major Modern Indo-Aryan languages
comprise an Eastern group (Assamese, Bengali, Oriya), a
Northwest group (Panjabi, Lahnda, Sindhi, Pahari) and the
more isolated Dardic languages (Kashmiri, Kalasa, Khowar,
Darnell, Gawarbati, Sumasti, Pasal, Baskarik, Torwall, Maiya,
Wotapuri, Tirahl, Sina, Phalura, Dumakl). Occasionally, an
IE cognate in Indo-Aryan will only be found among the
— 306
INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES
modem Indo-Aryan languages rather than in any of the earlier
languages.
Iranian
The early Iranian languages are far more poorly attested
that those of ancient India. The earliest evidence of the Iranian
languages is the Avesta , the ancient religious texts associated
with the prophet ZaraGustra (the Zoroaster of the early Greeks)
and the royal inscription of the Achaemenid kings, primarily
Darius 1 (522-486 BC) and Xerxes (486-465 BC). The date
of the Avesta has been long disputed but on the basis of its
similarity with the earliest Indo-Aryan texts and the cultural
background depicted in its hymns, it has been set to the
eleventh century BC although much of the material included
in it was added later. The earliest sections of the Avesta are
attributed to ZaraGustra himself and are known as the GaOas.
These have been assigned to the period c 1100-600 BC
(depending on who one trusts for devising a date for
ZaraGustra). The latter parts of the Avesta are variously set to
c 800 BC to 200 AD. The Avesta was first written down about
the fourth to sixth centuries AD and the oldest surviving
manuscripts date to the thirteenth century and appear to
derive from a tenth-century edition. The sixth and fifth century
Persian texts written during the reigns of Darius and Xerxes
are termed Old Persian. These were written in cuneiform and
generally appear as trilingual inscriptions, which also include
Elamite, a non-IE language of (southern) Iran, and Babylonian
(Semitic). Dialectally, Old Persian is regarded as a
southwestern Iranian language in contrast to the east Iranian
Avestan which covered most of the rest of greater Iran.
The primary language of Iran until the Arab conquest of
642 was Middle Persian or Pahlavi, a markedly simplified
version of Persian which spread over the territory of many of
the other Iranian dialects of Iran. North of the Persian state,
Iranian languages were spoken through the Middle Ages
which belonged to the Eastern Iranian group. On the lower
Amu Darya, south of the Aral Sea, Khwarazmian survived
until the Turkic conquest of this region in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries. The ancient land of Sogdiana, which
had its capital at Samarkand, was the home of Sogdian which
was widely employed across Central Asia. Records in Sogdian
date from about the fourth to eleventh century by which time
Persian had generally replaced it, with the exception of
Yaghnobi which has survived to the present. The language of
the Iranians of the steppe lands is generally referred to as
Saka. The Saka conquered northwest India in the second
century BC and also expanded into Xinjiang, the western
province of China, where their language is best preserved in
documents from Khotan, hence the designation Khotanese
(Saka). Turkic expansions eliminated the Khotanese language,
recorded from the seventh to tenth centuries. Khotanese has
left no descendants. The related, but phonologically
considerably more conservative, Sarikoli is spoken in some
of the higher areas of southwestern Xinjiang.
Modem Persian emerged after the Arab conquest of Persia
Kurdish
Yagfrnohi
. Pamir f
. tdwstM.
;p*rdic :
, lahnda
7 Panjabi
Baluchi
Hindi l
RJjasthJni
Smdhi
Bihan~V|
Bengali 1
Oriya
Gujarati
Marathi
Sinhalese
0 500km
Indo-Iranian I The distribution of major Indo-Iranian languages.
Indo-Aryan languages are italicized; the Nuristani group is underlined
and the Iranian languages are indicated in the Roman script.
to become the state language of modem Iran and it is also
widely spoken outside its borders, e g., in Central Asia and
Afghanistan (Tajiki). Other modem western Iranian languages
include Kurdish, spoken in the mountainous territory of
Kurdistan, and Baluchi in Baluchistan, the southern territories
of Iran and Afghanistan, Tati and Talishi in Azerbaijan, Gilani
and Mazandarani along the southern shores of the Caspian;
Gorani is spoken in the region of Kermanshah and Zaza
survives in eastern Turkey. The more conservative eastern
Iranian languages comprise Pashto (Afghan), the state
language of Afghanistan, and a series of minor languages.
Yaghnobi (on the river Yaghnob), Munjani and Yidgha
(Badakshan), Parachi (north of Kabul), and Ormuri (north of
Kabul and in Pakistan). The languages of the earlier steppe
Iranians survives in mountainous regions such as Ossetic
(which some regard as the descendant of the languages spoken
by those Alans who did not migrate to western Europe with
the Huns), in the Caucasus, and the Pamir languages
(Shughni, Roshani, Bartangi, Oroshori, Sarikoli, Yazghulami,
Wanchi, Ishkashimi and Wakhi). The more limited literary
remains of the earlier Iranian languages are frequently enough
augmented by the linguistic residue that has survived in the
much more recently attested modem languages.
NQristanI
The NQristanI languages have only been attested since the
nineteenth century. They consist of five languages spoken in
the Hindu-Kush, the territory formerly named Kafiristan by
INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES
their Islamic conquerors from Kafirl ‘pagan’ and Kafir has
sometimes been applied to the Nuristanl languages but is
generally abandoned now as politically objectionable. The
Nuristanl languages are Ashkun, Kati, Prasun, Waigali and
Tregami (the latter the language of three villages, hence its
name tre-gami). The dialectal position of the Nuristanl
languages has been a subject of some debate and their precise
position with regard to the other Indo-Iranian languages is
still undecided. Some, possibly most, argue that Nuristanl is
an independent stock of the Indo-Iranian(-Nuristani)
superstock. Certain similarities with Old Indie have prompted
some to suggest that Nuristanl was part of Indo-Aryan but
unlike the rest of this stock, it did not enter the Punjab and
the rest of India nor undergo the linguistic evolution of Old
Indie. Others have argued on the ground of phonological
similarities with Iranian that the Nuristanl languages were
originally Iranian and that their speakers had moved into the
vicinity of Indo-Aryan (here Dardic) speakers and were
influenced by the other language division.
Indo-Iranian Origins
The distribution of the Indo-lranians finds them spanning
the Eurasian steppe from at least the Ukraine in the west
(whence we have historically attested movements of Iranian-
speaking peoples such as the Sarmatians and Alans into central
and even western Europe) across south Russia, Kazakhstan
and extending as far east as Xinjiang in western China (the
Saka). They are also found in Iran, Afghanistan and the
northwestern two-thirds of the Indian subcontinent. This
distribution comprises the open steppe of the north, the oases,
lake-side and river valley (Amu Darya, Syr Darya) urban
centers of Central Asia, and the plains, mountains and major
river systems of southern Asia.
The close linguistic association of the Indo-lranians
demands a common geographical origin before the separation
that led them to occupy their historically attested positions.
That they were intrusive into at least part of their area of
distribution is suggested by the presence of non-IE language
stocks in the southern part of their historical territories. The
Indo-Aryans who were present among the Mitanni of north
Syria operated in a milieu of non-IE Hurrian speakers who
occupied the region of northern Mesopotamia and eastern
Anatolia. In Iran, there is evidence of Elamite, a non-IE
language attested since c 2300 BC, occupying most of
southwestern Iran (modern Khuzistan); to what extent it
existed further north cannot be determined with any certainty.
Peninsular India still preserves two non-IE language families:
Munda in central India and, more importantly, the Dravidian
languages that presently cover the lower third of India but
once occupied a much larger area. This larger area of
occupation is suggested by the fact that Dravidian place-names
are found in now Indo-Aryan regions of central India and
one Dravidian language, Brahui, is situated in Baluchistan
(although it has also been proposed that Brahui only achieved
this position relatively recently). Arguments that it covered
the Indus Valley itself are suggested by putative substrate
effects of Dravidian on early Indo-Aryan (there are an
estimated thirty to forty Dravidian loanwords in Vedic) and
the possible identification of the Indus Valley script with the
Dravidian languages. There are arguments that Dravidian was
related to Elamite and that it was Dravidian speakers who
carried the earliest agricultural economy through western
India at the beginning of the Neolithic. The Neolithic of
eastern India is generally associated with the western spread
of Austro-Asiatic languages. Munda is the westernmost of
these languages which also include Khasi, spoken in Assam,
and Nicobarese in the Nicobor Islands. In the far north of the
Indian subcontinent is Burushaski which lacks any
demonstrable genetic connections.
It can be seen then that India was probably very
linguistically diverse and it experienced the “Neolithic
Revolution” from both the east and the west. That the non-IE
component of the Indo-Aryan vocabulary for local plants and
animals derives heavily from Dravidian and other “local”
languages suggests that the Indo-Aryans superimposed
themselves on existing agricultural populations. An estimated
one third of the modern Hindi vocabulary pertaining to
agriculture cannot be explained with reference to Indo-
European.
A second reason for excluding the Indo-Aryan languages
a local origin is that they share a range of lexical items with
the other IE languages for flora, fauna, and technological items
which are widely distributed over Eurasia but cannot be seen
to have originated in India, e.g., wheeled vehicles.
Thirdly, any attempt to anchor the Indo-lranians in their
historical seats since at least the beginnings of the Neolithic c
7000-6000 BC requires two models, neither of which is
persuasive. It might be argued (as a number of Indian linguists
and archaeologists suggest today) that the IE homeland was
in or near northwest India and that the other IE languages
had emigrated from this region. This theory, which resurrects
some of the earliest speculations on the origins of the Indo-
Europeans, has not a shred of supporting evidence, either
linguistic or archaeological. Alternatively, the spread of the
Indo-Iranian languages has been tied to the spread of the
Neolithic economy and hence, for example, some would credit
Proto-Indo-Aryan farmers with introducing agriculture to
India. This theory is proposed under two alternative models:
The first would argue that the transition from hunting-
gathering to agriculture took place in the vicinity of India
and that the Harappan culture was a (linguistically) local
phenomenon. Archaeologically, a possible case can be made
for this as we do find the development of an agricultural
economy from its hunting-gathering past in Baluchistan at
the site of Mehrgarh and subsequent developments in
architectural and social complexity that foreshadow the
urbanized culture of the Indus. But if the identification is
argued to reflect linguistic continuity until the emergence of
Indo-Aryan texts, then, we would have to look to this same
region as the IE homeland itself which renders such a linguistic
308
INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES
model liable to the criticism above. Moreover, one can also
witness a local transition to agriculture in the upland region
of Iraqi Kurdistan and we can hardly have two separate origins
for the Indo-Iranians.
The Anatolian model of IE origins offers a second
agricultural solution where Indo-Iranians are explained as an
eastern spread from a common IE agricultural heartland
situated in the vicinity of central or eastern Anatolia. The
problem here is that between the later speakers of Indo-
European languages in Anatolia and those of India and Iran,
we find non-IE language families, e.g., Semitic, Hurrian,
Elamite, and possibly Dra vidian. Moreover, the entrance of
lndo-Aryans into the Indian borderlands at about 6000 BC
(the appearance of agriculture in the region) renders it
impossible to explain how later Indo-Aryan languages share
the same vocabulary with western Europeans for items such
as wheeled vehicles which would not even be invented for
several thousand years later. Moreover, such a model ignores
the evidence for local origins of agriculture in Baluchistan.
Finally, the Indo-Iranian languages show deep connections
with the Uralic language family whose own origins are
variously set to either the region immediately west or east of
the southern Urals. There are numerous loanwords in the
Uralic languages that were probably borrowed from Iranian
but in some cases, an earlier Indo-Iranian loan is suspected,
e.g., Proto-Indo-Iranian *ketstro- ‘spindle’ (cf. Pashto casai ,
OInd cattra-) > Proto-Finno-Ugric *kestra (cf. Finnish kehra
‘spindle’). This contact suggests that the ancestors of the Indo-
Iranian languages were once in contact with those of the
Finno-Ugric languages of the Eurasian forest zone and that
the distribution of the Indo-Iranian languages is best explained
by a north to south movement.
The most widespread model of Indo-Iranian origins today
finds their direct ancestry among the populations of the
eastern steppe. From the end of the third millennium BC,
cultures emerge in the southern Urals and Kazakhstan, which
appear to have all the prerequisites of what one would expect
of the earliest Indo-Iranians. These prerequisites include the
domestic horse and the chariot, the latter which first appears
at such sites as Sintashta in the southern Urals just before
2000 BC. The more mobile way of life, witnessed in the earliest
Vedic hymns, is also seen in this region along with a primary
stockbreeding economy. This region also provides a
convenient contact zone with the Finno-Ugric languages. The
culture most frequently associated with the earliest Indo-
Iranians is that of the Andronovo culture, actually a blanket
term for a variety of cultures situated across the forest-steppe,
steppe, and later on the northern borders of Central Asia.
The theoretical model of Indo-Iranian expansions generally
follows at least a variant of the scheme suggested by Thomas
Burrow. According to Burrow, the lndo-Aryans were the first
to diverge from the Indo-Iranian continuum or proto-language
and they were the earliest to penetrate south of Central Asia.
They moved both west (Mitanni) and east (toward northwest
India). They were then subsequently pushed out of the central
region by a second major wave of Iranian speakers who
absorbed earlier lndo-Aryans, including some of their
vocabulary, placenames and deities (who were demonized as
foreign gods).
Indo-Aryan Origins
As we have seen, the lndo-Aryans appear both in northern
Syria and in northwest India. Those who found themselves
among the Hurrian-speaking Mitanni probably did so by c
1500 BC as the Indo-Aryan element in the lOlitanni vocabulary
has been regarded as a residue of a dead language. The
archaeological evidence for such an Indo-Iranian presence
among the Mitanni generally centers on the introduction of
the horse-drawn chariot, evidence for some form of cultural
movement from the east Caspian region that might be linked
to Indo-Iranians, and the possibility of recognizing Indo-Aryan
(or Indo-Iranian) mythological motifs in Mitanni art. The site
of Marlik in northern Iran tends to meet such requirements
as it is situated in a region associated with the location of the
historical Mitanni and it contains Mitanni seals. Moreover, it
yields West Iranian Grey Ware, a pottery type that appears
about 1500 BC and whose origins lie southeast of the Caspian.
The cemetery of Marlik yielded evidence for the horse and
chariot, and items associated with Indo-Iranian religion, e.g.,
fire cult, mortars for pressing out the sacred *sauma have
also been recovered from the site. The contemporary site of
Hasanlu near Lake Urmia has also yielded iconographic
evidence that may have been inspired by Indo-Iranian
mythology, e.g., the hero confronting the three-headed
monster. All of this evidence has suggested an Indo-Aryan
presence in the Mitanni region. How precisely this presence
ties in with putative Indo-Iranians further north is uncertain
although there have been attempts to derive this westward
spread of lndo-Aryans from the Bactrian-Margiana Archaeo-
logical Complex (BMAC), a recently defined culture which a
number of scholars have suggested may be associated with
the lndo-Aryans.
The archaeological evidence for the earliest lndo-Aryans
in northwest India is either controversial or ambiguous as it
is difficult to define what precisely should be expected of an
Indo-Aryan culture. The early Vedic hymns reflect a
geographical knowledge of the sapta-smdhava , the ‘seven-
rivers’ or tributaries of the Indus, which would place them
between the rivers Kabul in the north and Ghaggar in the
south. Their distribution would cross with that of the
Harappan culture of the Indus region but we have seen that
the latter culture would make a very poor candidate for early
lndo-Aryans. The local continuity of early agriculturalists
through the rise of Elamites and the Harappan culture renders
it far easier to propose linguistic continuity from the Neolithic
into the Bronze Age in both much of Iran and northwest India
(Proto-Dravidian has an agricultural vocabulary of its own
which includes rice and plow; also a more urbanised
vocabulary in that it reconstructs a word for the second story
of a house). Moreover, Vedic literature also makes it clear
INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES
Indo-Iranian II Archaeological cultures associated with Indo-Iranian
migrations. The early phases of the Andronovo culture have often
been seen to offer a “staging area” for Indo-Iranian movements. The
BMAC offers the Central Asian cultural “filter” through which some
argue the Indo-lranians must have passed southwards to such sites
as Mehrgarh and Sibri. The Yaz culture has been most closely
associated with the culture depicted in the Avesta. The Swat culture
may reflect either Indo-Aryan movements toward northwest India
or the emergence of NQristani or Dardic populations. Candidates
for early Indo-Aryan cultures include the Cemetery H, Copper Hoard
and Painted Grey Ware cultures.
that we are dealing with a largely pastoral society which
employed the horse and chariot; it makes no mention of towns
yet is geographically situated where urbanism previously
existed. Hence the emergence of an Indo-Aryan community
in northwest India is traditionally dated after the Harappans
or concomitant with their decline. That there was a decline
and population readjustment is unequivocally supported by
the archaeological evidence. In the period between c 2000
and 1800 BC there is a total collapse of urbanism in northwest
India and a massive, almost total in some regions,
abandonment of areas in the west and a relocation or at least
population increase in the east, e.g., the eastern Punjab. Out
of this Late Harappan period, numerous candidates have been
invoked to represent the archaeological expression of Indo-
Aryans.
Prominent candidates for early Indo-Aryans have included
the Cemetery H culture, the Copper Hoard culture, the
Painted GreyWare culture and the Swat culture. The Cemetery
H culture (c 2000-1400 BC) is reflected in a series of burials
that clearly date to after the collapse of the Indus towns. Their
ascription to Indo-Aryans is founded on their geographical
location, some evidence for urn burial (indicated in the Vedas),
and the depiction of peacocks and dogs on vessels which is
reminiscent of motifs indicated in Vedic mythology (peacocks
represent the spirit of the dead while the dogs are identified
as the hounds of Yama, lord of the underworld). The material,
however, is not entirely intrusive as local techniques of
manufacture are employed. Furthermore, the physical remains
of the deceased are indistinguishable from those of earlier
“pure” Harappan cemeteries, the evidence for the culture is
far too sparse to be regarded as an expression of an Indo-
Aryan conquest of the region, and there are no external sources
from which to derive the culture.
The Copper Hoard culture (c 2000-1500 BC) consists
primarily of a complex of metal artifacts, largely weapons,
including peculiar copper harpoons which some have identi-
fied with the vajra the special weapon of the Indo-Aryan war-
god, Indra. That the primary distribution of these objects is
in the Ganges valley rather than further west suggests that
this culture cannot be seen as an archaeological expression of
the earliest Vedic Indo-Aryans although their eastern spread
may possibly be connected in some way with the Copper
Hoard culture.
The Painted Grey Ware culture meets the requirements of
distribution in so far as later Old Indie literature is concerned
since it is found to match roughly the areas mentioned in the
Mahabharata. It is non-urban and it possessed the domestic
horse (chariots are presumed) and dates from c 1200 to 400
BC. But its distribution is centered on the region between the
eastern Punjab and the Ganges which does not correlate well
with the geographical view of the earliest attested Indo-Iranian
literature. Furthermore, it too lacks any clear external
derivation and it is, consequently, difficult to link it to an
intrusive group of Indo-Aryan speakers.
The Swat culture occupied the region of the Swat Valley,
the northern approach to the Indus, and consequently, a
territory through which one might expect Indo-Aryan
intruders. It has a number of parallels with Vedic religion,
e.g., both inhumation and cremation were practiced and there
is evidence for the domestic horse, including horse burials
and horse trappings. It dates from c 1800/1700 to 400 BC
and some argue that its roots lie further to the north in the
Bishkent culture of southern Tadzhikistan which offers further
parallels of Indo-Iranian religion. As a possible expression of
early Indo-Aryans, this is a robust candidate but also a very
limited one in that it cannot be convincingly linked to culture
changes throughout northwest India but only in the far
northwest comer. Its territory is the later seat of both the
Dardic and NQristani-speaking peoples and it is with either
of them that one most easily identifies the Swat culture.
Arguments for connecting it with movements further south
require some form of cultural assimilation into the post-
Harappan cultures such as the Cemetery H culture.
Finally, the most recently proposed candidate as an
archaeological expression of the early Indo-Aryans is to be
found much further to the northwest. The spread of the
— 310 —
INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES
Neolithic economy to Central Asia was already achieved by
the seventh millennium BC when agricultural villages
appeared along the southern fringe of the Central Asian desert.
From this period there is evidence of marked regional cultures
that share some similarity from Central Asia in the north to
the Indus Valley in the south but the amount of interaction,
other than occasional exchange items, raw material trade, or
generic similarities in ceramic styles and decoration, suggests
only a weak interaction sphere. The major cultural change
that cannot be simply credited to evolutionary factors is the
emergence of the Bactrian-Margiana Archaeological Complex
(BMAC) in the period c 2000-1750 BC. This complex repre-
sents the development of a series of colonies along the Bactrian
and Margiana oases that formed primitive “khanates”; fortified
citadels of elite farming groups. The culture is marked by a
series of stylistic elements, represented in steatite seals, and
other iconographic representations, and the BMAC absorbed
imports of raw material from a vast area of Central Asia. Its
importance regarding Indo- Aryan origins concerns the spread
of burials with BMAC material further to the south. BMAC
graves are found on the Iranian plateau and as far south as
Quetta, Mehrgarh (VIII) and Sibri, on the approach to the
Indus Valley. This intrusive material appears c 1900-1700
BC and offers another candidate for movements from north
to south during the period generally presumed to embrace
that of Indo-Iranian expansions.
That the BMAC was not specifically an urban society has
been employed to suggest connections with the non-urban
societies that characterize post-Harappan India. Against the
supposition that the BMAC “resolves” the entire issue of Indo-
Aryan origins and expansions is that it is very sparsely
represented outside of its core territory (i.e., there is no
evidence of an infilling of Iran and Afghanistan with BMAC
material antecedent to movements into northwest India). In
addition, the evidence that the BMAC was guided by Indo-
Aryan-speakers requires it to have been linguistically
assimilated by early Indo-Iranian steppe tribes (Andronovo
culture). Although there is some evidence for contacts between
the two cultures, the evidence falls far short of demonstrating
that the BMAC had adopted an Indo-Aryan language.
Iranian Origins
The earliest historical reference to Iranian-speaking peoples
occurs in the ninth century when in 835 BC the Assyrian
king Shalmaneser received tribute from the twenty-seven
tribes of the Parsu was, which is generally thought to indicate
the Persians. The Medes are subsequendy mentioned in the
eighth century. The Avesta is an older document and provides
enough geographical points of reference to indicate that its
cultural milieu was east of the Caspian as far as the river
Helmand. The Avesta also mentions the airyamm vaejo ‘Aryan
expanse’, which is generally taken to refer to the Aryan
“homeland”, a geographical concept that has exercised scholar-
ship (and not a little imagination) since the nineteenth century.
Although not rich in content concerning material culture,
the general economic picture of the earliest parts of the Avesta
suggests a primarily pastoral society with no evidence of
agriculture or urbanism. The later Avestan texts do portray a
society with mixed agriculture and acquainted with urbanism.
Finally, the Iranian-speaking nomads of the steppe are des-
cribed by Herodotus (Bk 4) as appearing in successive waves,
moving east to west, across south Russia into the Ukraine.
Models of Iranian origins and dispersions refer back to the
steppelands and presume that the difference between the
Indo-Aryans and the Iranians is more a matter of chronology
than cultural content, i.e., sites once occupied by the earliest
expansion of the Indo-Aryans should have later been occupied
by the Iranians who filled the same territory and may have
“pushed” the Indo-Aryans southwards into India. As the
Andronovo culture continued down until 900 BC, it may be
presumed that its later phases were expressions of specifically
eastern Iranian languages. The same might also be said for its
western neighbor, the related Srubna culture of the Volga-
Don region. The subsequent evolution to Iron Age societies
across the steppe might then be regarded as the immediate
ancestors of the Scythians and Sarmatians, the Iranian-
speaking nomadic tribes mentioned in the earliest Greek
historical texts.
As the Avesta reflects an increasingly more sedentized
society, the likely candidate for it in the archaeological record
is the Iron Age Yaz I culture (c 1 500-1 1 00 BC) which occupies
the regions most closely assigned to the Avesta at a time
roughly coincident with its earliest creation. Early farming
citadels, steppe-derived metallurgy and ceramics, and the
conspicuous absence of burials, which possibly reflects the
Zoroastrian norms for disposing of the dead by exposure
rather than burial, fit in well with the textual evidence for
Avestan society. Later cultural continuity in Central Asia may
then reflect the ancestors of the later East Iranian communities
that emerged in the later historical period.
The western Iranians, the Medes and Persians, are the most
difficult linguistic entity to trace in the archaeological record.
Since the earliest historical records of the Iranians place them
in territories proximate to those earlier assigned to the Indo-
Aryan route into Mitanni, the earliest evidence for these
Iranians is set to the period after the appearance of West
Iranian Grey Ware (c 1500-1000 BC). The next cultural
expansion moving southwestwards from the east Caspian is
the West Iranian Buff Ware, a ceramic style that first appeared
in the Gorgan region east of the Caspian c 1 100 BC and then
on sites of the Zagros region later attributed to the Medes and
Persians. This ceramic style is intrusive wherever it occurs in
Iran and is regarded as ancestral to the ceramics later attributed
to the Achaemenid Empire of the Persians.
5ee also BMAC, Copper Hoard Culture , Harappan Culture;
Hasanlu; Indo-European Homeland; Indo-European
Languages; Marlik; Painted Gray Ware Culture; SwSt
Culture. [D.Q.A., J.PM.J
— 311 —
INDO-IRANIAN LANGUAGES
Further Readings
Language
Beekes, R. S. P (1988) A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan. Leiden, Brill.
Burrow, T. (1973) The Sanskrit Language. London, Faber and Faber.
Edelman, D. 1. (1983) The Dardic and Nuristani Languages. Moscow,
Nauka.
Kent, R. G. (1953) Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. (American
Oriental Series, 33.) New Flaven, Connecticut, American Oriental
Society:
Masica, C. P. (1991) The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Mayrhofer, M. (1966) Die Indo-Arier im alien Vorderasien.
Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.
Mayrhofer, M. (1973) Die Arier im vorderer Orient: ein Mythos ?
Vienna, Oesterreiche Akademie der Wissenschaft.
Etymological Dictionaries
Mayrhofer, M. (1956-1980) Kurzgefasstes Etymologisches
Worterbuch des Altindischen. Fleidelberg, Winter.
Mayrhofer, M. (1986-) Etymologisches Worterbuch des
Altindoarisches. Fleidelberg, Winter.
Turner, L. (1966-1969) A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan
Languages. Oxford, Oxford University.
Origins
Burrow, T. (1973) The Proto- Indoaryans. Jon/Tiai of the Royal Asiatic
Society 1973 (2), 123-140.
Erdosy, G. (ed.) (1995) The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia.
Berlin, New York, de Gruyter.
Parpola, A. (1994) Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Young, T. C. (1985) Early Iron Age Iran revisited: preliminary
suggestions for the re-analysis of old constructs, in De l’lndus
aux Balkans, Recueil Jean Deshayes, Paris, 361-377.
INJURE
*ker- ‘decay’ (intr.), ‘harm’ (tr.). [7EW578 (*£er-); Wat 30
( *ker -)]. Olr ara-chrm ‘decays’, Lat caries ‘decay’, Alb ther
‘slaughter, stab, goad’, Grk Kepai(o) ‘devastate, kill’, Av a-
sarota- ‘not broken’, Olnd sfryate ‘decays’, TochA karyap
‘injury’, TochB karep ‘injury’. Widespread IE word; a sure
candidate for at least late PIE.
*sket(h)- (or perhaps *skehit(h)~) ‘injure, harm’. [IEW 950
( *sketh -); Wat 60 ( *sket(o)-)\ Buck 11.28], Olr sclth (<
*sket(h)o-) ‘tired’, ON skadi ‘harm, loss’, skada ‘injure’
(borrowed > NE scathe ), OE sceade ‘injury’, scadian ‘injure,
spoil, steal’, OHG scado ‘harm, loss’, scadon ‘injure’, Goth
skapis ‘harm, injustice’, Grk aoKrjdriq ‘uninjured’. Less
widespread and presumably younger than the preceding
word. Perhaps a “popular” word subject to a certain amount
of phonological rebuilding.
*h a ei- ‘assail, afflict’. [IEW 10 (*ai-)\ Buck 16.75; Puhvel
1984:366]. Hit inan- ‘illness, disease’, Av aenah- ‘violence,
damage’, iti- ‘injury, offense’, Olnd enas- ‘sin, guilt’, iti- ‘plague,
disease’. The root may also be found in Grk (Hesychius)
f rirpoq ‘executioner’, Olnd yatar- ‘avenger’. If the corres-
pondence between Anatolian and Indo-Iranian is accepted,
then a word of considerable antiquity.
See also Harm; Wound. (D.Q.A.]
INSECTS
?*k6ris'± biting insect’. [7EW938-939 (*kori-)\. OCS korl
‘moth’, Rus korl ‘moth’, Grk xopiq ‘bedbug ( Cimex
lectularius)' . Probably a word of the center of the IE world,
though it is also possible that the Slavic and Greek represent
independent formations from *(s)ker- ‘cut’ in the two groups.
*hiempfs ‘gnat, stinging insect’. [ IEW 31 1 ( *embhi - ~
*empi -)]. OE ymbe ‘swarm of bees’, OHG imbi ‘swarm of
bees’ (Gmc < *hiempiid~), Grk epmq ‘gnat’. This is an old
equation, not universally acknowledged by any means. If it is
correct, we have evidence for a word of the west and center
of the IE world.
*moKo- ‘gnat, stinging insect’. [IEW 699 ( *mako —
*mok-o-)\. Lith masalas ‘gnat’, Latv masalas ‘horsefly’, MPers
makas (metathesized from Proto-Iranian *masaka -) ‘fly’, Olnd
masaka- ‘gnat, mosquito, any insect that bites or stings’. With
*-k- rather than *-k- we have Lith makatas ‘gnat’, Av maxsl-
‘fly’, Olnd maks- ~ maksa- ‘fly’, maksika- ‘fly, bee’ (borrowed
from Indo-Iranian we have Mordvin meks ‘bee’, Hungarian
meh ‘bee’, Finnish mehilainen ‘bee’). A word of the center
and east of the IE world.
*yebhel- ~ *\}obhel- ‘weevil, beetle’. [IEW 1114-1115
( *uebh-)\ Wat 73 ( *webh-)] . ON tord-yfill ‘dung-beetle’, OE
wifel ‘weevil, beetle’ (> NE weevil), OHG wibil ‘weevil’, Lith
vabalas ‘beetle, weevil’, vabole ‘dung-beetle’, Latv vabals
‘weevil’, Rus (dial.) veblica ‘(intestinal) worm’. Always taken
to be a derivative of *(hi)uebh- ‘weave’ in the latter’s
metaphorical meanings of ‘move quickly’ or ‘move back and
forth’ (cf. NE waver). Neither semantic derivation is
particularly compelling and it would seem at least possible
that this etymon is independent of the word for ‘weave’.
Whatever its origin, a word of the northwest IE world.
*g w eldn ‘insect’s stinger’. [IEW 470 ( *g lJ el -); Wat 24
( *g w el -); BK 359 (*q’ w aI-/*q’ w 9l-)\. Lith geluo ~ geluonis
‘(insect’s) stinger’, Latv dzpluonis ‘(insect’s) stinger’, Grk
(Hesychius) 8eXX i6eg (pi.) ‘wasps’ (< *g w el-nidh-). Cf. Grk
fdeXovri ‘point, needle’. At least a word of the center of the IE
world. From *g w el- ‘strike, stab’.
See also Animal; Ant; Bee; Butterfly; Fly 1 ; Hornet; Wasp;
Worm. [D.Q.A |
INSPIRATION
*ishiros ‘(sacred) power’. I IEW 299 (*is9ro-s)\ Wat 16 ( *is-
(b)ro-); G1 702 ( *eisLJro-)\ Buck 22. 19], Myc i-je-ro ‘powerful’,
Grk iepoq ‘sacred, powerful, vital’, Olnd isira- ‘powerful,
lively’. The Old Indie is an adjective derived from isayati
‘makes lively, invigorates’ which is a denominative from *is-
‘a drink which is consumed at an offering which invigorates’.
The lexical relationship between the Greek and Indie is also
underpinned between cognate expressions where Grk iepov
pevoq ‘sacred strength’ = Olnd (instr.) isirena ... manasa fierce
— 312 —
IRON
i
in sacred spirit’. Both of these apply to sacred religious power
and indicate participation in the marvelous potency of the
gods. In Greek, the sacred connotation is also to be found in
the derivative iepevg ‘priest’, iepevco ‘sacrifice’, etc. Attempts
to bring in here also a series of Italic terms: Osc aisusis
‘sacrificiis’, Umb esono- ‘divinus’ are not accepted today; these
words are rather to be derived from Etrusco-Latin aesar ‘god’,
aisuna, aisna ‘divine’ or something to do with sacrifice. Cf. Av
aesa- ‘powerful’ and the phrase vaxs aeso ‘efficacious voice’.
See also Heal; Iron. [E.C.P]
Further Reading
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society: Coral
Gables, University of Miami, 456-461 .
INSULT
*(hx)neid- ‘insult’. [IEW 760 ( *neid-)] . OE ge-naetan
‘torment’, OHG neizzan ‘torment’, Goth ga-naitjan ‘treat
shamefully’, Lith nledeti ‘despise’, Latv nist ‘hate’, Grk
dveidi^co ‘revile’, Arm anec ‘curse’, Av naed- ‘insult’, OInd
nmdati ‘insult’. The prothesis in Greek and Armenian indicates
that we may be dealing with an enlarged stem *(hx)n-ei-d-
from *(hi)ni- ‘downward’ as in *(hx)nei-u- in Grk veiarog
(< *neiuatos ) ‘lowest’, veioOev ‘from below’, Lith neivoti
‘revile’, Latv nievat ‘revile, despise’. The major difficulty with
this hypothesis is that the Greek initial o- (also in oveidog
‘blame, reproach’) requires PIE */i 3 whereas one has to assume
*h\, or, more likely no laryngeal at all, for *(hi)ni- ‘down-
ward’. Further zero-grade cognates in Old Indie include
nld(a)- ‘reproach’, nmda ‘abuse, slander’. Distribution clearly
supports PIE status.
*pihx(i)- ‘revile’. [IEW 792 ( *pe(i)-)] . ON fja ‘hate’, OE
feon ‘hate’, OHG fien ‘hate’, Goth fijan ‘hate’, OInd piyati
‘insults’. The proto-form may be a suffixed zero-grade with
laryngeal metathesis of the stem *peh x (i)- with the same root
*pehx- seen in Grk Ttrjpa ‘suffering, misfortune’, Av paman-
‘skin disease’, OInd paman- ‘skin disease’. As Vedic papman-
‘misfortune, suffering’ is considered to be reshaped from
*paman- after papa- ‘bad, evil’, a basic meaning ‘misfortune’
can be assumed for the underlying root *pehx-. Goth faian
‘blame’ derives from pehi-i- Distribution suggests PIE status.
See also Blame; Contend. [E.C.P]
INTERJECTIONS
*6 ‘O’ (vocative particle). [IEW 772 (*6)]. Olr a (vocative
particle)], Weis a (vocative particle), Lat 6 (cry), MHG o
(vocative), Goth 6 ‘alas’, Lith 6 (vocative particle), Latv a
(vocative particle), OCS o (vocative particle), Grk cb (cry of
astonishment, vocative particle), OInd a (vocative particle).
Clearly old in PIE but also possibly subject to irregular
reformation in the various stocks which preserve it.
*uai ‘alas’. [IEW 1110-1111 (*uai)\ Wat 73 (*wai)\ BK
479 ( *way)] . Mir fae ‘alas’, Weis gwae ‘alas’, Lat vae ‘alas’, ON
vei ‘alas’, OE wa ‘alas’, OHG we ‘alas’, Goth wai ‘alas’, Lith vai
‘alas’, Latv vai ‘alas’, Alb vaj ‘lament’, Grk oval ‘alas’, Arm vay
‘woe, misfortune’, Av vayoi ‘alas’. Basically a widespread
onomatopoeic word, continually recreated (thus accounting
for the irregular phonological developments in Albanian,
Greek and Armenian).
See also Call. [D.Q.A.]
INTESTINE see ENTRAILS
INTOXICATOR
*medhyih a -‘intoxicator’. [/EW707 ( *medhu)\ cf. Wat 39
( *medhu-)\ cf. GI 517-518 ( *med h u-)\ BK 543 ( *mad w '-/
*mad w -)\. Olr Medb (queen of Connacht), Gaul Meduna ,
Medugenus , perhaps OInd Madhavl (daughter of Yayati).
Linguistically, the form certainly underlies the Celtic name
where Olr medb was originally an adjective meaning
‘inebriating’ beside mid ‘mead, intoxicating drink’. The same
form, with lengthened grade, could also underlie the name
of OInd Madhavl. Conceptually related, it is argued, is
asvamedha- ‘horse sacrifice’ which may be connected with
OInd mad- ‘boil, rejoice, get drunk’, again indicating an
intoxicating substance although by a different word (cf. also
OInd madhu ‘sweet drink, honey, soma, milk’). In both the
Celtic and Old Indie cases, an intoxicating substance played
a part in the Indo-European ritual of the horse-sacrifice, the
ritual which established the sovereignty of a king. The
mythological correspondence between the two stocks also
rests on the interpretation of two female epic characters by
Georges Dumezil. Both the OInd Madhavl , the daughter of
Yayati in the Mahabharata and the Irish queen of Connacht
Medb involve specific speculations about the royal function.
OInd madhavl either designates a spring flower, rich in honey,
or an intoxicating drink like the Vedic adjective madhvi-
‘sweet’. The geographical distribution of the semantically
similar names and the structural similarities of the deities
involved suggests we are dealing with a PIE concept.
See also Honey; Horse, Horse Goddess; King and Virgin;
Sacred Drink. (J.PM. ]
IRANIAN see INDO-1RANIAN LANGUAGES
IRON
Although there are occasional traces of earlier meteoritic
iron and chance finds of iron objects in the third millennium
BC, e.g., in Egypt, iron-working in general does not emerge
until after c 2000 BC where it appears first in eastern Anatolia.
From there it appears to have spread both through the Near
East (at least partly with the help of the Phoenicians) and
across Europe, generally after 1000 BC. It appears in Greece
by 1000 BC and in northwest Italy shortly thereafter and it
diffused through central and western Europe by about 800
BC, reaching Britain by about 500 BC. The spread of iron
and its ultimate replacement of bronze for the manufacture
of tools and weapons (although not of ornaments) was due
to the fact that iron ore is far more ubiquitous in Eurasia (and
the rest of the world) than copper and especially tin (needed
to alloy with copper to produce the harder bronze) hence it
— 313 —
IRON
provided a much more abundant and also less expensive
metal. Also, the carburization of iron, i.e., the production of
steel by impregnating iron with carbon, produced a hard edge
which was particularly useful in the production of both
weapons and edged tools. It should be noted that in western
Eurasia the earliest iron objects were forged, i.e., made of
wrought iron by beating the iron into the intended shape; the
casting of iron required higher temperatures than could
usually be found in the west and so there was also a
manufacturing shift from casting to forging for the primary
utilitarian metal (in ancient China, cast iron was regularly
employed). This diffusion of the new iron-based technology
would date to a period long after the dissolution of PIE and it
occasions no surprise that there is no common word for this
metal between IE stocks other than occasional loans.
The Celtic forms (OIr iam [DIL lam] ‘iron’, Weis haeam
‘iron’) are derived from the same adjective which yielded Grk
iepoq ‘sacred, holy’ but might equally be translated ‘mighty,
powerful’. The Latin form fermm ‘iron’ was borrowed possibly
from a Semitic language, e.g., Phoenician barzel ‘iron’ that
may also have given OE braes ‘brass, bronze’ (> NE brass )
and Fris bres ‘copper’. The spread of iron through the central
Mediterranean by both Greeks and Phoenicians might explain
the Latin word but the shift in meaning of this word to ‘copper’
or a copper alloy (brass [copper + zincl , bronze [copper +
tin]) is not so easily explained although northern Europe was
to depend on foreign sources for its copper and bronze as it
lacked native sources. The Germanic forms for iron (ON Isam
‘iron’, OE Ise(r)n ‘iron’ [> NE iron] , OHG Isam ‘iron’) provide
evidence that iron metallurgy was borrowed from the Celts
who, controlling the Erzgebirge, were among the foremost
metallurgists of the central European Bronze and Iron ages.
Variance in vowel lengths indicates that, though related, the
Baltic (Lith gelezis ‘iron’) and Slavic (OCS zelezo ‘iron’) terms
cannot be reconstructed to a common Balto-Slavic proto-form,
and we seem to meet another loan word. Similarities to Grk
XCcXicoq ‘bronze’ (itself identified as a loan) and even to Sino-
Tibetan *qhleks ‘(cast) iron’ have been noted, but the
significance of this data is unclear. (It is doubtful that ‘iron’ is
the original meaning for the Sino-Tibetan *qhleks since Sino-
Tibetan unity must have been dissolved before the advent of
iron metallurgy — in which case we seem to have another loan-
word). Phonetically Grk oidqpoq ‘iron’ resembles the
Germanic (OE seolfor ‘silver’ [> NE silver]) and Balto-Slavic
(Lith sidabras, OCS slrebro ) ‘silver’ words; although both
metals may be white the phonological similarity may be
fortuitous. The similarity to Germanic words for slag (OHG
sintar ‘sinter’), a necessary by-product of low-temperature
iron-smelting, is more promising. However, the irregular
relationship of the consonants in the putative equation of
Lith sidabras and OHG sintar (defying Grimm’s Law) and the
anomalous nasal of the Germanic form indicate a loan source
in Balto-Slavic, Germanic, or both. These loans may suggest
that an active (non-Indo-European?) metallurgical tradition
survived in central Europe until the Iron Age.
The derivation of the term for ‘iron’ from an adjective
meaning ‘black’ may explain the Armenian form where the
first part of erkat‘ ‘iron’ may be derived from ‘black’ (< PIE
*hireg w -es~) with the same suffix found in ‘silver’ (cf. Arm
arcat ). Similar forms are widely disseminated throughout the
Caucasus, and it is often difficult to determine which language
is the borrower and which the donor. The Hittite form
(h)apalki- bears only the most tenuous similarity to the Greek
forms for ‘bronze’ and we are dealing with an Anatolian source.
A situation similar to that of Armenian may be found in Indo-
Iranian where an older term for ‘bronze’ was first given an
adjective ‘black’ (OInd syamam ayas-) to designate the newer
metal and eventually became the technological metal par
excellence.
See also Inspiration ; Metal; Silver. [M.E.H.J.PM ]
ITALIC LANGUAGES
The predominance of the Latin language in the Italian
peninsula was an achievement of the first centuries BC and
until that time Italy was occupied by a variety of both IE and
presumably non-IE linguistic groups. In some cases, the
linguistic position of various peoples is relatively secure but
in a number of cases the inscriptional evidence is so meager
that one can determine at best whether the language in
question is IE and in some instances even the language family
itself may be in doubt. The certain IE languages comprise
those that are commonly designated Italic and several other
languages, some Celtic or at least heavily influenced by Celtic,
and some languages whose status with regard to the other IE
stocks is disputed or indeterminable.
For comparative purposes, by far the most important of
the Italic languages is Latin which was originally centered on
Rome and then expanded over the entire peninsula in the
first centuries BC and eventually over the Roman Empire to
provide the foundation of the modern Romance languages.
The earliest evidence for Latin are inscriptions that first appear
c 620 BC. These are in Old Latin (OLat) and reveal certain
archaisms that are continued, at least in inscnptions, down
to c 80 BC although Classical Latin (Lat) is found in earlier
literary works, at least since the time of Cicero, i.e., 106 BC.
Closely related to Latin was Faliscan whose main town,
Falerii Veteris (modem Civita Castellana), was situated 40
km north of Rome. The language was first recorded in
inscriptions from about 600 BC and probably became extinct
in the first centuries BC. When the Faliscans were defeated
by the Romans in the third century BC and relocated to Rome,
they were assimilated to the Roman language. Dialectally, Latin
and Faliscan are generally grouped together as two closely
related languages or, according to some, even dialects of the
same language, e.g., a Faliscan inscription on the base of a
wine cup reads: foied uino pipafo era carefo which would be
rendered into Classical Latin as hodie uinum bibam; eras
carebo ‘today wine I will drink; tomorrow I will lack’.
Down the spine of Italy was spoken the language of the
Samnites, Oscan, which survived on graffiti on the walls of
— 314 —
ITALIC LANGUAGES
I
Pompeii as well as in the form of about two-hundred docu-
ments, generally quite short, except for the first-century BC
Tabula Bantina, a bronze tablet. Sources of Oscan first appear
about the fifth century BC and run to the first century BC.
The best represented Italic language after Latin is Umbrian,
found north of the Oscan speech area and east of the
Etruscans, which is known principally from the Iguvium
tablets (named after their place of origin in Iguvium, modem
Gubbio). These comprise a set of seven (of an original nine)
bronze tablets. Those recorded in the Umbrian (< Etruscan)
script are the earliest and date from the third century BC while
those tablets in the Latin script have been attributed to the
first century BC. The tablets are ritual in nature and provide
not only a useful source for comparative linguistics but also
early Italic religious practices. Other than the tablets, most
other evidence for Umbrian is provided in glosses.
Latin and Faliscan are obviously very closely related, as
are Oscan and Umbrian (and with Oscan and Umbrian are
grouped a number of other scantily attested languages or
dialects, e.g., Volscian, Sabine, Marsian). The exact
relationship of Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian, however,
is not altogether clear. The two are usually grouped together
as the two halves of a unitary Italic branch of Indo-European,
to which Venetic in the northeast of Italy is sometimes (but
more often not) added as a third major subbranch. The many
similarities of phonological and morphological development
that Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian share, however, have
also been explained as the result of the long-term mutual
influence of Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian on one another
but that the two were originally quite separate IE branches.
Briefly, the other ancient languages of Italy comprise Sicel
(whence Sicily) which appeared to be spoken to the southwest
of the Italic languages, in Calabria and Sicily. The southeastern
side of the Italian “boot” was occupied by a number of peoples
whose language is covered by the term Messapic and is granted
a status independent of Italic. To their north lay the Picenes,
an inappropriate ethnic term which includes probably two
different languages. Southern Picene is clearly Indo-European
and may well be closely related to or part of Italic while
Northern Picene has defied interpretation, some regarding it
as an Indo-European (but without actually being able to
interpret its largest literary monument, the Novilara stele
which yields twelve lines of unintelligible text which some
have assigned to IE because of its sounds and endings) and
others to an aboriginal non-IE language because of our
inability to read anything on it with any certainty. To the north
of Rome lay the Etruscans whose language is more commonly
(although not universally) regarded as non-Indo-European.
The northern Italian languages comprise Ligurian in the
northwest which has been variously regarded as influenced
by Celtic if not actually a Celtic language. The central region
of northern Italy centered on Milan was the territory of the
Lepontic language whose inscriptions date from the sixth to
first centuries BC and are now assigned to the Celtic stock.
Further east in the modem Veneto were the remains of Venetic,
Italic I Distribution of the Italic languages (Umbrian, Faliscan, Latin,
Volscian, Oscan, S. Picene, Sicel, and possibly Venetic) and other
Indo-European languages of Italy. Shaded area indicates the territory
of non-Indo-European Etruscans while N. Picene may well be non-
Indo-European.
a possibly independent IE language (some would argue Italic)
with (controversially) possible connections to Illyrian and
Germanic. North of Venetic is Raetic, again known from a
small number of inscriptions dating from about the fourth
and third centuries BC and again defying certain classification
although presumably Indo-European.
Description
From the point of view of PIE the Italic languages (Latin-
Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian taken as one group) are fairly
conservative. In phonology, the Italic languages are centum
languages, merging the palatals with the velars, thus Lat
centum with a k-, but keeping this combined group separate
from the labio-velars, e.g., Lat quis ‘who’ (in Osco-Umbrian
the labio-velars are subsequently merged with the bilabials,
thus pis ‘who’). The Italic languages are distinct from all the
other major IE groups in that the series *bh, *dh , etc., appear
315 —
ITALIC LANGUAGES
in many positions as voiceless continuants (/, etc.). Indeed,
the fact that Venetic shares in this development is an important
argument for assuming that Venetic is an Italic language
(although the same result is also found in medieval and
modern Greek as well).
In morphology the Italic languages preserve six cases in
the noun and adjective (nominative, accusative, genitive,
dative, ablative, vocative) with traces of a seventh (locative),
but the dual of both the noun and verb has completely
disappeared. A certain amount of reworking of the inherited
material has resulted in the restructuring of nouns and
adjectives on the one hand and the verb on the other into five
declensions and four conjugations familiar from Latin school
grammars. More significantly perhaps, the verb has been
restructured so as to emphasize the aspectual difference
between completed actions (the perfection ) and uncompleted
or on-going ones (the inperfectum). In the process the older
IE distinction, in the past only, of aorist (for completed actions)
and perfect (for actions with on-going relevance) has
disappeared into the common perfection.
From the position of both morphological innovations and
uniquely shared lexical items, Italic shows the greatest
similarities with Celtic and Germanic with some of the shared
lexical correspondences also being found in Baltic and Slavic.
The exact nature of these similarities is not entirely clear and
there are no grounds to posit a special branch of the IE
languages that would comprise all of these languages.
Origins
The fact that different IE sub-groups occupied the same
general region renders the problem of the origins of any or all
of the IE peoples of Italy extraordinarily complex. Where
related languages are found occupying a confined territory, a
linguistic-geographical pattern is naturally sought that might
provide a clue to the direction from which the Italian peninsula
received its IE speakers. The presumption that they did not
originate in Italy itself is supported by several lines of evidence.
The first emphasizes that one of the dominant languages of
Italy was Etruscan which is generally regarded as non-IE and,
although a number of both archaeologists and linguists have
sought to derive the Etruscans from the east Mediterranean,
this is not the hypothesis supported here. From the viewpoint
of physical anthropology, there is little to distinguish the
Etruscans from other Iron Age populations of Italy and this
similarity may provide some support to the hypothesis that
the Etruscans represent a local or autochthonous population.
Also, it might be argued that it is unlikely that a sea-borne
invasion in the Bronze Age would have achieved such a
position of predominance, and such a migration is
undemonstrated (there is no single place in the eastern
Mediterranean from whence the Etruscans can be
convincingly derived from an archaeological standpoint). The
primary evidence for an east Mediterranean connection, other
than Herodotus’ reference to an east Mediterranean origin
for the Etruscans, is an inscription on Lemnos in the northeast
Aegean which is clearly related to Etruscan. However, with
clear evidence for Etruscans in the eastern Mediterranean (the
longest Etruscan manuscript was employed as a wrapping
sheet about an Egyptian mummy), it is perhaps easier to derive
the Lemnian evidence from the west than the Etruscans as a
people and language from the east. Consequently, the
Etruscans are more likely to be a remnant non-IE population
of the central Mediterranean, occupying a role similar to that
of the Basques of the Iberian peninsula and southern France
but who clearly absorbed various art-styles and an alphabet
from their eastern (Greek) neighbors. But to be fair, it should
also be emphasized that archaeologists are not in a position
to determine whether a migration did not happen and it
cannot be entirely excluded that the Etruscan language was
carried to Italy from the eastern Mediterranean by perhaps
merchants, who like the Phoenicians, established colonies in
Etruria where they superimposed their language on the local
Indo-European population.
It is also proposed that within the Indo-European languages
of Italy there are preserved numerous terms that derive from
a native substrate “Mediterranean” language which may also
be evident in Greece. Terms suggested as non- IE in shape
and related to Mediterranean flora include Grk Xeipov. Lat
lilium ‘lily’ or Grk ctvjcov: Lat ficus ‘fig’ while other alleged
substrate terms in Latin include Lat papaver ‘poppy’, larix
‘larch’, frutex ‘shrub’, codex ‘tree trunk’, murex ‘a shellfish’,
papilid ‘butterfly’, etc.
The earliest period seriously regarded as a possible window
for an IE intrusion into Italy is the Neolithic for those who
hold that the IE homeland lay in central and western Anatolia
and the IE languages were spread by populations moving
westwards, first into Greece and then into Italy. This model is
so sketchily presented with regard to Italy by its proponents
that it is difficult to evaluate, although there are serious
objections to any model that seeks the spread of the IE
languages into Italy as early as the sixth millennium BC.
Archaeologically, there is considerable evidence for the
persistence of local populations from the Mesolithic to the
Neolithic in Italy and hence a simple model of population
replacement rather than the acculturation of native hunter-
gatherers is suspect. More importantly, derivation of the Italic
languages from a Neolithic expansion into Italy from Greece
would appear to demand closer linguistic relationships
between the Italic and Greek stocks than can be justified and
the number of isogloss borders between the two stocks
suggests that they had been in considerable separation during
their development rather than close proximity The Italic
languages also retain a series of terms reconstructed to PIE
such as the ‘horse’, ‘wheel’, etc., whose referents simply did
not exist in Italy until the Bronze Age. Consequently, the
origins of the Italic peoples is traditionally sought in a later
period, generally the Copper Age or the Bronze Age with some
possible later migration even during the Iron Age. This
hypothesis is to some extent supported by the observation
that Italic shares a number of isoglosses and lexical terms
— 316
ITALIC LANGUAGES
Proto-Indo-European and Italic Phonological Correspondences
PIE
Lat
PIE
Lat
*P
>
P
*porkos ‘piglet’
- porcus ‘young pig’
*b
>
b
*belos ‘strong’
debilis ‘weak’
*bh
>
f/b
*bhebhrus ‘beaver’
fiber ‘beaver’
*t
>
t
*tauros ‘bull’
taurus ‘bull’
*d
>
d
*djkus ‘sweet’
dulcis ‘sweet’
*dh
>
f/d
*dhehilus ‘nourishing’
felix ‘fruitful,
*E
>
c
*k(u)udn ‘dog’
canis ‘dog’
*g
>
g
*genu ‘jaw’
gena ‘cheek’
*gh
>
h
*ghaidos ‘goat’
haedus ‘young goat’
*k
>
c
*kapf ‘penis’
caper ‘he-goat’
*g
>
g
*glh\Is ‘mouse’
glls ‘dormouse’
*gb
>
h
*ghostis ‘stranger, guest’
hostis ‘host’
*k w
>
qu
*k w is ‘who’
quis ‘who’
*g w
>
v/gu
*g w emie/o- ‘come’
venio i come’
*h 3 ong v en- ‘salve’
unguen ‘salve’
*g w h
>
f/u
*g w hermos ‘warm’
formus ‘warm’
*s
>
s
*sQs ‘pig’
sus ‘pig’
*i
>
i
*iugom ‘yoke’
iugum ‘yoke’
*u
>
V
*yeryer- ‘squirrel’
viverra ‘ferret’
*m
>
m
*mtis ‘mouse’
ill us ‘mouse’
*n
>
n
*neuos ‘new’
novus ‘new’
*1
>
1
* lent os ‘soft’
lentus ‘soft’
*r
>
r
Gs
CJ
£
F
ricinus ‘tick’
*n
>
en
*{ 2 - ‘un-’
in- ‘un-’
*ip
>
en ~ in
*Rijitdm ‘hundred’
centum ‘hundred’
n
>
ol
*mldus ‘soft’
mollis ‘soft’
*r
>
or
*Rfd- ‘heart’
cord- ‘heart’
*i
>
i
*pilos ‘(a) hair’
pilus ‘(a) hair’
*1
>
i
*g w ihjuos ‘living’
vlvus ‘alive’
*e
>
e
*dikrp ‘ten’
decern ‘ten’
*e
>
e
*s 6 himp ‘seed’
semen ‘seed’
*a
>
a
*sal- ‘salt’
sal- ‘salt’
*a
>
a
*m 6 h a ter ‘mother’
mater ‘mother’
*o
>
0
*pdtis ‘capable’
potis ‘capable’
*0
>
6
*ddh 3 nom ‘gift’
donum ‘gift’
*u
>
u
*uteros ‘abdomen’
uterus ‘abdomen’
*u
>
u
*mfis ‘mouse’
mQs ‘mouse’
*hi
>
0
*hies- ‘be’
es- ‘be’
*h 2
>
0
*h 26 uis ‘sheep’
ovis ‘sheep’
*h 3
>
0
*h 3 dk w ‘eye’
oculus ‘eye’
*h 4
>
0
*h 4 eu- ‘enjoy’
aveo ‘1 long for, desire’
with Celtic and Germanic, some of which are more likely to
be attributed to the Bronze Age.
The next period in which IE intrusions have been suggested
is the transition to the Bronze Age where a number of different
copper-using cultures (c 3500-2500 BC) appear in both
northern Italy (the Remedello and Rinaldone cultures) and
in the south (the Gaudo culture). It has been suggested that
these cultures are intrusive, and they witness the penetration
of their respective regions by warrior-aristocracies. Reasons
for ascribing these cultures to Indo-Europeans basically center
on the appearance of weapons (copper or bronze daggers,
arrowheads, stone battle-axes) with some of the burials, the
appearance of the horse in Italy at this time, and proposed
connections between the material culture of these cultures
and central Europe. As a chronological horizon, the Eneolithic
(copper-stone age) has more to recommend it than the
317 —
ITALIC LANGUAGES
of Celtic peoples in the Iron Age who also penetrated (and
pillaged) Italy from the north. This model sees the Indo-
Europeanization of the peninsula essentially in terms of a north
to south movement. While there is no question that northern
Italy was in close contact with developments north of the
Alps, the spread of bronze metalworking traditions from the
north or indeed across Europe need not be explained in terms
of the movement of an ethno-linguistic group. Moreover, the
pattern of language distributions in Italy, especially with non-
IE Etruscan lying athwart central Italy, renders a simple north-
south movement of language and people an unconvincing
explanation for all the IE languages of the peninsula, unless
linked to the evidence for other movements as well.
Later migrations from the north are proposed in the
formation of both the Proto-Villanovan and Villanovan
horizons. These horizons see the widespread distribution of
bronze artifacts of general central European types coupled
with the expansion of cremation cemeteries clearly associated
with the Umfield phenomenon north of the Alps. The problem
with seeing these cultural horizons as reflections of IE
immigrations down the Italian peninsula is the fact that both
the Proto-Villanovan (1 100-900 BC) and Villanovan (c900-
500 BC) cultures clearly coincide with the distribution of the
historical Etruscans as well as the IE Italic groups (hence some
would still argue that the Etruscan represents a late intrusion
into Etruria, perhaps coincident with the spread of east
Mediterranean artistic styles). On the other hand, the Umfield
culture does provide a convenient background for the
emergence of the Celts of western Europe, the Celtic-speaking
Lepontians of the Golasecca culture of northern Italy, and it
is also dispersed down the length of Italy where we might
expect to find the ancestors of the Italic groups. Such a model
of Italic origins would at least accommodate those linguists
who suggest that Italic and Celtic shared a particularly close
dialectal association before their emergence as separate stocks.
But the problem of non-IE Etruscans participating in the same
cultural phenomenon as well argues that there is no clear
archaeological model in which one can discern either IE
intrusions or differentiate IE-speakers from non-Indo-
Europeans in the immediate protohistoric period.
Finally, a more recent model sees the IE groups of Italy as
having been formed by an east-west (Adriatic to Italy)
movement where the more archaic dialects of western Italic
(Latin, etc.) were pressed against both non-IE Etruscans and
the Tyrrhenian Sea by subsequent movements from the east.
Possibly the Veneti of northeast Italy might also be seen as
early arrivals. This earlier movement is then believed to be
followed by the eastern Italic dialects (Osco-Umbrian) which
are aligned across central and southern Italy The final Indo-
Europeanization was, it has been suggested, the most recent
and included peoples such as the Messapi on the southeast
coast of Italy who were presumably linked both archaeo-
logically and linguistically with the Illyrians across the Adriatic.
This model has an obvious archaeological attraction for the
final wave of IE peoples since cross-Adriatic connections are
Remedello'
Terramare
Rinaldone I
iVillanova
Villanova
Villanova J
Gaudo
Italic II Archaeological cultures that have been associated with Indo-
European migrations into Italy. The Remedello, Rinaldone and Gaudo
cultures all date to the early Bronze Age (c 3300-2500 BC), the
Terramare culture dates to the middle Bronze Age (c 1500 BC), while
the Villanovan culture (darkest shading), dates to the beginning of
the Iron Age (c 1 100-900 BC).
beginning of the Neolithic in that it does not presuppose the
existence of Indo-Europeans in Italy before the introduction
of animals like the horse (and wheeled vehicles would easily
fit into this time frame as well). On the other hand, there is
no conclusive evidence for a migration and the ceramic
traditions, especially between the Gaudo culture and the other
two are so different that they can hardly be ascribed to the
same source. Moreover, one of the cultures, the Rinaldone,
occupies the area of the later Etruscans who are generally
dismissed as non-IE. Many archaeologists today see in the
development of these cultures local origins stimulated by more
long distant contacts with other cultures in the Aegean,
southern France or central Europe.
One of the most popular of the traditional models for IE
migrations into Italy has been sometimes dismissed as
pigoriniana , a term coined after its major proponent. L.
Pigorini suggested that the Italic-speaking peoples came across
the Alps during the Bronze Age and introduced the Terramare
culture (c 1500-1 100 BC) in northern Italy. This model was
consciously an extension of the historically attested movement
ITALIC LANGUAGES
archaeologically evident but it does little to resolve the more
fundamental problems of establishing the origins of the other
IE groups of Italy.
See also Gaudo Culture; Golasecca Culture;
Messapic Language; Picene Languages; Remedello Culture;
Rinaldone Culture; Terramare Culture; Venetic Language;
Villanovan Culture. [ D . Q .A J . R M . ]
Further Readings
Language
Beeler, Madison (1966) The interrelationships within Italic, in
Ancient Indo-European Dialects, eds. Henrik Bimbaum and Jaan
Puhvel, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press,
51-58.
Buck, Carl Darling (1928) A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian.
Boston, Ginn.
Conway, Robert S. (1966) The Italic Dialects. Hildesheim, Olms.
Meillet, Antoine (1928) Esquise d'une histoire de la langue latine.
Paris, Klincksieck.
Palmer, Leonard R. (1954) The Latin Language. London, Faber and
Faber.
Etymological Dictionaries
Ernout, A. and A. Meillet (1967) Dictionnaire etymologique de la
' langue latine: Histoire des mots. Paris, Klincksieck.
Origins
Beinhauer, K. (1986) Die “Ethnogenese” der “ltaliker" aus der Sicht
der Vor- und Fruhgeschichte, in Ethnogenese europaischer
Volker, ed. W Bernhard, A. Kandler-Palsson, Stuttgart and New
York, Fisher, 137-145.
Pallottino, M. (1981) Genti e culture delTItalia preromana. Rome,
Jouvence.
Pulgram, E. (1958) The Tongues of Italy: Prehistory and History.
Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
JACKDAW
Other than Lith kovas ‘jackdaw’ and Rus kavka ‘jackdaw’,
both ostensibly from the onomatopoeic root *kau- [7EW536
( *kau-)\ cf. OInd kauti ‘shrieks’] , terms for the jackdaw vary
with each major stock. Armenia sports no term until the
Middle Ages when cayeak, formerly ‘gull’ became the standard
term for the ‘jackdaw’. Confusion with seabirds is also seen
in Grk KoXoioq which may signify a ‘shearwater’ or ‘cormorant’
though most commonly the ‘jackdaw’. Lat monedula ‘jackdaw’
and OInd caurikaka- ‘jackdaw’ have no suitable etymology
though the Old Indie form does exhibit onomatopoeic
elements.
The jackdaw is another of the noticeable species of
Corvidae. It is smaller than the crow, of dark brown color
(though usually perceived as black) with a light brown
underbelly.
See also Birds. [J.A.C.G.]
JASTORF CULTURE
The Jastorf culture is the earliest Iron Age culture of
northern Germany and southern Scandinavia which emerges
c 600 BC and continued until the end of the millennium. It is
divided into three phases: Jastorf (c 600-300 BC), Ripdorf (c
300-150 BC), and Seedorf (c 150-1 BC). Its core area is
northeastern Lower Saxony, Holstein, west Mecklenberg and
then extends in diminishing “purity” north through Jutland
and into southern Sweden and south toward the Weser-Aller
region.
The Jastorf culture was spread over its territory in regional
groups where small settlements were clustered into confined
areas (settlement cells) separated from one another by forests
or other natural barriers such as marshlands. The settlements
tend to fall in the same regions as earlier Bronze Age
settlements and are evidence for the local continuity of the
culture. Actual house structures are better known from the
peripheral than the central areas of the culture. These vary in
shape, size and construction, ranging from small single room
houses about 5 m on a side to long houses some 20 m or
more long and subdivided into a series of rooms and stalls.
Semi-subterranean structures are also known.
The economy was based on mixed agriculture. Wheat at
this time was declining in popularity in some regions in the
face of barley. Oats were also raised in abundance although
their ultimate destination — people or livestock — is unknown.
Millet and flax were the other main plants with rye forming a
dubious addition. Among the domestic animals cattle
predominated, followed by pig, sheep, goat, dogs and horses.
A small amount of hunting (red deer, aurochs, wild pig, and
beaver) was practised.
Most of the Jastorf sites are cemeteries. Often these consist
of umfields, i.e., cemeteries of urn burials accompanied by
gravegoods such as bronze pins and other ornaments; in some
instances unprotected cremation remains were deposited.
The Jastorf culture is regarded as the continuation of the
native late Bronze Age culture (albeit under heavy Hallstatt
influence) which subsequently adopted stylistic features of
the La Tene culture to its south. The local continuity is seen
in cemeteries that begin in the late Bronze Age and are used
without apparent interruption well into the Jastorf period;
the earliest ceramic forms also exhibit clear evidence for
continuity. The Hallstatt culture introduced both a large
assortment of bronze metal types and iron metallurgy which
was adopted by native smiths.
The Jastorf culture is generally considered at least part of
the core area of the Proto-Germanic peoples and there has
been a tendency to date the first Germanic sound shift to the
JASTORF CULTURE
period of the early Jastorf culture, i.e., c 500 BC. Contacts
between it and its Hallstatt and later La Tene neighbors may
coincide with the borrowing of Celtic terms into Germanic
as witnessed, for example, by the adoption of Celtic *isamo
‘iron’ into early Germanic as *isama or the borrowing of a
Celtic *ngos ‘king’ to form Germanic *rikaz ‘king’.
5ee also Germanic Languages; Hallstatt Culture; La TEne
Culture. (J.PM.l
Further Readings
Schwantes, G. (1950) Diejastorf-Zivilisation, in Reinicke Festschrift ,
ed. G. Behrens and J. Wemer, Mains, Schneider, 119-130.
Kruger, B. (1983) Die Germanen. Berlin, Akademie-Verlag.
JAW
*g6nu-\ jaw’. [IEW381 (*genu-)-, Wat 19 (*genu-)\ G1 715
(*Femt-); Buck 4.207; BK 626 (*k'an-/*k'an-)]. OIr gin
‘mouth’, Weis gen ‘cheek’, Lat gena ‘cheek’, ON kinn ‘cheek’,
OE cinn ‘chin, jaw’ (> NE chin), OHG kinni ~ chinne ‘chin,
jaw’, Goth kinn us ‘cheek’, Grk yevvq ‘chin, jaw’, Phryg aC,f\v
‘beard’ (< *hj#-gen-‘[that which isl on the chin’?), Av zanu-
‘jaw’, OInd hanu- (with unexpected initial) ‘jaw’, TochA (dual)
sanwem ‘jaws’. Clearly PIE in status.
*gdnh a dh-o-s and *gn^ a dh-o-s. ‘jaw’. [IEW 381
( *gonadh-)\ Wat 19 ( *gna-dho-)\ Buck 4.2071. Lith zAndas
‘jaw, cheek’, Latv zudds 1 chin’, Grk yvaOog 1 jaw, mouth’, Arm
cnawt ‘jaw’. Related in some fashion to the previous entry.
See also Anatomy; Chin; Knee; Mouth. [D.Q.A.]
Jastorf a. Maximum distribution of the Jastorf culture.
— 322 —
JUMP
***
JAY
*kiK-(i)eh a - ‘jay’. [IEW 598 (*kik-)\. Italian (Calabrian)
cissa ‘jay’, OE hig(e)ra ‘magpie (or woodpecker?)’, OHG
hehara ‘jay’, Grk Kiooa ~ kittcc ~ Keioaa ‘jay’, OInd cisa-
‘roller’. The variable semantics are not difficult to explain: the
roller is quite similar in shape and behavior to a jay, and is
often confused with the jay. Just as the magpie and jay can be
confused by the omithologically untutored (as in Old English)
so also can the Armenian term ancel, which stands for both
species. An Olnd kiki- ‘bluejay’ is occasionally cited as cognate
but this term is found only in the lexicographers. The term is
no doubt onomatopoeic but it was in that shape in the proto-
language and accordingly transferred thus to the dialects.
The jay is well distributed in Europe and the Middle East
through to India. They are highly visible birds and, along
with the magpie and roller, are quite chatty, a fact noted in all
ancient writings that refer to the jay.
See also Birds. [J.A.C.G.]
JOIN see BIND
JOINT
*kdks-o/eh a - ‘hollow of (major) joint’. [IEW 611 ( *koksa)\
Wat 32 (. koksa)\ GI 85 (*/c h ok*-); Buck 4.35] . Olr cos ‘foot’,
Lat coxa ‘hip’, OHG hahsa ‘back of knee’, Av kasa- ‘armpit’,
Khot kasa- ‘loins’, OInd kaksa- ‘armpit, groin’, TochB kakse
(< *k e ks-o-) ‘± midriff, loins’. From *kokes- ‘inner part, nook’
(cf. OInd kasas- ‘inner part’, Khot kasa- ‘inner part, nook’).
Geographically widespread and of PIE status.
See also Anatomy; Arm; Leg. [D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Jamison, S. (1987) Linguistic and philological remarks on some Vedic
body parts, in Studiesin Memory of Warren Cowgill (1929-1985),
ed. C. Watkins, Berlin and New York, Walter de Gruyter, 66-91 .
Lane, G. (1933) A note on Sanskrit kaksa-. American Journal of
Philology 54, 63-64.
JUICE
*suleh a - ‘± (fermented) juice’. [IEW 912-913 ( *su-la-)\
cf. GI 563; BK 191 ( *saw-al-/*saw-ol -)]. OPrus sulo ‘curdled
milk’, Lith sula ‘sap/wine from birch trees’, Latv sula ‘(birch)
sap’, Av hura ‘kumiss’, OInd sdra- ‘intoxicating beverage’. Cf.
OE sol (< *sulom ) ‘mud, wet sand, wallow’. At least a late
PIE word in the center and east. From *seu(hx)- ‘express (a
liquid)’.
See also Beer; Broth; Ferment; Sacred Drink. [D.Q.A.]
JUMP
*preu- ‘jump’. [JEW845-846 (*preu-); Wat 53 ( *preu -);
GI 452 ( *p b reu-)\ Buck 10.43] . The underlying verb is attested
only in Rus prytl'm n quickly’, OInd pravate ‘jumps, hastens’.
Cf. ON frar ‘quick’, OHG fro ‘strenuous, quick; glad, joyful’,
OInd plava- (with dialect /-) ‘frog’. Attested only on the
peripheries of the IE world, this word is undoubtedly old.
*p re ug- ‘jump’. [IEW 845-846 ( *preu-)\ Wat 53
( *preu-)\ GI 452 ( *p h reu-)\ . ON frauki' frog’, OE frogga ‘frog’
(> NE frog), Lith sprugti ‘leave, escape’, Rus prygnutl ‘leap’,
prygatl ‘jump about, jump up and down’, TochB pruk- ‘±
make a leap; get away from; overlook, neglect’; also ON froskr,
OE frosc ~ forsc , NHG frosch, all ‘frog’ if deverbative from
*prug-ske/o-. An enlargement of the previous verb. At least a
late PIE verb in its own nght.
*h\leig- ‘jump’ (pres. *hildigei ) [ IEW 667-668 ( *leig-)\
Wat 36 (*leig-)[. ON leika ‘play, swing’, OE lacan ‘leap, fly’,
MHG leichen ‘jump up, bend, mock at’, Goth laikan ‘jump,
hop’, Lith laigyti ‘run around wildly’, Grk eXeX t^cn ‘whirl
around’, NPers alextan ‘jump, kick (of a horse)’, OInd rejate
‘trembles’. Widespread and old in IE.
*lek- ‘jump, scuttle along, bulge (of muscles)’, [cf. IEW
673 ( *lek-)\ Wat 36 (*lek-)[. Norw (dial.) lakka ‘hop, patter
about’, MHG lecken ‘hop’, Lith lekiu ‘fly’, lakus ‘fleeting,
shaking’, Latv lpcu ‘jump’, and from an iterative-intensive
present *lek-eh a -ie/o- we have Latv lekaju ‘jump about’, Grk
Xpioxco ‘dance to a song’. Cf. Lat locusta ~ locusta ‘locust,
lobster’, lacerta ‘lizard’, lacertus ‘muscle (esp. of the upper
arm)’, ON leggr{< *lokio-) ‘leg, bone’, OE lira (< *lekeson~)
‘any fleshy part of the body, calf of the leg’ (> NE lire), Grk
(Hesychius) XiKepvf^co (< *l e kert-) ‘jump, bound’, TochA
lyaskam (< *leks(e)ko-) (dual) ‘± haunches’. At least a late
word in PIE. The identity of the Latvian and Greek iterative-
intensive verb is remarkable.
*dher- 1 leap, spring’. [IEW 256 ( *dher-)\ BK 176 (*jar-/
* 3 or-)]. MIr dar- ‘spring, leap’, Grk Oopog ‘semen’, Oovpog
‘rushing, raging’, OpqxJKCo leap, spring, attack, assault’, OInd
dMra ‘flood, rush’. The apparent agreement of Irish on the
one hand and Greek and Indie on the other would strongly
suggest PIE status for this word.
*sel- ‘jump’ (pres. *slie/o~) [IEW 899 (*se/-); Wat 57
( *sel-)\ Buck 10.43; BK 186 (*sal-/*s9l-)\. Lat salio ‘jump,
hop’, Grk aXXopai (< *salio-) ‘jump, hop’, Geographically
restricted but probably at least late IE. A semantic specializa-
tion of *sel- ‘move quickly’.
*kehak-') ump’. [IEW 522 (*kak-)\ Buck 10.43], Lith sokti
‘jump, dance’, Grk ktikico ‘jump’. A late word limited to the
center of the IE world.
*skand- ‘jump’. [Wat 58 ( *skand-)\ Buck 10.43]. Olr
sceindid (D/L sceinnid) ‘leaps’, Weis chwynnaf ‘leap’, Lat
scando ‘climb’, scalae (pi.) (< *skandsleh a ~) ‘stairway’, OInd
skandati ‘jumps, falls down, spurts out’. Attested only in the
marginal 1E stocks, this word must be old in IE.
*skek- ‘± jump’. [/EW922-923 ( *(s)kek- ~ *skeg -)] . Olr
scochid ( D/L scuchaid) (< *skoketi) ‘yields, goes away,
perishes’, ON skagi ‘point of land sticking out’, OE sceon ‘fall
(to), occur; go quickly, fly’, OHG scehan ‘hasten, go away
quickly’, Lith skatau (with dissimilation *skok- > *skot-)
‘jump’, OCS skociti ‘jump’, probably OInd khacati ‘projects
(of teeth)’ (with Mind kh- for *sk-), TochAB skak balcony’
(< *‘that which projects’). Cf. perhaps Grk (Hesychius) (pi.)
KEKrjveg ‘hares’. We have evidence here of a verb that is
323
JUMP
widespread and surely old in IE.
*sker- ‘± hop about’. [IEW 933-935 ( *(s)ker -); Wat 60
(*slcer-)]. OE secge-gescere locust’, OHG sceron ‘be
mischievous’, Lith skerys ‘locust’, OCS skorii ‘quick’, Grk
GKaip(0 ‘jump, hop, dance’. A word of the west and center of
the IE world. The third PIE word meaning ‘jump’ that begins
with *sk-.
See also Come; Crawl; Drive; Go; Hurry. [D.Q.A.]
JUNAZ1TE
Junazite is a tell site in Bulgaria with evidence for settlement
extending from at least the Eneolithic period to the early
centuries AD. The site is the westernmost of the five hundred
or more large Bulgarian tell sites whose occupation began in
the Neolithic. Junazite is some 12 m high and measures c
100 to 140 m in diameter. Its importance in the discussion of
Indo-Europeans lies in the evidence for a marked cultural
break at about 3500 BC between the Eneolithic Krivodol-
Salcufa layers and the succeeding early Bronze Age levels
which in terms of architecture, ceramics and metallurgy, have
been tied into a wider Circum-Pontic province that extended
from the northwest of the Black Sea to northwest Anatolia,
e.g., the Ezero culture, Troy Within the “Kurgan theory” of
IE origins, this cultural break marks the establishment of IE
chiefdoms throughout the Balkans with the emergence of
citadels such as Ezero and Junazite. The importance of the
latter site is emphasized by the fact that the final Eneolithic
settlement was not only destroyed and burnt but the remains
of forty-six individuals have been found deposited in the
collapsed dwellings before the early Bronze Age settlers had
established themselves. Such evidence has been employed
by supporters of the Kurgan theory to illustrate the violent
nature of the IE conquest of the Balkans.
See also Cernavoda Culture; Ezero Culture; Kurgan
Tradition. [J.PM.]
JUNIPER
*hje/ey- juniper, cedar’. [IEW 303 (*e/-); GI 545 (*e/-);
Fried 38-49], Rus jalovec ‘juniper’, Grk eXazp' pine, fir; oar’,
Arm elevin ‘cedar’. A word of at least the center of the IE
world.
The ambivalent meaning, ‘juniper’ or ‘cedar’ is necessary
for three reasons: 1) members of cognate sets that are
phonologically probable sometimes refer to one or both trees;
2) a non-cognate word like Theophrastus’ KeSpog is used for
either tree; 3) the similarity of the trees in terms of berries
and tough rubbery wood. In some cases the word seems to
have shifted to the ‘fir’ or ‘spruce’ (e.g., because the cedar/
juniper was lacking in the area, or for functional reasons —
the use of fir/spruce in boat-building). The main reflexes of
*hieleu - on phonological grounds appear to be a Slavic set
(including Russian dialectal jalovec ‘juniper’), Armenian elevin
‘cedar’; Slavic, as in Rus jel ‘fir’; and the Greek word which
was employed not only to designate ‘fir’ ( Odyssey 5.239) but
also for ‘oar’ and ‘canoe’ or a similar boat by a metonymic
extension (like ‘spear’ for ‘ash’ or ‘bow’ for ‘yew’) that is close
enough to the universal to be found in other parts of the
world, e.g., among American Indians.
The Grk KeSpog juniper, cedar’ is sometimes compared
with OPrus kadegis ‘juniper’, Lith kadagys ‘cedar’, and Latv
kadpgs ‘cedar’ but the connection between the Greek and
Baltic forms is unclear and the latter are most probably
borrowed from the Uralic languages, particularly Balto-Finnic,
e.g., Finnish kataja ‘cedar’, Estonian kadakas ‘cedar’.
Both cedars and junipers extended from the frozen moors
of northern Europe southwards to the Mediterranean and
formed an understory to coniferous stands or acted as pioneers
on dry, barren soil.
See also Reed, Trees. [P.F]
Further Reading
Merpert, N. (1993) The problem of the transition between the north
Balkans eneolithic to the Early Bronze Age in the light of new
exploration in the upper Thracian plain. Orpheus 3, 5-8.
324 —
KARASUK CULTURE
This Bronze Age culture of the eastern steppe lands ranged
from the Aral Sea on the west to the Yenisei on the east and
south to the Altai Mountains and Tien Shan. This distribution
covers the eastern portion of the Andronovo culture which it
appears to replace. The culture is dated to the period c 1500-
800 BC.
The evidence for settlements is minimal. The few that have
been excavated indicate both small semi-subterranean houses
and larger (100-200 m 2 ) “winter” houses, typologically similar
to those erected among Siberians with domed or pitched
rooves covered with earth to protect against the cold. The
houses reveal storage pits and hearths and a variety of domestic
artifacts. The economy was based on mixed agriculture and
stockbreeding: cattle, sheep and horse are all found, and there
has been a presumption at least that the Karasuk culture was
more markedly mobile than the earlier Andronovo. On the
other hand, querns are also found as well as bronze sickles
which indicate plant processing and whatever form of mobile
economy might have existed, it would appear to have been
only seasonal with permanent agricultural settlements as well.
It is presumed that the Karasuk communities pastured their
sheep at higher elevations in the summer and then returned
to somewhat more permanent settlements in the river valleys
during the winter.
The Karasuk culture is almost exclusively known from its
cemeteries from which two thousand burials have been
excavated. Although there are regional varieties of mortuary
practice, the typical burial is placed within a cist built of stone
slabs which may be covered by a small mound. The burial
was then surrounded by a rectangular enclosure built of stone
slabs. The deceased was generally placed in the extended
position or with legs slightly flexed; orientation was often to
Karasuk a. Distnbution of the Karasuk culture.
the west or southwest. Grave goods included one or two
vessels at the head and remains of a sheep at the feet; the
latter might be accompanied by a knife and was regularly
divided into four basic cuts: shoulder, ribs, thigh and shin.
The culture is especially known for its knives and daggers,
sometimes with ornamented hilts. Other tools are also
produced of (arsenical) bronze and include axes, awls, and
arrowheads (of flint or bone). Bronze and copper ornaments
(bracelets, rings, pendants) are also recovered from female
burials.
The origins of the Karasuk culture are complex but it is
generally accepted that its roots lay both with the Andronovo
culture and the local cultures of the Yenisei.
The ethnic identity of the Karasuk culture is extremely
— 325 —
KARASUK CULTURE
Karasuk b. Karasuk grave at Kyurgenner 1; c. Karasuk dagger;
d. Bracelet.
problematic. Although the Andronovo culture is normally
presumed to be associated with the Indo-Iranians (or a
subgroup of this super-stock), the local cultures of the Yenisei
have often been regarded as unconnected with the steppe
cultures and, consequently, with the spread of the Indo-
Europeans. Nevertheless, a specifically Proto-Iranian identity
has been proposed for the Karasuk culture.
See also Andronovo Culture . Q.PM.]
KELTEMINAR CULTURE
Among the early Neolithic cultures southeast of the Caspian
Sea was the Kelteminar culture that dates c 4000-2500 BC.
The sites were distributed largely over what is now desert but
during the period of its existence clearly more favorable
conditions prevailed. There are some thousand Kelteminar
sites known although these consist almost entirely of lithic
scatters. A few settlements have been investigated such as
Djanbas 4 which revealed a very large (24 x 17 m) post-built
hut. The size of this structure has suggested some form of
large co-operative social unit very much different than that
obtaining from neighboring agricultural villages of Central
Asia or the Near East. Economic remains from the sites include
primarily evidence of hunting and fishing although some
domestic animals have also been recovered. In general, the
Kelteminar populations are believed to have survived by a
mobile form of economy which included both hunting and
stockbreeding although some later sites have also produced
sickle blades and grinding stones. Later sites have also yielded
evidence of copper and turquoise working.
The Kelteminar culture has on occasion been connected
with the development of early stockbreeding societies in the
Pontic-Caspian region, the area which sees the emergence of
the Kurgan tradition, which has been closely tied to the early
Indo-Europeans. This association was based on the discovery
of sheep remains in cave sites in the southeast Caspian and
the later appearance of sheep in the southern Urals and north
of the Black Sea; also, general similarities were seen between
the round-bottomed pottery of the Kelteminar culture and
those of the earliest Neolithic cultures of the steppe. Links
between the two regions are now regarded as far less
compelling and the Kelteminar culture is more often viewed
more as a backwater of the emerging farming communities
in Central Asia than the agricultural hearth of Neolithic
societies in the steppe region.
See also Djeitun Culture. (J.PM.J
— 326 —
KEMI OBA CULTURE
KEMI OBA CULTURE
One of the constituent elements of the Kurgan tradition,
the Kemi Oba culture dates c 3700-2200 BC. It occupied the
Crimea (it derives its name from a kurgan burial in the
peninsula) and the area immediately north, particularly the
area between the lower Bug and Dnieper rivers. The economy
was based on both stockbreeding (cattle, sheep/goat, pig and
horse) and agriculture (sickle blades, stone querns). Tools
and weapons were manufactured primarily out of stone and
included arrowheads, dagger blades, scrapers, and sickle
blades. Most metal artifacts appear to have been imported
from the Maykop culture as they were made of arsenical
bronze and included typical Maykop forms, e.g., shaft-holed
axes, double-edged knives, spear-points. But there is some
evidence for local production of pure copper implements,
e.g., a fork-like instrument and an ax; moreover, metal-
working tools have been found in a Kemi Oba burial.
The culture is best characterized by its flexed burials, in
pits or stone cists, which were covered by a kurgan. The stone
cists were sometimes decorated with engravings or paintings
among which tree-like motifs are common. Pit-graves may
also have been lined with wooden slabs. The ceramics are
more finely made than those of their steppe neighbors and
exhibit possible connections with the Lower Mikhaylovka and
Maykop cultures.
Of particular interest are a series of stone stelae or statue-
menhirs, human figures up to life-sized shape, which were
apparently erected in religious sanctuaries. These are
distributed over the Crimea and the steppe region of the
Ukraine in the hundreds and are generally found as coverings
of Yamna burials and, occasionally. Catacomb burials. Most
of these are schematic and their position as roofing slabs
appears to be secondary to their original use. As their
distribution coincides broadly With the Kemi Oba territory, it
has been suggested that they were originally an important
ritual component of this culture and then only secondarily
employed to cover graves by their successors.
— 327 —
KEM1 OBA CULTURE
In addition to the many schematic or simple stelae are
also a small series of finely carved statue-menhirs depicting
human figures, mainly males but also females, which are
covered with human and animal figures, weapons, anatomical
features and ornament. The presence of weapons and animals
on them has led to their interpretation as iconographic
reflections of IE sky and thunder gods or of the Purusa of
Vedic mythology.
See also Catacomb Culture; Cosmogony; Kurgan Tradition;
Maykop Culture; Stelae; Yamna Culture. Q.PM.l
KHVALYNSK CULTURE
The Khvalynsk culture is a Copper Age culture (c 4900-
3500 BC) of the middle Volga region. This culture appears to
be the eastern contemporary of the Sredny Stog culture of
the Ukraine, with which it shares a number of similarities in
both material culture and ritual behavior. Its name derives
from the two Khvalynsk cemeteries (near the modem town
of Khvalynsk) where there were both individual burials and
group burial pits, perhaps related to family groups. The burial
rite, deposition on the back with knees drawn up, is also
typical of the Sredny Stog culture. Horse, sheep and cattle
remains were discovered as ritual deposits overlaying the
burials while animal remains were found with 17% of the
158 skeletons of Khvalynsk 1.
Many of the burials were accompanied by grave goods,
e g., bead necklaces, pots, and arrows. Copper grave goods,
particularly rings, had been imported from the Balkans and
Khvalynsk b. Burial; c. Fishhook; d. Copper rings; e. Copper bracelet; f. Pot; g. Stone “ax"; h. “Scepter”; i. Antler harpoon.
— 328 —
stone “maceheads”, also attributed to Copper Age cultures in
the west, were recovered. Among the more unusual finds was
a stone “scepter” which has been compared with other “horse-
headed” scepters that have been found across the steppe into
the northeast Balkans.
The Khvalynsk culture appears to be a regional reflection
of a large interaction sphere over the European steppe during
the Copper Age. It is recognized as one of the constituent
elements in the formation of the Yamna cultural-historical
region and forms one of the fundamental components of the
Kurgan tradition from which many derive the earliest Indo-
Europeans.
See also Kurgan Tradition; Sredny Stog Culture;
Yamna Culture: [J.PM.]
Further Reading
Agapov, S. A., I. B. Vasilyev and V I. Pestrikova (1990) Khvalynsky
Eneolitichesky Mogilnik. Saratov, Saratov University.
KICK
*sperhi- ‘kick, spurn’. [IEW 992-993 (*sp(h)er-)\ cf. Wat
64 (*spera-)\ GI 48 ( *sp h er-)] . Lat spemo ‘separate; spurn’,
ON spema ‘kick, spurn’, OE spuman ‘kick, spurn’ (> NE
spurn), OHG spuman ‘kick, spurn’, Lith spirti ‘oppose, defy’,
Latv spert ‘kick’, Grk onaipco ‘palpitate, give a start’. Hit ispar-
‘tread down, destroy, spread out’, Av spar - ‘spring, tread’, OInd
sphurati ‘springs, spurns’. Unproblematic and distribution
supports PIE status. The Hittite form may be the result of
conflating two separate IE roots, one meaning ‘strew’ and the
other ‘kick’. The underlying meanings of both ‘kick’ or ‘move
the feet’ and the more abstract ‘spurn’ are attested in the
daughter languages.
See also Heel; Jump. [M.N.J
KIDNEY
*h 2 eh 2 (e)r- ‘± kidney’. OIr aru ‘kidney, gland’, Weis aren
‘kidney, testicle’ (Celtic < *ar-en- ), Hit hah(a)ri- ‘± lungs’ or
‘± kidneys’ (some paired internal organ), TochA arinc ‘heart’,
TochB arahce ‘heart’ (Toch < *ara-nc-)\ perhaps here also Lat
renes (pi.) ‘kidneys’ (if < unreduplicated *h 2 r-en~). The oldest
reconstructive term for ‘kidney’ in PIE.
*(hj)neg w hr6s ‘kidney’. [IEW 319 ( *neg?h-ro-s ); Wat 44
( *neg w h-ro -)]. ON nyra ‘kidney’, ME nere ‘kidney’, OHG
nioro ‘kidney’, Grk v£(ppog ‘kidneys’. Cf. the derivative Lat
(Praenestine) nefrones ‘testicles’ (because of their kidney-like
shape). Perhaps from *hieng w - ‘swell’. A newer word
than *h 2 eh 2 (e)r-, occupying a dialectally central position vis-
a-vis the more peripheral *h 2 eh 2 (e)r~.
See also Anatomy. [D.Q.A.]
KING
*u(p)n£tks (gen *unAtkos) ‘leader, lord’. IGI 654-655],
Myc wa-na-ka ‘king’, Grk (p)dvatg ‘ruler, lord, prince’,
(f)dvccK£g( pi.) ‘the Dioskouroi’, (f)dvacjoa ‘queen’, TochA
natak (pi. nacki ) ‘lord’, nasi (pi. nassan) ‘lady’. Greek has
generalized the variant *upnatks while Tocharian has
generalized *unatks. Greek forms such as (f )dvotK£g ‘Dioscuri’
without a -t- may be back-formations from the nominative
(f)dvat; (< *wanakts < wanatks) and/or the feminine
(p)dvaooa (< *wanacca < *wanatcca < *wanatkya ) since the
stage *-cc- would imply a masculine *-k-. (The recessive stress
of (f)dvcd; is analogical to the morphologically regular
recessive stress of (p)dvaooa and/or the recessive stress of
the vocative.) The shape of *unatk- looks rather un-Indo-
European and it may betoken an early borrowing from some
unknown source. However, a root of that shape is not totally'
unprecedented (cf. *h 2 retk- ‘harm’ in Av ras- ‘harm’ and
*h 2 retk-es- ‘danger’ [OInd raksas- ‘damage, injury’, raksas-
‘demon’, Av rasah- ‘damage, ruin’] and *h 2 ftk-os ‘bear’) and
thus may represent a purely IE inheritance. In any case, the
agreement of Greek and Tocharian A is certainly striking and
‘ argues for at least a dialectal existence of this word in late
PIE.
*h 3 regs ~ *h 3 r£g-on- ‘ruler, king’. \IEW 855-856
( *reg-s)\ Wat 54 ( *reg-)\ GI 654 ( *rek~), Buck 1 9.32; BK 59 1
( *rak’-/*rak , -)[ . From *h 3 regs (gen. *h iregos) we have: OIr
n (gen. rig) ‘king’, Gaul -rix ‘king’ (in personal names), Lat
rex ‘king’, Av barazi-raz- ‘ruling in the heights’, Khot kathi-
raysa- ‘± mayor’ (< * ‘town- ruler’), rraspura- ‘prince’, rraysduar-
‘princess’ (< Proto-Iranian *raz(i)-puOra- and *raz(i)-dugdar-
respectively), OInd raj- ‘king’, sam-raj- ‘overlord’, adhi-raja-
‘overlord’. From *hjreg-on- we have: OIr rigain ( DIL rlgan)
‘queen’, Weis rhiain ‘maiden’ (< Proto-Celt *rlganl-), Lat regina
(< *regnl-na-) ‘queen’, Khot rraysan- ‘lord, ruler’ (‘king’ is a
different word), rrlna ‘queen’, OInd rajan- ‘king’, rajnl- ‘queen’,
sam-rajni ‘wife of an overlord’, rajanya- ‘royal’. Other
widespread derivatives are *h 3 reg-io-m ‘kingdom, power’
[IEW 855-856 ( *regiom)\ in OIr rige ‘kingdom’, Khot rasa-
(< *razya-) ‘power, might’; OInd rajyam ‘kingdom’; *h ]reg-
io-s ‘royal’ [IEW 855-856 ( *regios)[ in Lat regius ‘royal’ and
OInd rajya- ‘royal’.
The traditional and still majority view is that in the word
for ‘king’ we have an agent noun derived from *h 3 reg - ‘stretch
out the arm; direct’ (cf. the derived *h 3 regt os ‘right, correct’).
The traditional view is bolstered by certain of the Khotanese
forms (those for ‘prince’, ‘princess’ and ‘queen’) which show
the short vowel originally appropriate to the non-nominative
forms; elsewhere the long vowel of the nominative has been
generalized in this word and its derivatives.
This traditional explanation has, however, been challenged
on several grounds. Andrew Sihler found both the form (the
apparent invariant *-e-; he did not take into account the
Khotanese forms) and the semantic difficulties in deriving
the concept of ‘king’ from ‘stretching out one’s arms’
problematic. He resolved the problem by postulating the
existence of two separate roots, *h 3 reg- ‘stretch out’ and
*rehig- ‘be efficacious’. The latter root would, in Sihler’s
opinion, also appear in OInd Qrj- ~ urja- ‘strength, nourish-
ment’. Moreover, Hartmut Scharfe has suggested that we
cannot be entirely certain that OInd raj- means ‘king’; it is
329
KING
possible that this word is a feminine abstract meaning
‘strength, power’. Thus whether or not this complex of words
is derived from *h 3 reg -, there would not, under this
hypothesis, be a direct, formal equation between Old Indie
on the one hand and ltalo-Celtic on the other thus throwing
the existence of a PIE ‘king’ into further doubt.
However, neither of these “revisionist” hypotheses is really
compelling. If OInd 6rj- were really a zero-grade *ph ig -, we
might expect *Irj- instead, while the actual urj- is explained
if we reconstruct *ufhig- and compare Sogd wrz’yw ‘haughty’
(< *‘swollen’) and, more distantly, Hit wargant- ‘fat’. So too,
starting from *rehig- rather than *h 3 reg- makes it difficult to
account for certain Iranian forms such as Khot rraspura-
‘prince’ or the obviously related (and quite archaic) paradigm
of Av razars (gen. razing, instrumental rasna ) ‘directive,
statute’. Finally, collocations such as rit agnfs ( RV 6.12.1)
would certainly seem to demand a translation ‘± king Agni’.
The linguistic evidence is supported by certain cultural
data. Thus the complex set of Roman rituals connected with
the Rexsacrorum ‘the sacred king’, including the ritual of the
Equus October ‘the October Horse’, in which a winning
racehorse is slaughtered and cut apart, its tail brought to the
Regia, matches in their essentials the ancient Indian rite of
the asvamedha, performed at the coronation of a king. In
ancient Irish tradition also the king is symbolically wed with
a slaughtered horse. The agreement of these geographically
peripheral traditions in connecting a particular horse sacrifice
with kingship (and sharing the same designation for ‘king’) is
striking. It should be noted that the pre-Christian kingship
of the various IE groups involved both the secular and the
sacred monarchy. Indeed, even in situations where the
monarchy itself disappeared, as in Rome or Athens, the title
(rex and paoikevg respectively) and office remained in its
priestly function.
The underlying verb appears in OInd rSsti ‘rules’ and Lat
rego ‘guide, direct; govern, administer’. Together these suggest
a PIE paradigm (3rd. sg.) *h 3 rigti, (3rd. pi.) *h 3 regpti (cf.
the derivative ‘statute, directive’ *h 3 regp, gen. *h 3 regps ,
preserved in Avestan). It is possible that this *h 3 reg- is distinct
from *h 3 reg- ‘stretch out the arm’. (In which case we should
reconstruct *(h x )reg- for ‘king’.) The latter is generally
explained by the practice observed in various IE traditions
where the priest lays out the sacred precinct (the extended
arms employed either to lay out the lines straight or used as a
unit of measurement [cf. NE span]). Alternatively, the former
root is also quite plausible as there seems to be no reason not
to see ‘direct, rule’ as a metaphorical extension (of PIE age) of
‘stretch out the arm’.
*ha6nsus (gen. *haQsdus) ‘god, spirit; vital force’ < ‘?king’.
[7£W48 (*ansu-)\ GI 653; BK 369 ( *an-ah-/*an-ah -)]. ON
oss ‘god’ (gen. asir, nom. pi. aesir ), OE os (gen. pi. esa) ‘god’,
Goth (as reported by Jordanes) anses ‘half-gods’, Av anhu-
‘lord, overlord; life (period) of existence’, ahura-
(< *h a psu-rd-) ‘god, lord’, Ahura-mazda - (the highest of gods),
OInd asu- ‘powerful spirit’, asura- ‘divine, mighty; god, lord’
(also a designation for a particular class of gods). Sometimes
put here is Venetic ahsu-, supposedly ‘idol’. However, it does
not exist, having been “created” by wrongly putting two
fragmentary inscriptions together which do not belong with
one another.
Further connections are a matter of controversy. This
*h a ensus has long been thought to be related to *h a en(hi)-
‘breathe’ (and thus might mean ‘spirit’ or ‘inspirator’ or the
like). Probably the most widely accepted hypothesis, on the
other hand, is that which sees this set related to Hit hassu-
‘king’, hass- ‘procreate, give birth; engender, bear’, hassa-
‘progeny’, and TochB as- ‘produce’, all from *h a ens- ‘engender’.
(Luvian hamsa/i- ‘grandchild’ is also often taken as related to
Hit hass-\ if so, it is evidence for an original *h 2 ems-.) The
original meaning under this hypothesis would be preserved
in Anatolian and Tocharian, while the semantic development
of Hit hassu- would be similar to that seen in the relationship
of NE kin and king. The development of ‘spirit, god’ in the
rest of Proto-Indo-European would reflect the creative powers
inherent in the gods — as when Odinn, embodying the creative
power of the ZEsir, blows the spirit of life into the prehuman
logs, Askr and Embla. (Though Odinn’s action could also be
taken as mythological support of a relationship with
*h a en(hi)- ‘breathe’ as well.) In a variation of this hypothesis,
GI take the semantic development of *h a ensus to be
‘procreator’ > ‘ruler’ > ‘god’ (the last step paralleling the history
of Myc wa-na-ka ‘king’, Grk (f)dvaf;, but classical Grk ‘divine
king’ or even the history of lord in NE). Finally C. Watkins
has connected the Indo-Iranian and Germanic words with
Hit hassu - but separated the latter from hass- ‘give birth’. He
takes *h 2 ensus then to be an agent noun from a putative
*h 2 ens- ‘hold, control’ (the agent noun would, outside of
Anatolian, have undergone a shift from ‘ruler’ > ‘god’). In his
view *h 2 ensus would be further connected with *h 2 ensiieh a -
‘reins’. (Under this hypothesis *h 2 ens- ‘hold, control’, though
nowhere attested as such as a verb, might be an enlargement
of *h 2 em- ‘hold’, with assimilation of *-m-s to *-n-s , seen in
Lat ampla ‘handle’, OInd amatra - ‘(drinking) vessel’, and
otherwise extended as *h 2 em-h x - in OInd amiti ‘grasps,
swears’, Grk opvVpi ‘swear’.)
See also God; Leader; Master, Mistress. [D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami, 307-312.
Gonda, J. (1955) Semantisches zu idg. reg- ‘konig’ und zur Wurzel
reg- ‘(sich aus) strecken’. KZ 73, 151-167.
Sihler, A (1977) The etymology of PIE *reg- ‘king’J/ES 5, 22 1-246.
Scharfe, H. (1985) The Vedic word for “king”. Journal of the American
Oriental Society 105, 543-548.
Strunk, K. (1987) Further evidence for diachronic selection: Ved
rash, Lat regit, in Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald , eds. G.
Cardona, N. H. Zide, Tubingen, Gunter Narr Verlag, 385-392.
Watkins, C. (1995) How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European
Poetics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
— 330 —
KING AND VIRGIN THEME
Winter, W. (1970) Some widespread Indo-European titles, in Indo-
European and Indo-Europeans, eds. G. Cardona, H. M. Hoenigs-
wald, and A. Senn, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press,
49-54.
KING AND VIRGIN THEME
Indie, Roman, Scandinavian and Celtic mythology contain
stories in which the well-being and succession of a king
depends on the assistance of a virgin.
Celtic
Celtic mythology has several versions of this theme, but
they are presented far less straightforwardly than in other
traditions. In the fourth branch of the Mabinogi , Math the
king of Gwynedd needed a virgin to hold his feet in her lap in
time of peace. When his usual footholder was disqualified
from her position after she was raped by his nephew, his niece
Aranrhod offered herself for the position. When her claim to
virginity was tested, however, she gave birth to two children,
one of whom (Dylan, a sea god) plunged into the sea and
swam away, while the other, still in an embryonic stage, was
preserved in a chest by his uncle Gwydion until the proper
time for birth. Despite many hindrances from his mother, the
child grew up to become Lieu Llaw Gyffes, succeeding Math
as the ruler of Gwynedd. Here the IE elements are distorted:
the “virgin” aided the king against her will and only two sons
were born in a triple birth process, but still the virgin
supported the king against his bad heirs and the succession
was preserved since the Celtic tradition passed sovereignty
through the king’s sister’s son.
Irish tradition too is confusing, being both distorted and
multiplied. In the Cath Boinde, Eochaid, the high king of
Meath, is challenged by his four sons, a set of triplets named
Nar ‘Modesty’, Bres Tumult’, and Lothar ‘(Feeding) Trough’,
and a fourth son, Conall. The night before they were to fight
him, the sons committed incest with their sister, resulting in
a child named Lugaid Three Red Stripes. Apparently weakened
by this sin, the triplets are killed by their father and the fourth
son is banned from the succession. In other versions, the sister
is shown to be deliberately inviting her brothers to commit
incest in order to aid her father by weakening their virtue.
Again we see the IE motifs: the sons of the king threatening
his welfare, the good daughter coming to his aid by means of
three acts of sexual intercourse, and the resultant birth of a
grandson who can continue the king’s bloodline on the throne.
To make the tripartite nature of this grandchild clear, the three
red stripes for which he is named are actually two lines
dividing his body into three parts, each of which resembles
one of his sires, and by extension represents the virtues of the
three functions: a virtuous mind, ferocity in battle, and
generosity.
Latin
In the Roman version, the virgin was Rhea Silvia, who was
made a Vestal Virgin by her usurping uncle so that her father.
King Numitor, would have no direct descendants. However,
she was impregnated by Mars, producing the twins Romulus
and Remus, who grew up to overthrow their great-uncle and
restore their grandfather’s throne. Romulus represented
warrior courage as the son of Mars, and was also the protege
of Jupiter; deified after his death, he became Quiflnus, patron
of men in their peacetime role as producers of offspring and
society. In this way, by embracing the three social aspects of
IE society (priestly, warrior and herder-cultivator), Romulus
fulfills the tripartite function by himself, with Remus adding
the element of sacrifice in his own person.
The forms of Roman religion designed to support and aid
the king, with their reliance on the service of virgins, continued
even after Rome became a republic. The Flaminica Dialis , the
wife of the high priest, took care of the cult of Jupiter, while
the Salian Virgins and the Vestal Virgins looked after the cults
of Mars and Ops respectively, ensuring military readiness and
a store of food on behalf of the king, to whom they had
reported annually.
Germanic
In Norse mythology we again find a virgin ensuring the
well-being of the king by bearing sons, and a number of
maidens assisting the three functions of the deities. In the
Prose Edda, Gefjun, a virgin goddess, was sent by Odinn to
ask for land when he first arrived in Scandinavia. When Gylfi,
the king of Sweden, offered her as much as four oxen could
plough in twenty-four hours, she went to the Giants to be
impregnated, bore four sons, turned them into oxen, and
ploughed the island now known as Zealand for Odinn’s
benefit. Odinn was also served by the Valkyries, warrior
maidens, and less directly by Fulla, whose name means
‘plenty’, a handmaiden and friend to Odinn’s wife Frigg. Here
again we see the virgin aiding King Odinn, as a harvest supplier
in Fulla, as a group of battle maidens, the Valkyries, and,
through Gefjun as the physical means by which the
sovereignty is established.
Indie
In the Indie story ( Mahabarata 5), King Yayati offers his
virgin daughter Madhavi to aid a brahman who needs eight
hundred moon-white horses with one black ear to give to his
former teacher. The brahman is to give this desirable woman,
whose virginity is renewable and who is destined to be the
mother of four kings, to a childless ruler in return for the
horses. Since no king has enough horses, Madhavi spends
one night with each of three kings in return for two hundred
horses apiece, and bears each king a son. To make up for the
last two hundred horses, she spends the night with the teacher,
bearing him a son as well. Finally Madhavi retires to the forest
in the form of a doe. The four sons represent the tripartite
virtues: generosity (the virtue of the herder-cultivator estate
or function), courage (the warrior function), truth and sacrifice
(the two aspects of the first, judicial and priestly, function).
They eventually save their grandfather Yayati from
331 —
KING AND VIRGIN THEME
posthumous disgrace by sharing with him the virtues they
represent so that he may re-enter heaven.
Patterns
From all of these indications we may posit an IE myth in
which a king whose well-being is threatened by his
unsatisfactory sons is saved through the offspring of a virgin
daughter. The virginity is clearly not a physical attribute, but
symbolizes a woman who has no loyalties to any man other
than her father; to further emphasize this, the offspring is
begotten not by a husband or potential mate but through
incest, virtual prostitution, or divine intervention. The child
she produces is also loyal only to his royal grandfather, and is
able to utilize his tripartite virtues to benefit the king directly
or indirectly
See also Horse Goddess. [L.J.H.]
Further Readings
Dumezil, G. (1973). The Destiny of a King. Chicago, University of
Chicago.
PuhvelJ. (1987) Comparative Mythology. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins,
256-268.
KINGSHIP IN HEAVEN see ANCESTOR GOD
KINSHIP
Kinship terminology reflects the social structures that are
imposed upon human society by birth, both natural and
fictitious, and marriage' alliances. The former relationship
produces a series of consanguineous terms, e.g., ‘father’,
‘mother’, ‘son’, ‘daughter’, ‘brother’, ‘sister’; the latter a series
of affinal terms, e.g., ‘husband’, ‘wife’, ‘husband’s father’.
Further distinctions can be made between terms of address,
those used only when speaking to the kinsman, and terms of
reference, those used when speaking about the kinsman to
others. In some kinship systems these are quite sharply
distinguished, and a term like English dad could never be
used interchangeably with my father. Another important
distinction that is sometimes made is that of age grades, in
which different terms are used of kinsmen, chiefly brothers
and sisters, in reference to whether they are younger or older
than the speaker. Taking all of these into consideration, a
great variety of systems for referring to kinsmen is possible.
Nevertheless, human kinship systems do occur in a limited
number of basic varieties, which, like all human institutions
and customs, are subject to change and development over
the course of time. There are basically six possible kinship
systems which comprise almost all examples in the ethno-
graphic record, though it must be kept in mind that none of
these systems is monolithic but rather each is a congeries of
subsystems sharing certain system-defining tendencies (e.g.,
“Omaha tendencies”, “Hawaiian tendencies”). One of the
frequent goals of IE research has been the reconstruction of
the PIE kinship system and its assignment to one of the six
primary kinship types. The difficulties involved in such a task
are numerous since kinship systems change through time and
hence the referent to any particular term may remain stable
or may change from one stock to another over time. Moreover,
the very evolution of kinship systems may require the
replacement or extension of terms beyond their “original”
semantic range. Finally, there are few areas of IE reconstruction
where arguments for negative evidence, i.e., the absence of
specific terms for kinship positions, may be quite tempting
since the distinctions between some of the various types
requires the absence of certain kinship terms.
Before examining the basic kinship systems recognized in
the ethnographic literature, the so-called “Patriarchal” system,
formerly quite popular in handbooks of IE studies, requires
some discussion. The term “Patriarchal” is made not with
reference to any specific kinship system but is founded on
the general observation that while terms for consanguineal
and affinal relationships can be reconstructed from the
husband’s viewpoint, there are supposedly no corresponding
terms from the point of view of the wife. It was, therefore,
imagined that when a woman married within “PIE society”,
she moved not only into the household but also the kinship
reckoning of her husband. She possessed terms for his family
but he lacked the corresponding terms for the in-laws on his
wife’s side, e.g., ‘wife’s father’, ‘wife’s mother’, ‘wife’s sister’,
or, as seen from the viewpoint of the son, there were no words
for ‘mother’s brother’ or any of the other relations on his
mother’s side. This argument was founded not only on what
appeared to be the distribution of cognate terms among the
IE stocks but also the presumption that because there is solid
evidence that PIE was virilocal, i.e., that the woman went to
live in the house of the husband (or his family) rather than
that of her (father’s) family, and that inheritance appeared to
be through the male line, then the kinship terminology should
also reflect this exclusively male “bias” and one would not
expect, therefore, that the husband/son would possess words
for his wife’s/mother’s family.
There are two arguments against the case for reconstructing
a “Patriarchal” kinship system to PIE. The first is based on
ethnographic observation that the putative system
reconstructed to the proto-language of the Indo-Europeans
has never been encountered in the ethnographic record. While
societies may invest almost all power in male family heads
and where post-marital residence is invariably with the male
and/or his family, terms for the wife’s relations, seen from the
viewpoint of the husband, are still universally encountered.
The second argument is empirical and rests with terms such
as *meh a truh a - ‘mother’s sister’, *sueliion-~ *sijelih x on- L wife’s
sister’s husband’ and *g(e)m(h x )ros ‘sister’s husband, son-in-
law’ which indicate some antiquity for words referring to the
mother’s or wife’s kingroup.
The Proto-Indo-European Kinship System
Among the kinship systems commonly recognized by
ethnologists, the first to be considered is the Eskimo system
which is most familiar to English speakers since it is the one
— 332 —
KINSHIP
Basic Kinship Systems and Nomenclature
Kin Type
Eskimo
Hawaiian
Sudanese
Iroquois
Crow
Omaha
PIE
FaFa
GrFa
GrFa
FaFa
FaFa
FaFa
FaFa
?*h2euh20s
FaMo
GrMo
GrMo
FaMo
FaMo
FaMo
FaMo
*h2en-
MoFa
GrFa
GrFa
MoFa
MoFa
MoFa
MoFa
?*h2euh20s
MoMo
GrMo
GrMo
MoMo
MoMo
MoMo
MoMo
*h2euh2-ih a
Fa
Fa
Fa
Fa
Fa
Fa
Fa
*pfr a ter
FaBr
Uncle
Fa
FaBr
Fa
Fa
Fa
?*ph a tru(u)6s
FaSi
Aunt
Mo
FaSi
FaSi
FaSi
FaSi
??
Mo
Mo
Mo
Mo
Mo
Mo
Mo
*meh a ter
MoSi
Aunt
Mo
MoSi
Mo
Mo
Mo
*meh a truh a -
MoBr
Uncle
Fa
MoBr
MoBr
MoBr
MoBr
?*h2euh2-
Br
Br
Br
Br
Br
Br
Br
*bhreh a ter-
FaBrSo
Cousin
Br
FaBrSo
Br
Br
Br
??*bhreh a ter-
FaBrDa
Cousin
Si
FaBrDa
Si .
Si
Si
? *syesor
FaSiSo
Cousin
Br
FaSiSo
FaSiSo
Fa
Ne
?
FaSiDa
Cousin
Si
FaSiDa
FaSiDa
FaSi
Ni
?
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
*syesor
MoSiSo
Cousin
Br
MoSiSo
Br
Br
Br
??*bhreh a ter-
MoSiDa
Cousin
Si
MoSiDa
Si
Si
Si
?
MoBrSo
Cousin
Br
MoBrSo
MoBrSo
So
MoBr
?
MoBrDa
Cousin
Si
MoBrDa
MoBrDa
Da
Mo
?
they employ themselves. Here the primary emphasis is on
the members of ego’s family and no distinction, other than
sex and generation, is made between the names of the other
relations, i.e., no distinction is made as to whose side one’s
aunt, uncle, or cousins are on. In terms of the naming of
aunts and uncle this is termed a lineal system as ego classifies
only members of the nuclear family as lineal relatives and all
non-lineal relatives (aunts, uncles) are regarded as equally
related to ego without respect to which side the relationship
is derived. There is also a term for cousin. This is clearly not
the system we reconstruct for most early IE groups since here
lexical distinctions are often made between patrilineal and
matrilineal kin. Also, there is some evidence for skewing
generations, e g., where ‘brother’ may be applied to ego’s own
brother and to the son of his father’s brother. The absence of
any reconstructible word for ‘cousin’ is also not in support of
the Eskimo system.
The Hawaiian type fails to distinguish siblings from any
cousins and uses one label for all, e.g., the word for ‘brother’
might be extended not only to one’s biological brother but-
also to all the sons of one’s aunts and uncles. In terms of
aunts and uncles, this system is termed generational since
the only distinctions made appears to be between generations
and, other than sex, no distinctions are made within
generations. This system cannot accord with the reconstructed
evidence for PIE since here we find distinctions between
paternal (‘father’, ‘father’s brother’) and maternal (‘mother’ and
‘mother’s sister’) relations and nowhere is there evidence that
the term for ‘brother’ or ‘sister’ can be extended to all males
or females of the same generation although ‘brother’ and ‘sister’
may have been extended to the children of ‘father’s brother’.
The Descriptive or Sudanese type is the exact converse of
the Hawaiian and has specific labels to distinguish siblings
from cousins and each type of cousin from each other. In
terms of its naming of aunts and uncles, the Sudanese system
is termed bifurcate-collateral. This is because the collateral
relations are bifurcated (i.e., split, distinguished) from both
the lineal relations and each other. One would expect then
that the son and daughter of father’s, brother would be
distinguished from the son and daughter of father’s sister, etc.
The terms used for these relations may be descriptive, i.e.,
terms such as OIr brathair mathar ‘mother’s brother’ rather
than a single unanalyzable word.
One of the founders of the study of kinship systems, Lewis
Henry Morgan, argued that the IE kinship system was
Descriptive, i.e., PIE was believed to possess single word terms
only for the most basic concepts, e.g., father, mother, brother,
sister, son, daughter, husband and wife, and all other kinship
terms were compounds of these basic “units”. This theory
was dismissed by Frank Wordick in his study of IE kinship
who cited counter examples of such terms as *pfr a tru(u)ios
‘father’s brother’ (although this word is clearly of some
antiquity in the center and east of the IE world, it is not
certainly ascribed to PIE). More recently, Heinrich Hettench
has argued that the reconstructed PIE kinship system does
come closest to the Descriptive type. His argument rests on a
— 333 —
KINSHIP
rejection of the major alternative system, the Omaha type,
where one might expect skewing of generations in kinship
terms (e.g.,*h2euh20S as both the ‘grandfather’ and ‘mother’s
brother’). Hetterich observes that as we are unable to
reconstruct the terms for cousins in PIE and that this is the
area which would offer the most diagnostic evidence for
assigning PIE kinship to a particular type, we are unable to
assign it with certainty to any of the classic kinship types
known from ethnography. The absence of special terms for
the various cousins, he argues, is best explained by the
assumption that PIE society did not possess such terms rather
than that they had lost them without a trace. Instead, where
we might expect to find names for various kinship positions
outside the nuclear family, we generally find descriptive
formations in the daughter languages, e.g., Lat fratris filius
‘brother’s son’ (instead of ‘nephew’) or OIr siur athar ‘father’s
sister’ or suffixal derivations, e.g., *bhreh a truios ‘brother’s son’,
*meh a truh a - ‘mother’s sister’. Such a system most closely
accords with that of the Sudanese or Descriptive type. The
problem with this conclusion is that it is not entirely
demanded by the lack of evidence for cousin terms since these
could also be filled by existing terms (‘brother’, ‘sister’, ‘son’,
‘daughter’, etc.) as indeed is the case in the Crow and Omaha
types (and to a lesser extent in the Iroquois).
The Iroquois (or Dravidian, although distinctions are made
between these two) system has a cousin term for cross cousins
(father’s sister’s children and mother’s brother’s children) only,
but does not distinguish parallel cousins (father’s brother’s
children and mother’s sister’s children) from siblings. In terms
of the aunts and uncles, this system is described as bifurcate-
merging in that some of the terms for uncles and aunts are
merged with those of the parents, e.g., the same word may be
employed for both father and for father’s brother (and, by
extension, for one’s own siblings and those of one’s paternal
uncle). The Iroquois type is widespread and is the principal
type of bifurcate merging system in the ethnographic record.
The evidence from the reconstructed PIE vocabulary finds
the term for the ‘father’s brother’ formed descriptively from
that of the ‘father’, e.g., *pfr a tfu(u)ios , but by no means
identical with it (nor can we presume that this term extended
back to PIE although it obviously enjoyed antiquity in the
center and east of the IE world). While it cannot be certainly
determined, *bhreh a ter- was arguably extended to cousins
such as the son of father’s brother.
The Crow and Omaha types, both bifurcate-merging
systems, also equate parallel cousins with siblings but have
no special terms for cross cousins. In the Crow type, the father’s
sister’s children are regarded as the corresponding patrilateral
aunts and uncles (father’s sister and brother), while the
mother’s brother’s children are regarded as brother’s son and
brother’s daughter. Omaha, the mirror image of this system,
equates father’s sister’s children with sister’s children and
mother’s brother’s children with mother and her brother.
The Crow system is easily excluded as accommodating the
evidence for PIE kinship in that it is a matrilineal system and
almost all historical evidence of the early Indo-Europeans
would suggest a patrilineal descent system. In any event,
characteristic features of the Crow system such as applying
the same word for ego’s father also to father’s brother and to
father’s sister’s son (‘cousin’) and even father’s sister’s daughter’s
son (‘nephew’) because they are all males of mother’s husbands
descent group finds no correspondence with the lexical
evidence of the reconstructed PIE kinship system.
Currently, one of the most widely accepted hypotheses is
that the PIE kinship system was of the Omaha type, the
patrilineal version of the Crow system. Although none of the
recorded societies employ a complete Omaha system,
supporters argue that only the Omaha system explains a
number of terminological anomalies found in the surviving
kinship terms. These include a number of terms that merge
generations under common terms, e.g., the same term
( *h2euh20S ) is employed both for ‘grandfather’ and ‘mother’s
brother’ which is then reciprocated by the use of the same
term ( *nepdts ) for both ego’s ‘grandson’ and ego’s ‘sister’s son’.
Another merging is argued to occur between the term for
( *suesor ) ‘sister’ and a ‘woman’s brother’s daughter’. We also
find the lack of a reconstructible unitary term for ‘cousin’.
The typical society that employs Omaha kinship terms is
patrilineal and exogamous. These conclusions are supported
by the analysis of terms for ‘marry’, which indicate that Indo-
European marriage was exogamous and virilocal.
The ascription of the PIE kinship terms to the Omaha
system is, however, also difficult to demonstrate since every
line of diagnostic evidence is liable to challenge or there is no
reconstructible term for a diagnostic category. While
*h2euh20S unquestionably did designate the ‘grandfather’ in
PIE, it is much more difficult to prove that it also was applied
to ‘mother’s brother’ although a derivative of *h2euh20s was
widely employed in forming this term in different IE stocks.
In the case of *nepdts, the word unquestionably designates
the ‘grandson’ but its assignment to the ‘sister’s son’ is seen to
be late in some IE stocks (e.g., Latin) and critics of assigning
PIE to the Omaha system argue that it did not take in this
extended meaning until after the collapse of PIE “unity".
Finally, the extension of *suesor beyond ‘sister’ to ‘brother’s
daughter’ is rarely found in the IE stocks and cannot be solidly
ascribed to PIE.
On the basis of this review, we can exclude certain kinship
types from consideration (Eskimo, Hawaiian, Crow) on the
grounds that the categories predicted by such kinship systems
are clearly filled differently in the reconstructed PIE system.
The other three types (Descriptive, Iroquois, and Omaha) do
not fail so much on the basis of positive evidence providing
an incongruity between the reconstructed PIE system and
the ideal ethnographic types but rather because the linguistic
evidence is either lacking, indeterminate or weak for those
categories that are most diagnostic.
Kinship categories are at best ideal constructs which, in
the ethnographic record, are seldom filled out precisely
according to the canonical model. Moreover, there is a
— 334 —
KITE
considerable amount of evidence that speakers of the same
language may not even share the same kinship terms or
terminological system. The temporal distance between PIE
and the attestation of many of the IE languages has clearly
obscured the precise nature of the PIE kinship system. There
do seem to be elements of generational skewing that are easiest
explained by assuming that either some IE languages had
either once possessed them or were making the transition
towards an Omaha kinship system. But it is another thing
altogether to attribute the Omaha or any other kinship system
to PIE.
See also Age Set; Aunt; Brother; Brother-in-Law; Child;
Cousin; Daughter; Daughter-in-Law; Degrees of Descent;
Descendant; Family; Father; Father-in-Law; Freeman; Friend;
Granddaughter; Grandfather; Grandmother; Grandson;
House; Kinsman; Lineage; Man; Marriage; Master; Mother;
Mother-in-Law; Nephew; Niece; Sister; Sister-in-Law; Son;
Son-in-Law; Uncle; Widow; Wife. [M.E.H., J.PM.]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1969) Indo-European Language and Society.
University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida.
Delbriick, B. (1889) Die indogermanische Verwandtschaftsnamen.
Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Classe der
Koniglichen Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, vol 2,
381-606.
Friedrich, P (1966) Proto-Indo-European kinship. Ethnology 5, 1-
36.
Gates, H. P (1971) The kinship terminology of Homeric Greek,
Supplement to IJAL 37, no. 4
Hetterich, H. (1985) Indo-European kinship terminology in
linguistics and anthropology. Anthropological Linguistics 27,
453-480.
Szemerenyi, O. (1977) Studies in the kinship terminology of the
Indo-European languages, with special reference to Indian,
Iranian, Greek and Latin. Acta Iranica (Varia 1977) 7, 1-240.
Wordick, E (1970) A generative-extensionist analysis of the Proto-
Indo-European kinship system with a phonological and semantic
reconstruction of the terms. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Michigan. Ann Arbor.
KINSMAN
*pfr a trdus (gen. *pl} a truu6s ) ‘paternal kinsman,
(particularly) paternal uncle’. [7EW829 ( *potruuio-s)\ GI 669
( *p h Lh h ruwio-)\ Buck 2.51; Szem 11; Wordick 124-125).
Lat patruus (if < *ph a tru-o-s rather than *pfr a tru-io-s) ‘fathers
brother’, Grk rcatpcoq ‘paternal kinsman; father’s father; father’s
brother’. Cf. the further derived *p(ha)tru(u)-io-s ‘paternal,
pertaining to the paternal line’: Lat patruus (if < *p^tru-io-s
rather than *pfr a tru-o-s) ‘father’s brother’, Lith strujus
‘grandfather, old man’, strujus ‘father’s brother; mother’s sisters
husband’, OCS stryji ‘father’s brother’, ORus stryji ~ struji
‘father’s brother’, Rus stroj ‘father’s brother’, Grk Karpvwq
‘step-father’, Arm yawray ‘step-father’, Av tuirya- ‘father’s
brother’, OInd pitpvya- ‘father’s brother’. The semantic specifi-
cation of Greek and Armenian, on the one hand, and Balto-
Slavic and Indo-lranian, on the other hand, are possibly
independent but both may reflect late PIE dialectal develop-
ments. Alternatively, the possibility that the same word might
mean ‘father’s brother’ and ‘step-father’ might argue for the
existence in PIE society of the levirate where a brother (i.e.,
‘father’s brother’) would marry the wife of his deceased brother
to become ego’s step-father. Among IE groups, some remnants
of this custom are recorded in the Law of Gortyn for Greeks
and survived among the Albanians until after World War IL
The phonologically difficult initial cluster *ptr- was simplified
by the loss of *p- in Iranian and by the change of the latter to
*s- in Balto-Slavic. The forms in the other languages reflect
*ph a tr~. The Germanic forms such as OE faedera ‘father’s
brother’, Fris federia ‘father’s brother’, and OHG fatureo
‘father’s brother’ are derivatives of the semantically similar
*pb a tpio-s ‘paternal’.
*m6h a trdus (gen. *meh a truu6s ) ‘maternal kinsman,
(particularly) maternal uncle’, [cf. 7£W701 (*matruuia), Wat
39 ( *mater-)\ Buck 2.52], Grk ppipcoq ‘maternal kinsman;
maternal uncle’. While attested as such only in Greek, the
further derivative *meh a tru(u)-io-s ‘maternal; pertaining to
the maternal line’ is found more widely: OE modrige ‘mother’s
sister’, Fris modire ‘mother’s sister’ (Gmc < *meh a truieh a n -),
Grk ppzpvtG ‘step-mother’, Arm mawru ‘step-mother;
mother-in-law’. As in the case of the previous entry, the differ-
ing semantic developments seen in Germanic, on the one
hand, and Greek and Armenian, on the other, may be of late,
dialectal IE age. Or, again as with the preceding word, the
combination of ‘mother’s sister’ and ‘step-mother’ might be
seen as giving evidence for the sororate, whereby a man may
marry two or more sisters successively, often after the death
of the first wife. Thus a second wife, a ‘step-mother’, might
be ego’s own mother’s sister.
Both this word and the previous one show an extremely
rare extension of a noun in *-ter- by a u-stem and a particularly
archaic u-stem formation with a nominative singular in *-
ous. This formation is found only (rarely) in Greek, Avestan,
and Hittite. That a noun with this particular morphological
shape should be formed after PIE unity had broken up is
most unlikely.
See also Aunt; Uncle. [M.E.H., D.Q.A.]
KISS
*kus- ‘kiss’. [1EW 626 (*ku- ~ *kus-)\ Wat 33 ( *kus-)\
Buck 16.29). ON kyssa ‘kiss’, OE cyssan ‘kiss’ (> NE kiss),
OHG kussen ‘kiss’, Grk kvveco ‘kiss’, Hit Tcu waszi ‘kisses’. The
initial *k- in Germanic is problematic; possibly it was retained
for sound-symbolic reasons. The phonological problem
indicates the need for caution in reconstructing this to PIE.
See also Love. [ M . N . ]
KITE
*ghi- ~ *7qei- ‘bird of prey, kite?’. [IEW 541 ( *kie -); Gl
457 (*k h ye-)]. Grk iKTivoq ‘kite’, Arm c'm ‘kite’. The Greek-
— 335 —
KITE
Armenian isogloss is the only secure cognate between two
stocks although Av saena- ‘eagle’ and OInd syena- ‘eagle,
falcon’ are also sometimes included. Armenian also employs
urur from an early period, and this word might be related to
the Arm oror ‘gull’ (< *h 3 dr-nis ). Neither the Lat milvus nor
the Olnd sakuni- are demonstrably IE.
See also Birds; Eagle; Falcon. [J.A.C.G.]
KNEE
*g6nu( gen. *g6nus)‘ knee’. [1EW 380-381 (*genu-);Wat
19 ( *genu-)\ GI 688 ( *k’enu-)\ Buck 4.36]. OIr glun (<
*gluh x ni-< *gnu-h x -ni - ) ‘knee’, Lat genu ‘knee’, ON /me ‘knee,
limb’, OE cneo(w) ‘knee’ (> NE knee), OHG knio ~ chniu
‘knee’, Goth kniu ‘knee’ (Gmc < *gneuo - ), Alb gju (< *gluno-
<*gnu-no -) ‘knee’, Grk yovv ‘knee’ (cf. also ycovia [< pre-
Greek *gdnwia] ‘corner, angle’), Arm cunr ‘knee’, Hit genu
‘knee’, Av znu- ‘knee’, OInd jinu ‘knee’, TochA kanwem (dual)
‘knees’, TochB kenl(ne) (dual) ‘knees’. Pan-IE in distribution,
wanting only in Balto-Slavic. Most probably related to *genu-
‘chin, jaw’, both being sharply angled parts of the body. Clearly
of PIE status. Words for the ‘knee’ were often used
euphemistically for the genitals.
See also Anatomy. [D.Q.A.]
KNIFE
*y£ben- ‘cutting weapon, knife’. [Wat 76 ( *wepnam)\ VW
596-597], ON vapn ‘weapon!, OE wzpn ‘weapon’ (> NE
weapon ), Goth (pi.) wepna ‘weapons’ (Gmc < *yieb-no- ),
TochAB yepe (A is borrowed from B) (< *ueb-en-) ‘[cutting]
weapon, knife’. Though found in only two stocks, this word
has no known root connections and must be at least late PIE
in date. The underlying semantics here are vague in the
extreme. The ON vapn was a generic term and in one text
specifies ax, sword, spear, and types of halberd. The Old
English word means ‘weapon, sword’ but can also be extended
to mean ‘penis’ which certainly suggests a thrusting weapon.
The Gothic word translates Grk onXa ‘arms’. Only in
Tocharian do we have a more specific meaning ‘knife’.
?*K os-trom~ *Kos-dhrom ‘cutting instrument, knife’. [IEW
586 ( *R e s-tro-m)\ Wat 30 (*kes-); Buck 9.23; BK 243
( *k[ h ]as-/*k[ h ]ds-)\ . Lat castro ‘prune, cut, castrate’ (a de-
nominative verb from *castrum ‘cutting instrument’ with not
well-explained *-a-), Alb thader (< *Kos-dhrom ) ‘a type of
adze’, OInd saslra- ‘knife, dagger’. From *kes- ‘cut’ + the
instrumental suffix *-trom or *-dhrom. It is possible that these
are independent creations in the stocks which show them.
?*kert- ‘knife’. [IEW 941 ( *(s)ker -); cf. Wat 59-60
(*sker-)-. Buck 9.23; BK 246 ( *k[ tl ]ar-/*k[ h ]ar-)] . Av karati-
‘knife’, OInd /qt/- ‘knife’, TochB kertte' sword’. From *(s)ker-
‘cut’. Since there remains the very real possibility that the
Tocharian B word is borrowed from Iranian, the IE status of
this word is quite doubtful.
?*klt£r ‘knife’ (i.e., “cutter”). [ IEW 923-926 (*(s)keE)\ Wat
59 ( *skel-)\ Buck 9.23], Lat culter ‘(butcher’s) knife’, OInd
kuthara- ‘ax’. From *(s)kel- ‘cut’. If the Indie word belongs
with the Latin it is because it shows a Middle Indie phono-
logical development of expected -r-. Such a development is
by no means impossible but it has also been suggested that
the Indie word is a borrowing from some Dra vidian source.
In short, a possible but by no means certain PIE word.
By the earliest historical attestations of the various IE stocks
knives were made of bronze or iron; however, across Eurasia
there were stone equivalents at least since the Neolithic. At
that time long blades fashioned of flint or some other suitable
stone were fixed within a wooden haft. Despite the weak
lexical evidence, it is impossible to imagine that the earliest
IE speakers did not possess ‘knives’ of some sort, either stone
or copper.
See also Cut; Razor; Sword; Tool. [D.Q.A.]
KNOT 1
*ned- ‘knot’. [/EW758-759 ( *ned -); Wat 44 (*ned-)\ cf.
GI 224 ( *not ’-); Buck 9.192; BK 559 (*naf>V*not ’>'-)]. OIr
naiscid ‘binds’, naidm(m) ‘bond’, Lat neetd ‘knot, bind’ (the
shape of the Latin verb has apparently been influenced by
pectere ‘comb [wool]’), nodus ‘knot’, nassa (< *n e d-teh a d )
‘weel, wickertrap for fish’, ON not ‘net’, OE nett ‘net’ (> NE
net), OHG nez(z)i ‘net’, Goth nati ‘net’ (perhaps also ON nest
‘needle, clasp’, OE nostle ‘fillet, band’, OHG nestila ‘brooch’,
nust ‘connection’), Av naska- (< *nad-ska~) ‘bundle’, OInd
nahyati ‘bind’ (the apparent -dh- of the Old Indie word may
be due to crossing with the synonymous badh-). A widespread
and presumably old word in IE.
Also probably part of this etymon are certain words for
‘nettle’: Mir nenaid ‘nettle’, OE netel ‘nettle’ (> NE nettle),
OHG nezzila (< *nod-il-eh a -) ‘nettle’, nazza ‘nettle’, Grk 6t8iKr\
(< *pd-ik-eh a ~) ‘nettle’. Bast fibres, particularly those of tree
bark, were used from Mesolithic times on for the construction
of nets. It would seem that even in late PIE times, the name
for bast fibre was transferred to the nettle which has also been
used for weaving of fine soft cloth, though not apparently for
creating nets.
See also Textile. [D.Q.A., E.J.W.B.]
KNOT 2
*hx6sgos ‘knot (in wood), joint of branch with tree’. OIr
odb ‘knot (in wood)’, Weis oddf 1 knot (in wood)’, Grk ocryog
‘sucker, shoot; vine-branch’ (- skh - rather than expected -zg-
by crossing with poayog with the same meaning), MPers Zg
‘branch’, NPers azy ‘branch’, OInd adga- ‘knot, joint; stalk,
(stem of) bamboo)’. Widespread and old in IE.
See also Plants; Trees. [D.Q.A.]
KNOW
*gneh 3 - ‘know, be(come) acquainted with’. [IEW 376
( *gen-)\ Wat 23-24 ( *gno-)\ GI 32 ( *k’en-), Buck 1 7. 1 7; BK
295 ( *k’arf-/*k , 9n y -)] . The most widespread present is *gp/i_ 3 -
neh a - : OIr ad-gnin ‘recognizes’, ON kunna (pres, kann ) ‘know,
be able to’, OE cunnan (pres, cann) ‘know, be able to’ (> NE
can), OHG kunnan (pres, kan) ‘know, be able to’, Goth
— 336 —
KOLOCHIN CULTURE
kunnan (pres, kauri) ‘know’, OPrus posinna ‘recognize’ , Lith
zindti ‘know’, Latv zinat ‘know’, Arm caneay ‘knew’, an-can
‘unknown’, Av zanaiti ‘knows’, OInd jAnati ‘knows,
recognizes’, TochA knana- ‘know’, TochB nana- ‘appear’ (<
*‘come to be known’); almost as widespread are presents in
*-ske/o- though they may all be independent creations: Lat
(g)ndsco ‘know’, Lith pa-zjstu ‘recognize’, Alb njoh ‘know’,
Grk yiyvGKTKO) ‘know’, OPers xAnAsAtiy ‘should know’;
different yet is Hit ganeszi (< *gneh3-s~ti ) ‘recognizes’; the
original aorist was *Qn6)gneh3t ‘knew; came to know’.
Practically universal in IE and surely old. Cf. the following
widespread derivatives: (1) *gneh3tis ‘knowledge’ in Lat notio
‘a becoming acquainted, investigation; conception’, Rus znatl
‘(circle oQ acquaintances’, Grk yvcooig ‘knowledge’, Otnd pra-
jfiati- ‘knowledge’; (2) *gneh3ter ‘one who knows’ in Lat notor
‘knower’, Grk yvcocnrip ‘knower’, Av znAtar- ‘knower’, Olnd
jrlatar- ‘knower’; (3) *gneh3tos ‘known’ in OIr gnath ‘used
to, known’, Lat notus ‘known’, Grk yvanoq ‘known’, Olnd
jftata- ‘known’.
*yeid- ‘see, know (as a fact)’ (perf. *y dide). [IEW 1125-
1126 ( *u(e)di-[sic])\ Wat 74 ( *weid -); G1 734 ( *w(o)it’-)\
Buck 17. 17J . Olr ro-fetar ‘knows’, Weis gwydd- ‘know’, Lat
video ‘see’, ON vita (pres, veit) ‘know’, OE witan (pres, wat)
‘know’ (> NE wit), OHG wizzan (pres, weiz) ‘know’, Goth
witan (pres, wait ) ‘know’, OPrus waidimai ‘know’, Lith
veizdmi ‘see’, OCS vedeti (pres, vede) ‘know’, Grk oi8a ‘know’,
Arm gitem (< *yoid-) ‘know’, Av vaeSa ‘know(s), see(s)’, Olnd
veda ‘know(s)’. This is the classic example of the PIE perfect,
whose basic meaning was to denote the result of an action,
which became reinterpreted as a present! In this case ‘have
seen’ could be taken as ‘know’. Though absent in Hittite (and
as a verb in Tocharian), this verb is extremely widespread
and clearly old in IE. Cf. the widespread derivatives (1):
*y idmen- ‘knowledge’: Grk i'Spcov (< *y iidmon- ‘having
knowledge’) ‘skilled’, Olnd vidmAn- ‘wisdom’, TochB ime
‘consciousness, awareness; thought’; (2) *yieides- ‘what is seen,
appearance’: Mir fiad ‘face to face’, Weis yngwydd ‘face to
face’, ON vfss ‘certain, -wise’, OE wls ‘-wise’ (> NE wise),
OHG wls ‘-wise’, Lith veidas ‘face’, OCS vidu ‘appearance’,
Grk elSog ‘appearance’, Olnd vedas- ‘knowledge’.
See also See. [D.Q.A.1
Kolochin a. Distribution of the Kolochin culture
KOLOCHIN CULTURE
The Kolochin culture is the eastern regional element of
the Prague-Penkov- Kolochin complex of cultures that date
from the fifth to seventh centuries AD. The Kolochin culture,
attested by about a hundred sites, was situated primarily along
the Dnieper drainage. Settlements were undefended clusters
of small single-roomed houses; burial was by cremation. The
culture has been variously identified as an element of the
Baltic culture on the evidence of Baltic river names in this
region or Slavic peoples shortly before their emergence in
historical records. If the culture were indeed Baltic, and the
area of its distribution does not seem to lead to typically Slavic
finds, then it along with its southern relations who are
Kolochin b. House plan; c. Um burial
KOLOCHIN CULTURE
generally regarded as Slavic, might have provided an
appropriate environment for Baltic-Slavic linguistic exchanges.
See also Baltic Languages; Penkov Culture; Prague Culture;
Slavic Languages. [J.PM.]
KOMAROV CULTURE
Bronze Age culture dated to c 1500-1200 BC which
occupied the region along the middle Dniester. Although a
few settlements are known, e.g., Komarov with its twenty
small single-roomed houses, the culture is primarily known
from its inhumation burials, set into a timber- or stone-covered
grave and covered with a tumulus. Flat grave burials and
cremations are also known. The existence of a sun cult has
been postulated on the basis of decoration found on ceramics
and the presence of cromlechs, stone rings, around the base
of tumuli. Its origins are sought in a local development of the
Corded Ware horizon with which it shares similarities in
ceramics, metallurgical traditions and burial rite. Closely
related to the Trzciniec culture, the Komarov is generally
assigned to a phase in the evolution of the Proto-Slavs or the
Thracians.
See also Slavic Languages; Thracian Language;
Trzciniec Culture. [J.PM.]
KURGAN TRADITION
The Kurgan Tradition is a blanket term for a series of
Copper and Bronze Age cultures of the Black Sea- Volga region.
As a cultural designation, the term is primarily associated
Komarov a. Distribution of the Komarov culture
KURGAN TRADITION
with the works of the late Marija Gimbutas and supporters of
her Kurgan solution to the IE homeland problem and,
therefore, the term “Kurgan Tradition” is often used synony-
mously with the earliest Indo-Europeans. In the system
employed locally by Russian and Ukrainian arehaelogists, the
Kurgan tradition or culture embraces the Khvalynsk culture
of the Middle Volga, the Sredny Stog culture of the Middle
Dnieper, the Kemi Oba, Lower Mikhaylovka and Usatovo
cultures and contemporaneous cultures of the western steppe
and forest-steppe region, the Novosvobodna and Maykop
cultures of the north Caucasus and the entire Yamna cultural-
historical complex of the Pontic-Caspian and its regional
variants.
According to Gimbutas, the Kurgan Tradition is character-
ized by seasonal settlements, semi-subterranean dwellings,
pastoral economy, hierarchic social structure, strongly
patriarchal familial system, aggressive warfare, burial of the
dead in a hut-like chamber beneath a tumulus (Russian
kurgari), animal sacrifice, utilization and veneration of the
| horse, use of wheeled vehicles, and worship of solar deities.
The culture is held in contrast to that of her “Old Europe”,
the consensus of Neolithic and Copper Age cultures of Europe,
especially evident in southeastern Europe, before the
penetration of the Kurgan tribes. These cultures are typified
as peaceful and sedentary agriculturalists living in large villages
or townships in egalitarian and matrilineal societies with
special emphasis on female deities.
The Kurgan Expansions
Gimbutas argued that the Kurgan culture expanded from
its homeland in the steppe and forest-steppe of the Ukraine
and south Russia carrying with it the IE languages. This
dispersal took place over an extended period from 4500 to
2500 BC. The expansion of the Kurgan culture or, at least,
Kurgan traits, is seen eastwards in the form of related steppe
cultures such as the Afanasevo and Andronovo cultures of
the Asian steppe and forest-steppe; southwards through the
Caucasus; and westwards in a series of three waves into
i; southeastern and central Europe.
The first wave (4500-4300 BC), according to Gimbutas,
begins with the development of horse domestication in the
Volga-Ural region and the subsequent expansion of pastoralists
westwards from the Kurgan “heartland”. They achieved
domination of the steppe and forest-steppe regions of the
Ukraine, e.g., the Dnieper-Donets culture, where they emerge
as the Sredny Stog culture. They pushed further west where
their presence is indicated by Kurgan graves such as that from
g^. ... Suvorovo in Moldova and Casimcea in Romania where high-
status males were buried with horse-head scepters. As the
Kurgan people entered the Balkans they precipitated a crisis
which saw the collapse of the local agricultural communities
who had occupied stable villages for over a millennium. These
tell sites were abandoned and new cultures such as Cemavoda
I appeared which reflected a hybrid of local agricultural
traditions mixed with those of the steppe.
Kurgan The three “waves” envisaged in the “Kurgan solution" to
Indo-European expansions. The first wave (I) dates to c 4400-4300
BC; wave II is dated to c 3500-3000 BC; wave III to c 3000 BC.
The second wave of intrusions is set to the period c 3500
BC. It sees the appearance of hybridized Kurgan cultures from
the northwest Pontic across the Balkans. The Tripolye culture,
whose origins lay in the indigenous Balkan Neolithic, was
transformed by this time into Kurganized cultures such as
Usatovo which mixed the ceramic, metallurgical and mortuary
traditions of the Tripolye culture with those of the steppe.
This is also the period of the emergence of a “Balkan-
Danubian” complex where similarities in ceramics (high-
handled drinking cups, etc.) and the use of (Caucasian
derived) bronzes appears across the northwest Pontic and
Balkans in the Baden, Co^ofeni, Ezero and Troy cultures. Most
of these cultures also reflect the emergence of stone-built
citadels.
It is also at this time that there are major cultural changes
in central and northern Europe with the expansion of the
Globular Amphora culture over the earlier territory of the
TRB culture. Gimbutas argues that this latter culture, which
marks a shift to increasing pastoralism and less permanent
settlement, derives ultimately from influences from the
Maykop and Lower Mikhaylovka cultures of the north
Caucasus and Ukraine (hence her use of the term “Maykop
culture” for all of these different cultures). The connections
between the Globular Amphora and Maykop cultures, she
argues, is especially to be seen in ceramic forms and the use
of stone in the construction of mortuary chambers.
The third wave (c 3100-2900 BC) is associated with the
spread of the Yamna culture from the steppe and forest-steppe
of the Pontic-Caspian to the Danube basin and east Balkans.
This is the best attested of the three “waves” and is marked
by thousands of kurgans across the Balkans which have close
if not exact parallels with burials of the steppelands. Tumulus
burials spread southwards into Albania and northern Greece
— 339 —
KURGAN TRADITION
and Gimbutas credits the cultural changes between Early
Helladic II and III (c 2300-2200 BC) in Greece with the arrival
of Kurgan populations bearing IE languages to Greece.
The expansion of the Kurgan culture to western Europe is
also seen in the spread of the Beaker culture whose origins,
she argues, lay in the Vucedol culture of the Danube basin
(most would rather derive it, at least partially, from the Corded
Ware culture of the Rhineland). Similarities are cited with
reference to metal objects, burial rites, the use of solar motifs,
the presence of the domestic horse, that link the Beakers with
the Danube from whence they spread over the western half
of Europe. Central and northern Europe were “lndo-
Europeanized” by the Corded Ware culture which Gimbutas
derives from the Globular Amphora and Yamna cultures.
The Caucasus
Gimbutas also argued that Kurgan tribes penetrated the
metallurgical centers of the Caucasus. This spread is witnessed
by the close association between the steppe cultures and those
of the north Caucasus such as the Maykop culture which
exerted an influence in metallurgy, ceramics and in mortuary
ritual over a broad area of the steppe, e.g., the Kemi Oba
culture, the Lower Mikhaylovka culture. More direct
connections between the two regions, Gimbutas argued, were
to be seen in the spread of Kurgan tribes through the Caucasus
into the territory of the Kuro-Araxes culture (here marked by
the presence of tumulus burials). Some suggest that the Kuro-
Araxes region provided a convenient staging area for Kurgan
expansions into eastern Anatolia which might be employed
to explain the arrival of the Anatolian linguistic stock.
Asia
Kurgan expansions east of the Volga are also part of the
general explanation of Indo-European dispersals. Generally,
these expansions are attributed to the period of the Yamna
culture (c 3500 BC onwards) although in the recognition that
horse domestication may have also occurred in the southern
Urals and western Kazakhstan, the origins of the Kurgan
tradition as a whole may be set to an area that included the
far west of the Asiatic steppe. If the Afanasevo culture of the
Yenisei and Altai mountains is also an offshoot of the European
steppe cultures, this too would speak for a very early (fourth
millennium BC) expansion of the Kurgan tradition eastwards.
The subsequent development of the Andronovo culture with
its strong links with European developments (Potapovka,
Srubna culture) also speaks for a general cultural trajectory
from the European steppe eastwards that formed the staging
area for subsequent Indo-Iranian migrations.
Evaluation
There are core elements in the theory of Kurgan expansions
that are founded on generally recognized canons of
archaeological evidence and are widely accepted. The third
wave of Yamna expansions into the Balkans, for example, is
abundantly supported by thousands of burials in Romania,
Bulgaria and Hungary, and it would be difficult to deny that
there was an influx of steppe pastoralists into the Balkans at
the end of the third millennium BC. Similarly, connections
between developments in Kazakhstan and those of the
European steppe also speak for some form of cultural
trajectory emanating out of the Volga-Ural region. Where there
appears to be a spread of steppe elements or populations into
adjacent steppelands or neighboring regions, the evidence
seems fairly solid.
On the other hand, depictions of major cultural changes
beyond these regions or the attribution of new cultures to
steppe intruders becomes increasingly difficult to sustain the
further one is removed from the open grassland environment
in which the steppe cultures formed. Gimbutas’ arguments
for more distant Kurgan expansions often rests on evidence
that moves from the specific comparison between (almost)
identical cultural elements to increasingly generalized and,
possibly generic comparisons. Hence the spread of Kurgan
populations west and north of Hungary, for example, is
marked not by specific similarities of mortuary ritual but by
fairly vague comparisons, e.g., tumulus burial, stone battle-
axes, warfare, defensive or merely enclosed settlements, “solar”
motifs on ceramics. In almost all cases, examples of these
Kurgan “traits” can also be found in European cultures that
precede any putative Kurgan expansions. For example, the
Baalberge tumuli cover early TRB burials which are regarded
as a pre-Kurgan culture of northern and central Europe;
similarly, stone battle-axes are well known in the non-
Kurganized TRB culture. Solar motifs can be clearly discerned
on early Neolithic ceramics in Italy. The evidence of warfare
can be found in the earlier Linear Ware culture (again non-
Kurgan) as well as among Mesolithic populations of both the
Baltic and Dnieper-Donets regions and the presumption that
inter-societal violence was initiated in Europe by a specific
linguistic group (the Indo-Europeans) to the exclusion of all
others seems extremely unpersuasive. Such broad assertions
reflect one of the core problems of the Kurgan theory: the
presumption that major social and economic changes must
be attributed exclusively to a new ethnic component rather
than natural (e.g., climatic change) or internal processes
(environmental degradation, social evolution). The collapse
of Balkan settlement patterns at the end of the Neolithic, for
example, is laid entirely to intruders who “traumatized” local
populations.
In the face of some of Gimbutas’s general arguments, critics
have assembled specific arguments to indicate the local origins
or the non-correlation between the steppe cultures and those
elsewhere in Europe. The Corded Ware culture, for example,
reflects a strict sexual polarity where males are deposited on
the right side and females on the left, a ritual observance not
encountered among the steppe pastorlists but found among
local Neolithic and Copper Age cultures of east Central
Europe. Battle-axes, often regarded as a marker of the Kurgan
culture, are conspicuous by their absence from graves of the
steppelands.
— 340 —
KURO-ARAXES CULTURE
As a single explanatory model, the concept of an expanding
Kurgan tradition as currently presented is still not robust
enough to provide a convincing solution to the problem of
Indo-European origins. One cannot, of course, hope to follow
any single “Kurgan” marker such as the horse, tumulus burial,
or solar representations, as a direct proxy for Indo-European
dispersals. Nor can a combination of these features (e.g.,
hillforts, warfare), when unsupported by a clear chain of
cultural connections in a chronologically validated pattern,
be employed to chart the process of linguistic movements.
Through its use of the concept of “Kurganized” cultures, the
model of Kurgan-IE expansions does suggest the type of future
direction its supporters might take if they wish to demonstrate
that a linguistic process, emanating from the steppelands of
the Ukraine and south Russia, eventually embraced much of
Europe and Asia.
See also Cernavoda Culture; Ezero Culture;
Indo-European Homeland; Khvalynsk Culture,
Maykop Culture; Sredny Stog Culture; Troy;
Usatovo Culture; Yamna Culture. [J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Gimbutas, M. (1991) The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco,
Harper Collins, 351-401.
Gimbutas, M. (1993) The Indo-Europeanization of Europe: the
intrusion of steppe pastoralists from south Russia and the
transformation of Old Europe. Word 44, 205-222.
Hausler, A. (1981) Zu den Beziehungen zwischen dem nord-
pontischen Gebiet, stidost- und Mitteleuropa im Neolithikum
und in der friihen Bronzezeit und ihre Bedeutung fur das
indoeuropaische Problem. Przeglad Archeologiczny 29, 101-149.
Hausler, A. (1985) Kulturbeziehungen zwischen Ost- und
Mitteleuropa im Neolithikum? Jahreschrift fur mitteldeutsche
Vorgeschichte 68, 21-74.
KURO-ARAXES CULTURE
The Kuro-Araxes culture is the major early Bronze Age
culture centered on the southern Caucasus but with sites
extending also into the northeast Caucasus, eastern Anatolia
and northwestern Iran. It dates to c 3500-2200 BC and is
known from more than three-hundred sites. Its origins are
uncertain although at least one component would be the local
Eneolithic cultures of the region.
Settlements of the Kuro-Araxes culture tend to be small,
about one to two hectares in size, although some large ones
exceed ten hectares. There is also evidence of defensive
architecture including large stone walls surrounding a
settlement. Only one site (Kvatskhelebi) has been excavated
fully and offers evidence of about twenty-five rectangular
houses arranged in rows; round houses are known from the
majority of other sites.
There was a mixed agricultural economy with the raising
of cattle, and sheep/goat. Agriculture is well reflected also in
the material culture with stone querns and hundreds of metal
sickles. The culture appears to have been an early center of
Kuro-Araxes b. Reconstruction of house (Kvatskhelebi);
c. Bronze dagger, d. Bronze hammer-head pin, e. Bronze ax.
km 500
Kuro-Araxes a. Distribution of the Kuro-Araxes culture.
— 341 —
KURO-ARAXES CULTURE
wheeled vehicle production, and exhibits a precocious
metallurgical development which strongly influenced
surrounding regions. Bronze tools included axes, awls, sickles
and knives; the characteristic metal weapon was the dagger
and large bronze spearheads are also known. Bronze
ornaments included pins and spiral rings. Other than pottery,
clay was also used to fashion figurines and what have been
presumed to be altars.
Burials are to be found both in flat graves and under
kurgans (tumuli). The graves are generally inhumations on
their side (a few cremations are known) and the flat graves
may include stone cists while the kurgans may be surrounded
by a stone circle (cromlech). Both single burials and collective
graves containing what are presumed to be family groups are
encountered.
The presence of large tumulus burials in the territory of
the culture along with the appearance of rectangular dwellings
have been attributed by Marija Gimbutas to a penetration of
Kurgan tribes from the steppe. For this reason the Kuro-Araxes
culture is sometimes drawn into discussions concerning the
migrations of the Anatolian stock into their historical seats.
However, the area of the Kuro-Araxes culture and its close
cultural contacts with southwest Asian cultures support its
association with the Hurrian-Urartian family, one of the major
non-IE groups south of the Caucasus. Alternatively, some have
claimed that the Kuro-Araxes culture is best identified as
linguistically Kartvelian (Georgian).
See also Armenian Language; Kurgan Tradition. Q.PM ]
Further Readings
Gimbutas, M. (1973) The beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe
and the Indo-Europeans: 3500-2500 B.C JIES 1, 163-214.
Munchayev, R. (1994) Kuro-arakskaya kul’tura, in Epokha Bronzy
Kavkasa i Sredney Azii, eds. K. Kh. Kushnareva and V I. Markovin,
Moscow, Nauka, 8-57.
— 342 —
LACK
*deu(s)-‘ be lacking’. [/£W219 (*deu-); Wat 12 ( *deu -);
Buck 4.9 1 ] . OE teorian ‘faint, grow weary; fade (of colors)’ (>
NE tire), Grk deofiai ~ Sevopai (< *deue/o- and *deuse/o-
respectively) ‘feel the want of, lack’, OInd dosa- ‘crime, fault,
vice, want’. Reasonably widespread and probably old in IE.
*h\eg- ‘be in need, lack; be extinguished’. [IEW 290
{*eg-)\ Wat 16 ( *eg~); BK 447 (*ak[ h ]-/*dk[ h ]-)]. Lat egeo
‘need’, egestas ‘lack’ egenus(< *eges-no -) ‘lacking’, ON ekla
‘lack’, OHG eko-rddo ‘only’, Hit aki/akkanzi ‘dies/they die’ (<
*hiogeil *hiegnti ‘be extinguished’), TochAB yak- ‘neglect, be
careless about’ (i.e., < *‘be lacking with regard to’). If all these
words belong together, we have evidence for a word that was
widespread and old in IE.
*menk- ‘lack’. [/£W729 (*men-); VW 289]. Lat mancus
‘maimed, infirm’ (< * ‘lacking’), OHG mengen (< Proto-Gmc
*mangjan ) ‘be without, lack, miss’, mangolon ‘be without,
lack, miss’, MHG mane ~ mang ‘lack’, Lith menkas ‘feeble,
weak; scanty; insignificant’, OInd maiiku-‘± wobbly’, TochAB
maiik- ‘be deprived of, suffer the loss of; lack (impersonal)’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*das- ‘lack’. [IEW 178 ( *d-es -)]. Norw (dialectal) tasa
‘unravel’, Hit das(u)want- ‘blind’, OInd dasyati ‘suffers want,
becomes exhausted’. Even if the Norwegian does not belong
here, the agreement of Indie and Anatolian would seem to
assure the PIE status of this word.
See also Small; Thin. [D.Q.A.]
LAKE
*lokus ‘lake, water, pool, pond, cistern’. [IEW 653
( *laku-)\ Wat 35 ( *laku-)\ Buck 1.33]. OIr loch (< *lo/aku )
‘lake’, Gaul penne-locos (‘head of lake’), Lat lacus ‘lake, cistern’,
ON lpgr ‘water, lake’, OE lagu (Gmc < *laku- ) ‘water, river,
lake’, OCS loky ‘pool’, Grk Aa>oco£‘pond, cistern’. The Latin
derivative lacuna ‘cavity, hole, pond’ has the generalized Latin
-uno/a- and does not attest an old -uh x as in OCS loky. The
Latin and Greek forms are difficult. If Greek had a zero-grade
*h x \k-, it should have given *6lXk- (or eXk- or oXk-)\ the
development of *}k- is unknown but may well have been
A oik-. Perhaps late PIE or possibly a loanword.
*ten^.ag-~ *tQhag- ‘shallow water?’. [IEW 1067 ( *tenogos)\
cf. Wat 65 ( *stag-)\ . Latv tigas (< *tmgas) ‘deep spot in water’,
Grk revayog ‘shoal, shallow water’. If the two forms are
cognate, the ablaut requires a consonant stem. Lat stagnum
‘standing water, pool, pond, swamp’ could be from *stnagum
or *stnagnum< *st$h 2 g- (after *sta- ‘stand’?).
??*hi6gherom lake’. [IEW 291-292 ( *eghero-)\ Wat 16
( *eghero-)\ Buck 1 .33] . OPrus assaran ‘lake’, Lith ezeras ‘lake’,
Latv pzprs ‘lake’, OCS jezero ‘lake’, Rus ozero ‘lake’. These
forms are limited to Baltic and Slavic (< *ezera- ) and the only
other cited cognate is Grk 'Axspwv (river of underworld),
which is quite improbable. Uncertain is the connection with
Lith ezi ‘frontier’, Latv eza ‘frontier’, ORus jezU ‘fish-pond’,
Rus jaz ‘fish-pond’, from a root noun *h\egh-.
?*U& p- ~ *Uop- ~ *up- pond’. [IEW 1149 (*uep-)\ BK
392 (*hap[ h ]-/*hdp[ h ]-)]. Lith upe ‘river’ (more likely from
*h 2 ep- ‘water’), OCS vapa ‘pond’, RusCS vapa (< *udpeh a -?\
doubtful) ‘pond’, Hit wappu ‘riverbank’, OInd vapt (< *u dp-
ox *uop~) ‘large pond, pool, tank’. The reconstruction is most
uncertain as all the possible cognates have been challenged.
See also Fire in Water; Marsh; Sea. [R.S.PB.I
LAME see DEFECT
LARGE
LARGE
*megh a - large, great’ (non-neuter *m6goh a , neuter *m£gfr a
[gen. *ijigh a 6s\). [/EW 708-709 ( *meg(h »; GI 684
(*/neFH); Wat 39-40 (*meg-); Buck 13.15; BK 514
(*maG-/*/naG-)J. OIr maige ‘great, large’, Mir mag- ‘large’,
Gaul Maglo-rix (proper name), Lat magnus 1 large’, ON mi/ci//
‘large’, m/p/c ‘much’, OE micel ‘large’ (> NE mickle ), OHG
mihhil ‘large’, Goth mikils ‘great, many’. Alb madh ‘large’,
Grk peyaq ‘large’, peyaipco envy’, Arm mec ‘large’, mecarem
‘esteem’, Hit mekkis (< *megh a -i- ) ‘much, many, numerous;
in large numbers’, Av maz- ‘large’, OInd mahi- ‘large’, TochA
mak ‘many’, TochB maka ‘many’. Widespread and old in IE.
The -a- of Celtic, Latin, Albanian and Tocharian, as opposed
to the -e- of Germanic, Greek, Armenian, and Hittite (and
probably Indo-Iranian), is not easy to explain, more particular-
ly as the distribution of these two vowels does not follow any
well-established dialect lines.
*meh}TOs ~ *mohiros large’. [IEW 704 (*me- ~ *mo-)\
Wat 39 (*/n£-); Buck 12.55; BK 422 (*ma-/*ma-)]. From
*mehjros-. ON maerr ‘known, famous, great’, maera ‘announce,
praise’, OE m&re ‘known, famous, great’, m&ran ‘announce,
praise’, OHG man ‘news, narrating; known, famous, great’,
maren ‘make known’, Goth mereins ‘news, gospel’, meijan
‘proclaim’, OCS Vladi-mirQ (personal name); from *mohjros:
OIr mar ( DIL mor ) ‘large’, moraid ‘magnifies’, Weis mawr
‘more’, Grk eyxeoi-ptopoc; ‘mighty with a spear’. From
*mehi(i)- ‘grow’. Widespread and old at least in the west and
center of the IE world.
5ee also Abundant; Grow. [D.Q.A]
LA TfiNE CULTURE
La Tfcne, named after a site at Lake Neuchatel, Switzerland,
refers to the major Iron Age culture of western and central
Europe c 500-1 BC. The culture, primarily identified by its
art style, coincides with the early distribution of the Celts,
and has been used to identify their movements into Italy, the
British Isles and eastwards into Hungary and Romania where
La Tene remains are particularly well known from cemeteries.
Settlements range considerably. The largest are the hillforts
and fortified (proto-)towns or oppida which exhibit
considerable evidence for craft specialists as well as purely
agrarian economies. The production of weapons, including
long iron swords, and defensive architecture, coupled with
the evidence of Greek and Roman writers, demonstrate the
existence of a hierarchical society with kings, warriors, priests
(druids), merchants, farmers and slaves. Moreover, an
abundance of ritual evidence, especially seen in watery
depositions or votives, and later iconography, provide an
invaluable source for the study of Celtic religion and ritual
behavior.
The borders of the La T£ne culture, however, are not
entirely coincident with the historical distribution of all the
Celtic languages as, for example, Iberia does not indicate any
substantial La Tene presence nor are there many La Tene
artifacts known from the southern third of Ireland. For this
reason, its predecessor, the Hallstatt culture, which is found
over an even broader area, is also often seen to represent the
archaeological expression of the Proto-Celts. The expansion
of the La T£ne art style has also been attributed to exchange
and cultural diffusion rather than folk movements. Such an
explanation has an obvious validity in some circumstances
but is unlikely to explain the entire distribution of this culture.
See also Celtic Languages, Hallstatt Culture. [J.PM.]
Further Readings
Green. M. (1995) The Celtic World. London and New York,
Routledge.
Moscati, S. et al. (eds) (1991) The Celts. London, Thames and
Hudson.
LAUGH
*kha- ‘laugh’. [7EW634 ( *kha kha!)). Lat cachinno ‘laugh’,
OE ceahhettan ‘laugh loudly’, OHG kachazzen ‘laugh loudly’,
OCS chochotati ‘laugh’, Grk Ka(y)xdc^o) ‘laugh loudly’, Arm
xaxank ‘laughter’, Olnd ka(k)khati ‘laughs’. Originally an
onomatopoeic formation, constantly renewed in the various
stocks that have it. Probably reflecting a PIE onomatopoeic
word.
*smei~ ‘smile, laugh’. [/EW 967 ( *(s)mei - ~ *smeu-)\ Wat
61-62 ( *smei-)\ Buck 16.261 Norw smila ‘laugh’, ME smllen
‘smile’ (> NE smile), Latv smeju ‘laugh at’, OCS sme/p ‘laugh’,
— 344 —
Grk peidiaco ‘smile’, Olnd smayate ‘smiles, blushes’, TochAB
smi- ‘laugh’. Widespread and old in IE.
*gag- ‘cackle’. [IEW 407 ( ghagha)\ BK291 (*k’ak’-)]. Lith
gagu ‘cackle’, Rus gogolatl ‘cackle’, gogot ‘cackle, loud
laughter’, Arm kakacem ‘cackle’, kakazem ‘stammer, jabber,
lisp’. A word, presumably originally onomatopoeic, of the
center of the IE world.
?*s\}ard- ‘laugh’ . [ IEW 1 040 ( *suard-)\ Wat 67 ( * sward -)] .
Weis chwarddiad ‘laugh’, Grk GccpSavioq ‘(bitter) laughter’,
oapdai^G) ‘scoff, jeer’. If the Celtic and Greek belong together,
then we have evidence for a word of the west and center of
the IE world.
[D.Q.A.J
LAW
*dh6hitis(gtn. *dh}}it6is) ‘what is established, law’. [IEW
237 ( *dhd-ti-)\ Wat 13 ( dhe-ti-)\ BK 70 ( *diy-/*dey-)\ . Lat
con-diti-o ‘basis’, ON da ‘fact’, OE datd ‘deed’ (> NE deed),
OHG tar ‘deed’, Goth gadeds ‘deed’, Grk Oemq ‘order’, Olnd
-dhiti- ‘position’. The distribution indicates PIE status. From
*dhehi- ‘set, place’ as is other derivations from the same root:
*dhehimis [ZEW238 (*dhe-mi-)}: Grk Oepig'hw’, Av dami-
‘creation’; and *dhehimg [IEW 238 ( *dhe-men-)\ G1 710
( *d h eH-m -); Wat 13 (dhd-mp)]: OE dom ‘fate’ (> NE doom),
OHG tuom ‘custom’, Goth doms ‘sentence, glory’, Grk Qega
‘assertion’, avd&ppa ‘that which is set up, votive offering’, Av
daman- ‘abode’, Olnd dhaman- ‘law’.
*}6]}(o)s ‘law, ritual norm’. [IEW 512 ( *ieuos -), Wat 79
( *yewes -); G1 706 ( *yewo-)\ Buck 21.11], OIr uisse (<
*iustiios) ‘just, right, fitting’, OLat lous ‘law, right, justice,
duty’, Lat ius ‘law, right, justice, duty’, iuro ‘swear (an oath)’,
ius iurandum ‘oath’, iudex (< *ious-dik- ‘law pronouncer’)
‘judge’ (borrowed > NE judge), perhaps OCS istu (if < *iustos)
‘actual, true’, Av yaoz-da- ‘make (ritually) pure’, Olnd samca
yosca ‘happiness and health!’. This distribution on the western
and eastern peripheries of the IE world assures this word’s
PIE status.
Indo-European Law
Law in early IE society was apparently designed to maintain
the “order” of the universe, the underlying concept that a
harmony must be maintained, be it in the physical universe
or the social world. Precisely how this order was to be effected
may vary from one IE stock to another, most of which reveal
some systematic codification of their laws so that we can speak
of the law texts of the early Irish, Roman law, the Iguvine
tablets, law codes of various Germanic tribes (Burgundian,
Salic, etc.), the ‘Law of Jaroslav’ among the Russians, Albanian
traditional law, Greek law, Hittite legal texts, and the Indie
law texts, particularly the Manu-smfti ‘Code of Manu’. To
what extent any comparison of these texts leads us to genetic
rather than generic reconstructions is moot (frequent
— 345
LAW
comparisons can also be made with [non-IE] Mesopotamian
law codes) and the establishment of the specific legal
vocabulary of Proto-Indo-European has been more elusive,
or at least less studied, than that of literary texts.
One of the few terms providing some interstock compari-
son are those built on *dhehi- ‘place, set, establish’. The
concept of ‘establish’ here would appear to refer not to human
but divinely established and guarantied norms of behavior.
Hence Emile Benveniste has argued that Grk Sepig is a set of
rules established by the gods and implemented by the
pacnXevg ‘king’. These rules controlled the whole social fabric,
though Oepig applied specifically to situations within the
family group. It finds a close parallel in the OInd dhdman-
‘law’, which again referred to the maintenance of order within
households which was particularly associated with the divine
wills of Mitra and Varuna. There is some evidence then that
late IE had a concept of ‘household law’ built on the root
*dhehi~.
Laws that governed wider relationships in society are more
difficult to recover. The root *deik- ‘show’ provides some
comparative evidence as it underlies essential legal
terminology in both Latin and Greek. In Lat dicere the word
has come to mean ‘speak’ but this may apply to specifically
legal contexts, e.g., multam dicere ‘pronounce a fine’, and
the word is compounded with the other widespread legal
term *iep(o)s ‘law, ritual norm’ to make iudex (< *ious-dik-
‘law pronouncer’) ‘judge’. The semantic sphere of ‘show’,
Benveniste has argued, indicated a ‘verbal showing’ of what
the norms or laws must be (cf. Old Indie forms built on *deik-
such as disti- ‘instruction’, desa- ‘direction’, disa ‘direction’).
The latter is directly cognate with Grk 8ikt} ‘custom, usage;
right, law, judgement’ and suggests that here the underlying
concept was the showing or recitation of a legal formula
specific to a particular case. It is clear from many of the earliest
written legal codes that we are dealing with earlier oral
formulas, memorized by a member of the legal profession
and passed on from one generation to another to provide
guidance in interpersonal disputes such as those involving
compensation (in terms of wealth or blood). Unlike the terms
built on *dhehi- which refer to divinely sanctioned norms,
those built on *deil appear to have been recognized as laws
created by society itself.
The semantics of the second primary legal term *ieyi(o)s
‘law, ritual norm’ also hints at distinctions between divinely
inspired and secular law. The apparently divergent semantics
of Av yaoz-da- ‘make (ritually) pure’ and OInd yds- ‘happy’
are explained by the notion that the Avestan term, a compound
‘place yaos 1 , indicated the putting of something into a
comfortable state in accordance with ritual prescription, i.e.,
ritual integrity, and that the Old Indie word indicated not so
much happiness but ‘physical integrity’, i.e., being ‘on form’.
The compound formation found associated with Lat ins ‘law’
such as iudex suggest that we are again dealing with formulas,
i.e., the ius is originally to be construed as a formula to be
recited which is intended to guarantee or restore the norm.
In Latin, the ius refers to the norms or laws governing
relationships within human society and is distinguished from
fas ‘divine law’ (and nefas ‘contrary to religious law’) which is
derived from *bheh a - ‘speak’ (cf. Lat for ‘speak’, fatum
‘utterance, oracle’). According to Benveniste, the semantic
derivation is explained by the fact that *bheh a - is typically
employed to indicate depersonalized speech, i.e., what is said,
fame, rumour, the mystic power of the ‘word’.
Although sometimes cited here, there are no grounds for
positing a PIE *legs l law’ [Del 78] as Lat lex ‘law’ is not cognate
with the proposed Indo-lranian forms: Av razar- ‘religious
law’, OInd rajani ‘under the law of’. The latter term actually
means ‘under the conduct of’ and all the Indo-lranian forms
cannot be separated from OInd raj(an)- ‘king’ as ‘ruler, leader’
while Lat lex can be better explained as a root noun to legere
‘read’ perhaps by way of ‘summation’ > ‘(confirmed and
binding) ordinance’.
See also Compensation; Oath; Order; Show; Speak; Swear.
[E.C.P, J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami, 379-442.
Watkins, C. (1970) Studies in Indo-European legal language,
institutions, and mythology’, in Indo-European and Indo-
Europeans, eds. G. Cardona, H. M. Hoenigswald, and A. Senn,
Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, 321-354.
LEAD 1
*neihx~ ‘lead’ (pres. *ndihxei). [7EW760 ( *nei-)\ Wat 44
( *neia-)\ Buck 10.64]. Hit nai leads’, Av nayeiti leads’, OInd
nayate leads’. Very restricted in its geographical attestation
but its appearance in Anatolian and Indo-lranian would seem
to assure its PIE status.
*h 2 Ued(hx)~ lead; take to wife’. \1EW 1115-1116
( *uedh-)\ GI 658 ( *Hwed h -)\ BK 474 (* wad-/* wad-)). Olr
fedid {DIE feidid) leads, goes, wears, brings’, Weis arweddu
lead, bring’, cyweddaf lead, bring in’, dyweddio ‘marry’, OE
weotuma ‘brideprice’, OHG widema ~ widoma ‘bride-price’,
Lith vedu lead, marry (said of a man)’, vedekle ‘young man
of marriageable age’, Latv vedu lead, marry (said of a man)’,
vedekle ‘daughter-in-law’, OCS vedp lead’ (rarely ‘marry’),
vozdp lead’, ORus voditi zenu ‘bring home a wife’, Grk eeSvct
‘nuptial gifts (from suitor to bride or her parents, from bride’s
parents to suitor, or from guests to couple)’ (by assimilation
from *aedna ), dvdedvog ‘without bridal gifts’, Hit huett(iya)-
‘draw, puli’, Av vaSayeiti leads, pulls’, upa-va8ayeiti ‘gives a
woman in marriage’, va8u- ‘young woman, bride’, vaSrya-
‘nubile’, OInd vadhn- ‘young woman, bride’. Widespread and
old in IE. Though not attested with marriage within its
semantic field in Anatolian, the connection of this verb with
marriage, more particularly marriage from the man’s point of
view, is obviously very old in PIE.
See also Bride-price; Drive; Marriage. [D.Q.A.]
346 —
LEAD
LEAD 2
There is no reconstructible PIE term for ‘lead’ although
there are some terms that cross the boundaries of individual
IE stocks. The absence of a word for ‘lead’ is interesting in
view of the presence of a term for ‘silver’, a metal which is
chiefly extracted from lead ores. For archaeologists the
distribution of silver in antiquity may often provide proxy
evidence for the distribution of lead.
The ancient Romans do not seem to have distinguished
the toxic lead from the far safer tin, identifying both as low-
melting ‘solder’. That term can be etymologized as *pleu-
dhom ‘flowable’, apparently a substantized neuter adjective
(modifying a presumed PIE *h a ei-es- ‘metal’). This etymon is
found in both Italic (Lat plumbum ‘lead’) and Celtic (OIr
luaide ‘lead’), and seems to have been loaned from Celtic into
Germanic (OE lead ‘lead’ [> NE lead] , OHG lot ‘solder’),
another sign of the metallurgical status of the early Celts. The
Roman author Pliny the Elder noted the use of the descriptive
adjectives nigrum ‘black’ and album ‘white’ to distinguish the
grayish lead from the brighter and more tarnish resistant tin.
Undoubtedly the same technological terminology spread to
other people in contact with the Celts. ON bly ‘lead’, OHG
bllo ‘lead’ are derived from ‘blue-gray’ (cf. OE bleo ‘blue, violet,
gray’) and must refer to the oxidized grayish cast of the metal.
The Baltic (Lith alvas ‘lead’) and Slavic (Rus olovo ‘lead’) forms
have been the subjects of much speculation concerning
possible Finno-Ugric loans. However, loans from this relatively
metal-poor and technologically backward region are less likely
than a loan from the metal-rich Erzgebirge which was
inhabited by the Celts. The Slavic term * olovo (Rus olovo,
SC olovo, Pol olow ‘lead’) and its Baltic counterpart represent-
ed by OPrus alwis , Lith alvas (the alternative alava is a loan
from Slavic), and Latvian alvs are semantically ambiguous,
signifying either ‘lead’ or ‘tin’. The correspondence of initial
Slavic [o] and Baltic [a] points to an ambiguous non-front,
non-high IE vowel which may be symbolized as *a. The accent
revealed by the Lithuanian form and the post-resonant vowel
point to a lost Indo-European laryngeal, denoted by the
symbol *h x . Our Baltic and Slavic terms then reconstruct to
*alh x yom. Such a word may be a borrowing from central
European Celtic (stem-accented uo-adjectives in IE are usually
o-grades which would have given Proto-Celtic *olhxeuo )
though no actual Celtic descendant is known, or from some
non-Indo-European, metallurgically sophisticated group in
central Europe.
The commonest Greek form for ‘lead’ is Myc mo-ri-wo-do
‘lead’, Attic-Ionic goXvfiSog (Homeric poXifioq) while Delphic
pofagoq ‘lead’ most closely resembles the Basque form, berun,
in its general phonetic shape, but with such a repetition of
labials, liquids and sonorants, any number of metatheses are
possible. Nevertheless, the Greek forms have frequently been
connected with Basque, and there is nothing inherently
improbable in such an inner Mediterranean relationship given
the importance of the Iberian peninsula as a source of metals.
The Greek and Basque terms might reflect an “Aegean” word
for ‘lead’, which, like many of the items regarded as part of
this stratum of the Greek lexicon, has syllables of open sonority
and indeterminate liquids. Thus the original Mediterranean
word for ‘lead’ could have been something like *bo-lii-mo-
However, the efforts to add OIr luaide and Lat plumbum or
even Slavic olovo and Lith alavas to this set of cognates
complicate phonetic matters far beyond what is necessary
and these words have been explained differently above.
Moreover, the motivation for a Basque > Aegean loan is not
altogether clear. For example, Iberian lead is found primarily
in Cartegena, Portugal, and the Huelva province in Spain, all
areas distant from the Basques while we know from the
beginning of the Bronze Age that the Greeks were already
exploiting local sources of lead far earlier than their first
millennium entry into the Iberian market. Hittite reveals a
Near Eastern orbit in its Sumerogram designations, A.GAR 5
and A.BAR. The full form, Hit suli(ya)- seems to be an adjective
‘dark’, again a reference to the grayish oxide coating that lead
develops upon exposure to air.
Archaeological Evidence
Lead is distributed more widely than either copper or tin
in nature and may be found from the Atlantic right across
Eurasia. It is generally obtained in the form of the ore galena
whose gray/black color may help explain its association with
color terms in some IE languages. Lead artifacts are known
in the Aegean from at least the third millennium BC, e.g., a
double-ax fashioned in lead from Mochlos and bars of lead
and a lead figure from the Cyclades, while it is also found on
mainland Greece at the same time. Some objects of lead are
also known from the north Caucasus (Maykop culture) from
c 3000 BC. Lead objects are also found in the Harappan
culture. One might expect that there would be widespread
loan words concerning lead by the late Bronze Age, c 1200
BC. By this time lead was deliberately being alloyed with
bronze in order to reduce the bronze’s melting temperature
and thereby ease casting difficulties. In the areas of Asia
occupied by the Indo-Europeans, the deliberate alloying of
lead is seen in the Harappan culture and earlier in the third
millennium in Turkmenistan (in Vedic texts, Olnd sfsa- lead’
is found coupled with copper and tin). In the west such alloys
would have diffused from central and western Europe and
the possibility of a widespread Proto-Celtic term for lead might
receive some archaeological support. While lead objects
themselves were normally not made in any great number, the
one major exception is the Armorican (Brittany) axes of the
late Bronze Age, i.e. , c 700 BC. Here, a series of shaft-hole
axes, usually with an exceptionally high lead content (30-
60%) or entirely fashioned from lead, were manufactured in
Brittany and Normandy. Their find contexts are often hoards
with as many as 4000 in a single deposit and they are found
widely over western Europe. There are sound reasons to
dismiss these as non- functional axes — they are often too soft,
incapable of holding a cutting edge, lacking their shaft-holes,
etc. — and, consequently, are more easily interpreted as a form
— 347
LEAD
of ingot or currency. While it is probable that these axes cir-
culated within a general Celtic environment (the British Isles
to north Germany and Switzerland), there is really no evidence
that they may have penetrated those regions traditionally
ascribed to the earliest Baltic and Slavic settlement.
See also Gold; Metal; Silver; Tin. [M.E.H., J. P. M.}
LEADER
*h a egds leader’. [1EW 5 (*ag-)\ cf. Wat 1 (*ag-), BK 397
(*hek’-/*hak’-)\. Lat prod-igus lavish’, Grk otyog ‘leader’, OInd
aja- ‘driver’. The semantic field indicating ‘leader’ is confined
to Greek and Indo-Aryan and may suggest a southeastern
term. The Greek term applies specifically to heroes. From
*h a eg- ‘drive, push’.
*koijonos ‘leader’. [IEW 615 ( *korio-no-s)\ Wat 32
( *koro-)\ GI 644]. ON Herjann army-chief, i.e. , Odinn’, Grk
Koipavog ‘army leader’. The word is derived from *korios
‘army’ with the IE suffix *-no- denoting leadership (cf. Lat
domus ‘house’ and dominus ‘head of the house(hold)’, Goth
piuda ‘folk’ and piudans ‘head of the people’). The Greek
word specifically referred to the king in time of war while the
king in peacetime seems to have been designated by (f)avcd;
and fiaciXevq but survives perhaps in the name of Mycenaean
officials ko-te-re. Attempts to set Hit kuriwanas ‘independent’
here are dubious and it may be argued from the meager
distribution of this word and the productive formation that it
was independently created in several stocks sharing the PIE
word for ‘army’.
*tagds ‘leader’. [7EW1055 ( *tag-)\ cf. Wat 69 ( *tag-)] . Grk
rayoq ‘leader’, TochA tassi (pi.) ‘leaders’, TochB sle-tas ‘±
mountain-commander’, ywarc-tas l ± commander of the central
region’ (Toch < *tagius ). Compare Lith pa-togus ‘agreeable;
ordered’ (the long vowel in Baltic is regular before an
unaspirated voiced stop). From *tag- ‘put in order, arrange’.
*\fikpots master of the clan’. [7£W 1131 ( *u(e)ik-potis),
GI 646]. Lith viespatis ~ Lith viespats ‘master’, Alb zot (<
*dzwipt < *wtsa + pot-) ‘lord’, Av vispaitis ‘master of the
clan’, OInd vispati- ‘head of the household’. Cf. also the
feminines: OPrus (acc.) waispattin ‘woman of the house’, OInd
vis-patni ‘woman of the house’. From *uik- ‘clan, extended
family’ (cf. *uoikos ‘settlement’) and *pot- ‘master, lord’. The
Avesta lists the various leadership terms in ascending rank of
authority as dmama-paiti- ‘master of the household’, vispaiti-
‘master of the clan’, zantu-paiti - ‘master of the people’, and
dahyu-paiti- ‘master of the ?world’ with vlspaiti - as the highest
rank for which one may derive other IE cognates. Distribution
indicates at least a word of the center and east of the IE world.
See also Army; Companion; Drive, King; Master;
Put in Order; Social Organization. [E.C.P, J.PM.]
LEAF
*bh6tiom ‘leaf’. [IEW 1 22 ( *bhel-)\ Wat 7 ( *bhol-yo-)\ GI
389 ( *b h loH-)\ Buck 8.56; BK 11 ( *bul-u-/*bol-u -)]. Lat
folium ‘leaf’, Grk (pvXXov ‘leaf; plant’. Cf. Mir bileoc ‘little
leaf’.
*bhlp a d-\e af’. [IEW \22{*bhel-)\ GI 389 i*bhlH-\ Buck
8.56; BK 1 1 ( *bul-u-/*bol-u-)} . ON blad' leaf, blade of grass’,
OE blsed ‘leaf, blade of grass’ (> NE blade), OHG blat ‘leaf,
blade of grass’, TochA palt ‘leaf’, TochB pilta ‘leaf’. Both of
these words are restricted to two stocks. Both may have been
present dialectally in late PIE. From *bhel- ‘± blossom, bloom’.
*dhal- ‘sprout’. [7FW234 (*dhal-)\ Wat 13 (*dhal-)]. Mir
duille leaf’, Weis dail leaf’, Alb dal ‘arise, appear, emerge,
leave’, Grk OaXXco ‘bloom’, Arm dalar ‘green’. A word of the
west and center of the IE world.
See also Flower. [D.Q.A.]
LEAN
*klei- lean’. [7£W 600-602 (*klei-)\ Wat 31 (*klei-); Buck
9.14], Mir deleft; defective, bad’, Weis cledd left’, Lat clivus
(noun) ‘slope’, clivis ‘inauspicious’, OE blinian lean’ (> NE
lean), OHG hlinen lean’, Goth hleidumei left’, Lith s/iefilean
against’, Latv sliet lean against’, Rus sloj layer, level’, Grk
kXTvco ‘cause to lean’, Av sray- lean’, OInd srayate ‘clings to,
leans upon’, TochA kla(w)- (with secondary -w-) ‘fall’, TochB
klay- ‘fall’ (< an iterative-intensive *kloi- lean over [so as to
fall]’? or ‘decline very much’ > ‘fall’?), TochB klask- ‘set (of
the sun)’ (< *kli-ske/o-\ cf. Grk to ppap kXivetcci ‘the day
wanes’), TochAB klin- ‘be necessary’ (< ‘depend on’ < lean
against’). Although the present stems vary from one language
to another, the basic root is well attested and can be
reconstructed with confidence. Note the particular semantic
development in western Indo-European to left, inauspicious’,
probably from the notion of ‘crooked, wrong’ < lean, not
straight’.
*lcnez-g w 7i-‘leari. [ IEW 608 {*knei-g?h- ~ *knei-b-), Wat
3 ( *kneig w h-)2 ]. Lat conlveo (< *com-nigu- lean together
[the eyelids]’) ‘blink’, ON hnlga ‘to bow’, OE hnlgan ‘to bow’,
OHG hnlgan ‘to bow’, Goth hneiwan ‘to bow’. Distribution
suggests a late west European dialectal form.
See also Direction; Left. [M.N.]
LEARN
*men(s)-dh(e)hi- ‘learn’ (< *‘place in the mind’). [IEW
730 ( *mendh -); Wat 41 ( *mendh-)\ Buck 17.24; BK 519
(* man-/* man-)}. Weis mynnu ‘wish’, ON munda 'strive for,
aim’, OHG mendon ‘rejoice’, muntn ‘zeal’, munter lively’,
Goth mundon ‘pay attention to, observe’, mundrei ‘goal’, Lith
mandras lively, awake’, Latv muodrs lively, awake’, OCS
mpdrp ‘wise’, Alb mund ‘be able’, Grk pavOavco learn’, Av
mazda ‘wisdom’, m^z-da- ‘stamp in the memory’, mpdra-
‘wise’, OInd medha ‘wisdom’. A compound, old in IE, of
*men(es)- ‘mind’ + *dhehi- ‘place, put’.
See also Think [D.Q.A.]
LEATHER see HIDE 2
LEAVE
*leik w - leave (behind)’ (pres. *li-n6-k w -ti). \IEW 669
( *leik--), Wat 36 ( *leik w -)\ GI 39 ( *leik h -)] . OIr leicid leaves’.
— 348
LENGYEL CULTURE
Lat linquo ‘leave’, liceo ‘be for sale’, ON Ija ‘lend’, OE leon
‘lend’ (> NE loan), OHG llhan ‘lend’, Goth leitvan ‘lend’, OPrus
pollnka ‘remains’, Lith liekii (~ dialectally with linku ) ‘leave’,
Grk Xeinco leave’, Arm lk‘anem ‘leave’, Av ihnaxti ‘releases’,
OInd rinakti" leaves, gives up, releases’, perhaps TochB plank-
(if < *(hje)pi-li-n-k w - ) ‘be for sale’. Widespread and old in
IE.
*deuh 4 - ‘leave, go far away’. [IEW 219-220 ( *deu-)\ BK
139 (*t*aw-/*t’9W-)]. OHG zouwen ‘hasten, proceed, succeed’,
Grk 81 jv (< *dueh 4 m) ‘long, for a long time; far’, Hit tuwa ‘to
a distance, afar’, tuwala- ‘distant, remote’, Av durat ‘far’, OInd
davati ‘goes’, davayati ‘makes distant, removes’, duta-
‘messenger, envoy’, dur£- ‘distant, remote’. Widespread and
old.
*ghehi- ‘leave’ (pres. *(ghi/e)gheh!ti). [IEW 418-419;
( *ghe- ) Wat 2 1 ( *ghe-)\ GI 33 ( *G h e-)\ Buck 10.47] . OE gan
‘go’ (> NE go), OHG gan ‘go’, CrimGoth geen ‘go’, Grk Kiyfivco
‘light upon, meet with, arrive at’, Av zazami ‘leave off’, OInd
jahati ‘leaves’. Sparsely attested but the geographical
distribution of the few attestations would seem to guarantee
its PIE status.
*Iehid- ‘leave’. [ IEW 666 ( *le(i)-)\ Wat 35 ( *le-)] . ON lata
‘leave’, OE lxtan ‘leave’ (> NE let), OHG lazan ‘leave’, Goth
letan ‘leave’, Lith leidziu ‘leave’, Latv laist ‘leave’ (the -i- of the
Baltic forms is without a good explanation). Alb le (< *lhid-
ne/o-) ‘leave, let, abandon, allow’. Perhaps originally identical
with the homophonous *lehid- ‘be tired’. Unextended by
-d- we have Hit la(i)- ‘let go, allow’. With Anatolian,
sufficiently widely attested to guarantee PIE status.
See also Long; Remain; Tired. [D.Q.A.]
LEECH
*gelu- leech’, [cf. IEW 365 ( *gel-)\ . OIr gil ‘leech’, Weis
gel ‘leech’ (< Celt *gelu~), NPers zalu ‘leech’, Kurdish zalu
‘leech’, OInd jaluka- ‘leech’, presumably from a verb *gel- ‘±
swallow’ (compare OIr gelid ‘grazes, consumes’). If the Celtic
and Indo-Iranian words belong together their distribution
would seem to guarantee PIE status for this item.
See also Animal; Fish; Insects. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Witczak, K. T. (1992) Indo-European word for ‘leech’ and its
Nostratic equivalents. Archiv Orientalni 60, 38-42.
*laiyos ‘left’. [IEW 652 ( *laiuo-)\ Wat 35 ( *laiwo-)\ Gl
686 ; Buck 12.42], Lat Iaevus ‘left’, OCS levu ‘left’, Grk
Xa i(f)oq ‘left’, TochB laiwo ‘± lassitude’. Perhaps from *lei-
‘bent’ if the expected **leiuos was crossed with *skaiuos ‘left’.
*seui 6 s left [IEW 915 (*seuio~): Gl 686 ; Buck 12.42],
OCS sujl ‘left’, Av haoya- ‘left’, OInd savya- ‘left’. Nominalized
form of *seu- ‘turn’, probably through the meaning ‘bent’.
*sAaiyds‘left’ . [GI 686 ; Buck 12.42]. Lat scaevus ‘left’, Grk
c 7Kawq(< *a Kaifog) ‘left’. Cf. OIr ciotan ‘left’, Lith kairi ‘left
hand’, kairys ‘left’. A word of at least the west and center of
the IE world.
There is no single widespread inherited term for ‘left’
although each of the above indicates considerable antiquity
and is associated with the concept of ‘bent’, the left-side being
regarded as unpropitious among the early Indo-Europeans
as well as many other language groups. Linguists generally
ascribe the absence of a single word for ‘left’ to the negative
associations of the term which would have invoked taboo
replacements while the more positive term for ‘right’ would
have been far more stable. It has also been observed that each
word retains the deictic particle *-ue/o~, which has been long
seen to mark opposition, i.e., where two qualities are in direct
contrast, the “positive” is the unmarked and the “negative” is
marked by the particle *-ue/o- which is frequently found in
indicating directional, sexual or seasonal oppositions. Thus,
the semantic associations of ‘left’ in the various IE stocks (and
also among many non-IE as right and left markedness is a
universal) are broadly feminine and negative, i.e. , left indicates
the female side, matrilineality, chthonic, unlucky, unordered,
weakness, and is expressed in polar opposition as ‘north’.
These associations have been renewed within the IE languages
on numerous occasions, e g., OIr cle ‘left; malign, inauspi-
cious, sinister, bad’, Weis chwith'\e ft; strange; sad’, Lat sinister
‘left; wrong, perverse’ which was then further replaced in some
Romance languages, e g., the Romanian term for ‘left’ means
‘tired’, i.e., ‘the weaker’ (hand), OE lyft- ‘left’ beside Fris luf
‘weak’, or, in a seasonal opposition, e g., ON vinstri ‘left’ which
must be compared with Goth wintrus ‘winter’.
See also Cosmology; Right. [A.D.V.]
Further Readings
Markey, T. L. (1982) Indo-European etyma for ‘left’, ‘left-handed’
and markedness reversal. The Mankind Quarterly 23, 183-194.
van Leeuwen-Turnovcova, J. (1990) Rechts und Links in Europa.
Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.
*k 6 nhaip (gen. *k^hain 6 s). lower leg, shin’. [/EW613-
614 ( *kondmo-)\ Wat 32 ( *kon9mo-)\ . OIr cnaim ‘leg’, ON
hgm ‘lower leg’, OE hamm ‘ham’ (> NE ham), OHG hamma
‘hollow of the knee, ham’, Grk Kvrjpi] (Aeolic/Doric KvOpa)
‘tibia, spoke of wheel’. Though only attested when extended
by *-i- or *-o-, the underlying morphology (apparently an
old m- stem) is very archaic and it is likely that this word is of
PIE date.
*s 6 k w t (gen. *sek w tnds) ‘(upper) leg’. Rus stegno (<
*segdno-< *sektno-) ‘hip, groin, thigh’, Hit sakutt(a)- ‘upper
leg’, Av haxti- ‘hip’, OInd sakthi (gen. sakthnas) ‘thigh’.
Sufficiently widespread as to guarantee PIE status. It is
tempting to add Weis hegl(< *sektlo-l) ‘leg’ to this group but
the lack of labialization on the *-k- is difficult.
See also Anatomy; Foot; EIaunch; Limb. [D.Q.A.]
LENGYEL CULTURE
The Lengyel culture was the eastern successor to the Linear
— 349 —
LENGYEL CULTURE
Lengyel a. Distribution of the Lengyel culture.
Ware culture, especially in the lands west of the Tisza river,
i.e., southern Poland south to Croatia and from Hungary,
Slovakia and northeast Austria. The culture dates to c 5000-
3400 BC. Lengyel settlements include both ditch-enclosed
and open villages where small houses and the much longer
houses of the earlier Linear Ware culture are well known. In
some instances the large enclosures lack evidence for
settlement and a ceremonial purpose is supposed. Cattle
predominates in faunal remains followed by pig and small
quantities of sheep/goat. Both wheat and barley are also known
and the settlements are presumed to have had much the same
economy as the earlier Linear Ware sites although some faunal
samples produce markedly higher percentages of wild animals.
Proximity to southeast European ceramic traditions may help
account for the popularity of painted wares among the earlier
phases of the Lengyel culture; also, the Lengyel culture
participated in the production of cult vessels and figurines,
again characteristic traits of the more southerly cultures.
Burials are found in cemeteries, some of which are quite large.
They are typically flexed inhumations on either side
accompanied by pottery, ornaments, stone and sometimes
copper implements. In some instances male burials lack their
skulls or have their jaws replaced by the mandible of a pig.
The Lengyel culture is largely dismissed as non-Indo-
Lengyel b. Reconstruction of a Lengyel village in Poland;
c. Lengyel painted “fruitstand”; d. Lengyel female figurine.
European by proponents of the Kurgan solution to the IE
homeland problem; however, it plays an integral part in
defining the early distribution of the Indo-Europeans by those
who support a Danubian origin. It is also a possible
component in the origins and dispersals of both the TRB and
Globular Amphora cultures.
See also Linear Ware Culture. (J.PM.l
LEOPARD
??*singhds leopard ( Panthera pardus)'. [GI 427
{*sin^o-)\ Buck 3.721. Arm inj-inc ‘leopard’, OInd simha-
‘lion’. TochA sisak ‘lion’ and TochB secake ‘lion’, although
sometimes placed here, do not belong but may be related to
Lat saeta ‘bristly hair’. The correspondence between Armenian
and Indie has led a number of scholars to postulate an
inherited PIE word for ‘lion’, here assuming that it is Indie
that has retained the original meaning of this word. There are
considerable difficulties with this proposition. If the pre-
Armenians, as is generally supposed, entered Anatolia from
the west, having moved south through the Balkans in
association with their nearest IE relatives the pre-Greeks, they
would constantly have been in areas where lions were native.
There would have been little reason to reassign a word for
‘lion’ to another, quite different, felid. On the other hand,
— 350 —
LICK
pre-lndic speakers should have sojourned for a long period
of time on the Kazakh steppes and areas around them that
have never been the habitat of lions. It would be remarkable
if they kept an old word for lion’ alive in some fashion (as
the designation of another felid or a mythical beast?) and then
just happened to reassign it to lions on re-entering areas
inhabited by lions (Iran, Afghanistan). Perhaps the simplest
hypothesis, assuming that the Armenian and Indie words
belong together, is that the Armenian word retains the original
meaning, and it is the Indo-Aryans who applied it to the lion
upon entering northern India.
Evidence for leopards is not common although remains
have been recovered from the Anatolian Neolithic site of £atal
Huytik where they are also depicted on the walls of shrines.
That part of their historical range pertinent to the IE stocks
includes the north Caucasus, Anatolia, Iran and Baluchistan
across northwest India and much of China. To any discussion
of the leopard should also be added the Ounce or Snow
Leopard ( Panthera uncia ). While its recent distribution is
limited to Turkestan, the Altai and south to the Pamirs, it was
a regular motif of the art of the eastern Iranian steppe nomads
who occupied the entire Pontic-Caspian steppe during the
Iron Age.
See also Lion; Mammals. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
LESS
*mei- ‘less’ (adjective *minus ‘small’, verb *min6uti
‘lessens’). [IEW1W ( *mei-)\ Wat 40 ( *mei -)J. Com minow
‘lessen’, Lat minus ‘small’, minud ‘lessen’, ON minnstr
‘smallest’, OHG minnisto ‘smallest’, Goth minnists ‘smallest’
(Gmc < *minu-ist-), Grk pivvcopiog ‘short-lived’, pivvOco
‘lessen, decrease’, OInd minati ~ minoti ‘lessens’, miyate ‘gets
smaller’, perhaps TochAB mi- ‘hurt, harm (grievously)’.
Widespread and of PIE status.
See also Lack; Numerals (Four); Small [D.Q.A.l
LIBATION
*spend- ‘make an offering, perform a rite; engage oneself
by a ritual act’ (pres. *sp6ndei [middle *spi}d6(to)r \ ) . [IEW
989 ( *spend-)\ Wat 63 ( *spend-)\ GI 562 (*sp h ent’-)\. Lat
spondeo ‘promise, vow’, Grk okevSco ‘pour a libation;
conclude a pact’ (i.e., to make the gods guarantors of a certain
action), GKevSopai ‘take one another as mutual guarantors;
enter into a mutual agreement; accept a guarantee’, Hit
sippand- ~ ispand- ‘pour a libation’, TochAB spant- ‘trust’
(< * ‘accept a guarantee’). Widespread and ancient in IE.
*ghtump ‘libation’. | IEW 447 (*gheu-)\ Wat 22-23
( *gheu-)\. Grk ‘that which is poured’, Phryg ^evgdv
‘libation’, Olnd homan- ‘libation’, hotra- ‘offering’, hotar
‘priest’, cf. Arm jawnem ‘offer, consecrate’, Av zaoOra-
‘sacrifice’, zaotar- ‘priest’. From *gheu- ‘pour’.
*leib- ‘pour, make a libation’, [cf. IEW 664 {*le/ei-)\ Wat
36 (*lei-)\. Lat libare ‘taste, sip; pour out, make a libation’,
libum ‘sacrificial cake (soaked in honey)’, Grk Xzi (5(0 ‘pour
out (drop by drop)’. Although attested in only two stocks, it
would appear that we have the reflex of something of some
antiquity in IE in this word.
PIE *spend- poses certain problems of interpretation. As
E. Benveniste observed, the Hittite word indicated purely a
religious act, i.e., a part of a sacrifice, while the Latin was
entirely juridical, e.g., it is used characteristically in the
wedding ceremony where the response to being asked whether
one gives one’s daughter or takes one’s daughter to be
someone’s wife is spondeo ‘1 do (pledge)’, cf. the derivative
sponsus ‘husband’ and sponsa ‘wife’ which by way of French
gives NE spouse. The Greek cognates include both concepts,
i.e., ‘pour a libation’ and ‘conclude a pact’ and the context of
the former meaning does not always suggest that the libation
was at the conclusion of an agreement. In its earliest
attestations, in Homer, the term indicates ‘to pour a libation’
on the occasion of some particularly difficult situation as a
Way to invite the support of the gods to protect someone.
The middle form cmevdopai indicates that it is not so much
the gods but the individuals involved who take each other as
guarantors. Benveniste argued that the underlying semantic
development began with the ‘libation’ and then developed its
juridical sense of ‘make an agreement, accept a guarantee’.
The proper libation is indicated by *gheump which derives
from a well attested verb *gheu- ‘pour’. While the Greek word
suggests the pouring of any liquid, the Old Indie form refers
specifically to the pouring of the melted butter on the sacrificial
fire. It has also been observed that *gheu- ‘pour’ is employed
in Latin, Greek and Old Indie not only for the pouring out of
liquids but also speech, particularly that concerned with
sacrifices in Indie, e.g., ‘these songs of praise... I pour ( juhomi )
to the Adityas...with an offering spoon’ ( RV 2.27.1), and
elevated poetic passages in Greek, e.g., ‘may you hear from
me pouring forth (^eouaa^) prayers...’ (Aeschylus Suppliants
631), and Latin, e.g., ‘had Cloanthus not poured forth
(fudisset) prayers...’ ( Aeneid 5.234). These may either be
independently developed metaphors or reflect an earlier IE
motif that associated the ‘pouring out’ of both liquid offerings
and prayers.
The form *Ieib- suggests the dripping of a liquid in offering,
in Homer it is employed in contexts suggesting that it repre-
sented a few drops poured from a cup before its consumption
in order to appease the deities.
See also Pray; Sacrifice. [D.Q.A., J.PM.J
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami, 470-480.
Kurke, L. (1989) Pouring prayers: A formula of IE sacral poetry.
JIES 17, 113-125.
LICK
*leigh- lick’. \1EW 668 {*leigh-)\ Wat 36 ( *leigh-), Buck
4.5] . OIr %/d‘licks’, Weis llyfu ‘lick’, Lat lingo ‘lick’, OE liccian
‘lick’ (> NE lick), OHG lecchon lick’, Goth bi-laigon ‘lick’,
Lith lieziii ~ laizau ‘lick’, OCS lizati lick’, Grk Xeiyto lick’.
351 —
LICK
Arm lizem ‘lick’, Av raeza- ‘lick up’, Olnd leh- ‘lick’.
Widespread in IE, it is likely to have been the primary word
for ‘lick’.
*lab-‘ lick’. [7EW651 ( *lab-)\ Wat 34 ( *lab-)\ Buck 4.591.
Lat lambo ‘lick’, Nice lepja ‘slurp’, OE lapian ‘lap’ (> NE lap),
OHG laffan ‘lick’, Grk Xolktco ‘slurp, drink’. Arm 7ap‘e7‘lick’.
Reasonably widespread and at least a word of the west and
center of the IE world, but phonologically marked as a
“popular” word by both the /a / and /b/. See also *leb- ‘lip’.
*lak- ‘lick’. [IEW 653 (*Iak-)-, BK 589 (*lak[ h ]-/*hk[ h ]-)].
Lith laku ‘lap up’, OCS locu ‘lick’, Arm lakem ‘lick’. Probably
in origin an onomatopoeic word in late PIE where it was
confined to certain central dialects.
See also Eat and Drink; Kiss; Suck. [D.Q.A.]
LIE 1
*kei- ‘lie’. [7EW539 {*kei-)\ Wat 27-28 (*7ceL); GI 256
( *^ei-)\ Buck 12.14; BK 259 ( *k[ h ]ay-/*k[ h ]9y-)] . Grk Keipai
‘lie’, Hit kittari ‘lies’, Av saete ‘lies, rests’, Olnd saye ‘lies’. All
cognates agree in conjugating this verb in the middle voice
rather than the active. Distribution secures PIE status at least
to the center and east of the IE world. In IE poetic language
this root also conveys the sense of lying deceased, e.g. Grk
(Homeric) keitoli ndzpoicXog ‘Patroklos lies’, Olnd ahih
sayate ‘the serpent lies’.
*legh- ‘lie’. [IEW 658-659 ( *legh-)\ Wat 35 ( *legh-)\ GI
186 (*leg h -), Buck 12.14; BK 587 ( *lag-/*hg-)\ . Mir laigid
‘lies’, Lat lectus ‘bed’, OE began ‘lie’ (> NE lie), OHG ligan
‘lie’, Goth ligan ‘lie’, OCS lezati ‘lie’, Grk Xeyerai ‘lies’, Hit
laki ‘lays aslant’, lagan ‘lies aslant’, TochA lake ‘bed’, TochB
leke ‘bed’, lyak- ‘lie’. Although most languages treat this verb
as thematic, the Homeric Greek aorist form Xekto suggests
that the verb originally belonged to the athematic conjugation.
It is striking that in several languages this root parallels *sed-
‘sit’, e.g., Olr saidid ‘sits’ with laigid ‘lies’, Goth sitan ‘sits’
with ligan, OCS spdp ‘sit down’ with lezp ‘lie down’.
Distribution secures PIE status. A suffixal o-grade form of the
root *logh-o- may underlie ON Ipg( pi.) ‘law’, borrowed into
English as OE lagu (> NE law), via the meaning ‘something
laid or fixed’. A similar semantic development is exemplified
by OE dom ‘statute, law, judgement’ (> NE doom), which is
based on the root *dhehi~ ‘put, place’. A lengthened-grade
form of the root *legh- underlies Germanic and Baltic forms
meaning ‘low, flat, level’ (< * ‘lying down flat’): ON lagr ‘low’,
OE lab ‘low’ (> NE low), MHG laege ‘flat’, Lith liksnas ‘flat’,
Latv lgzns ‘flat’.
See also Bed. [M.N.]
LIE 2
*leugh - ‘lie, tell a lie’. [IEW 686-687 ( *Ieugh-)\ Wat 37
( *leugh~) ; Buck 16.67], ON ljuga ‘lie’, OE leogan ‘lie’ (> NE
lie), OHG liugan ‘lie’, Goth liugan ‘lie’ (cf. ON lokka ‘allure,
entice’, OE loccian ‘attract, entice, soothe’, OHG lochon ‘entice’
< *lughneh a -), Lith lugoti ‘ask’, Latv liigt 1 ask’, OCS luzp ‘lie’.
A word of the northwest of the IE world.
See also Deceive. [D.Q.A.]
LIFE
*h a djus (gen. *ha}6us) ‘vital force, life, age of vigor’.
[IEW 17 ( *aiu-)\ Wat 1 ( *aiw-)\ GI 702 ( *ayu-)\ BK 446 ( *hay-
aw-/*hoy-aw-)\. Olr aes ‘life, age’, Lat aevus ‘lifespan’, ON
aevi 1 life, age’, ae{< *h a oiuo-) ‘always’, OE %(w) ‘law, marriage’,
a ‘always’, OHG ewa ‘eternity, law’, ewin ‘eternity’, io ‘always’,
Goth aiws ‘time, eternity’, Grk aicov ‘vitality, lifespan’, Av ayu
(gen. yaos) ‘lifespan’, Olnd ayu - ~ ayus- ‘life, lifespan’. To the
original meaning ‘vital power, life’ is the connotation of
duration which can be seen in Grk SoXiyaicov ‘having a long
life’, Av darog-ayu- ‘long-lasting’, Olnd dirgh-ayu- ‘long-
lasting’. Widespread and old in IE. The root *h a iu~, in the
zero grade, with the same n-enlargement as in Olnd (instr.)
ayuni and (loc.) ayuna ‘life’ is found in PIE *h a iuuen- ‘youth’:
Lat iuvenis ‘youth’, OHG jugund ‘youth’, Indo-Iranian
*h a iuuien- ‘youth’, etc., or with the “possessive” suffix
*-hien~, *h a iu-hien- The association with law and religious
issues in Germanic seems to be a late semantic development.
See also Strength; Young. [E.C.R, D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Benveniste, E. (1937) Expression indo-europeenne de l’etemite. BSLP
38, 103-112.
LIFT
*teUi 2 ~ lift, raise’ ( *tjneh 2 ti) [IEW 1060-1061 (*fe/-); Wat
69 ( *teh-)-, GI 152 \*t h el-)\ Buck 10.22; BK 98 (*t/ h /aPV
*t[ h ]9l y -)]. Mir tlenaid ‘takes away’, Lat tollo (< *tl-no-) ‘lift’,
ON pola ‘endure’, OE polian ‘endure (> NE thole), OHG dolen
‘endure’, Goth pulan ‘endure’, Grk (aor. inf.) raXdoaai ‘bear,
suffer, endure’, Arm Voluw ‘let, permit’, Olnd tula- ‘scales’,
TochAB tab ‘uphold, keep raised; raise, lift; acquire’ (TochB
present talla-< *talna-). Distribution indicates PIE status. Note
that Celtic, Latin and Tocharian all point to a nasal suffix in
the stem, suggesting that the stem can be reconstructed as
well.
*kel(hi)- ‘lift, raise up’. [IEW 544 ( *keb), Wat 28 ( *kel-)\
Buck 10.22; BK 305 (*k y [ h ]il y V*k y [ h ]ely-)]. Lat ante-, ex-,
prae-cello ‘surpass’ (< *kel-d-), Lith kelti/kehu ‘raise up’, kilti/
kylii ‘raise oneself up’, Grk KeAiovxec; ‘vertical beams in the
upright loom’, TochAB kaly- (< *klhx-ie/o-) ‘stand, stand still;
last’ and nominal derivatives (with the meaning ‘hill’, etc.) in
Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and Greek.
See also Hill; Put; Stand. [M.N., D.Q.A.]
LIGHT 1
*lduk(es)~ light’. [IEW 687 ( *louko-)\ Wat 37 (*/euk-);
GI 40; Buck 1.61; BK 580 (*law-/*hw-)\. Lat lux ‘light’, Arm
loys (gen. lusoy) ‘light’ (Armenian from palatal variant
*leuk~), Av raocah- ‘light’, Olnd rods- ‘light’, TochB lyuke
‘light’. Widespread and old in IE. From the highly productive
verbal root *leuk- ‘shine’.
?*bheh 2 (e)s- 1 light’. [IEW 104-105 (*bha-). Buck 1.61;
BK 20 ( *bah-/b9h -)]. Grk (pcog ‘light, daylight’, Olnd bhds-
‘light’. It seems natural to see in this Greek-Old Indie equation
i
— 352 —
LINDEN
an inherited s-stem derivative of *bheh2~ ‘shine’. The Greek
is usually taken to be from *bhh2-u-es- but there is no trace
of a *-u- in any of the dialects that normally preserve it. The
correspondence could be the result of independent creations
in both Greek and Old Indie but the unproductive
morphological shape would favor common inheritance. Cf.
Luv piha- ‘splendor; might’ (< *bheh 20 - ). From *bheh 2 ~
‘shine’.
?*bheh 2 tis (gen. *bh^2^1s)' light’. [ IEW 1 04 ( *bha-) ; Wat
5 (*bha-)-, BK 20 (*bah-/bdh-)\. Grk <pa<ri<; ‘star rise’, OInd
bhati- ‘splendor, light, perception’. From *bheh2- ‘shine’. The
Greek-Old Indie equation may be a mirage, as it is entirely
possible that the two words are independent creations in the
two stocks.
See also Bright; Color; Shine; White. [D.Q.A.]
LIGHT 2
*hile(n)g w h- ‘light (of weight), light (on one’s feet)’. [IEW
660-661 ( *leg»h-)\ Wat 35 ( *leg w h-)\ GI 685 ( *leg ho -)-, Buck
15.821. OIr laigiu ‘lighter, poorer’, MWels llei ‘less’, Lat levis
(< *h}leg w h-u-i-) ‘light’, ON lettr ‘light’, OE leoht ‘light’ (>
NE light), OHG llht(i) ‘light’, Goth leihts ‘light’ (Gmc <
*hile(n)g w h-t(i)o-), OE lungre ‘rapid’, OHG lungar ‘rapid’,
Lith lengvas ~ lengvus ‘light, easy, slight’, Latv liegs ‘light’,
OCS liguku (< *hilng w h-u-ko-) ‘light’, Alb lehte light, soft,
slight, nimble’, Grk iXotxvq (< *hilng w h-u-) ‘small, little’,
eXatppoq light, fast’, Oss rsewseg(< *h\lpg w h-u-oko-) light’,
OInd raghu- ~ laghu- (< *hilpg w h-u-) ‘fleet, fast’, TochB
laiik u tse (< *h ]lpg w h-tio-) light’. Cf. ON lungo lung’, OE
lungen lung’ (> NE lung), OHG lunga lung’, Arm lanjk‘
‘breast’ (< * lungs’), as the lightest internal organ, one that
floats; cf. the dialectal NE lights lungs’. It may be that there
were originally two roots here: *h ileg w h- light of weight’ and
*(hi)lengh- ‘swift’ (cf. OIr lingid leaps’, leimm ‘a leap’, Weis
11 am leap’ [Celtic < *lpgh-s-men-\, Av ronjaiti ‘speeds’, OInd
langhati leaps’, ramhate ‘hastens’) but it seems likely that, if
so, the semantic and phonological similarity had caused the
two to be confused even in PIE times. In any case, widespread
and old in IE.
See also Fast; Heavy. [D.Q.A.]
LIGHTNING
*meldh- lightning’. [IEWT2 (*meldh-)\ Buck 1.571. Weis
mellt (< *meldhneh a -l) (pi.) lightning’, ON Mjipllnir (<
*meldunia-) (Porr’s hammer), OPrus mealde (< Proto-Baltic
*meldia) lightning’, Latv milna (< Proto-Baltic *mildna)
(hammer of the Thunderer), OCS mlunii lightning’, Rus
molnija (< *mildniji < *mldh-ni~) lightning’. A northwest
dialectal term in late IE.
See also Oak; Thunder. [R.S.PB.]
LIMB
*h 26 pes- limb, part of the body’, [cf. IEW 50-51 (*ap-)}.
Hit happessar limb, joint, part of the body’, Oss aefcaeg
‘projecting part of body, neck’, OInd apsas- ‘protruding body
part, breast, forehead, tusk’, TochA apsa (pi.) limbs’. From
*h2ep- ‘fit, fasten (oneself to)’. Though rather a banal deriva-
tive, *h2epes- would appear to be old in IE with this meaning.
*m 6 les- limb’. [7EW720 (*mel-); Wat 40 (*mel-)]. Bret
mell{< melseh a -) ‘knuckle’, Grk peXoq ‘\\mb' . Whether Lith
melmenys ‘flesh surrounding the kidneys’, melmuo ‘small of
the back, backbone’, Latv melmepi ‘region of hips, sides,
groin’, OInd marman- ‘vital spot, joint, organ’ belong here or
not is unclear. In any case the agreement of Celtic and Greek
would appear to guarantee at least late PIE status for this
word.
See also Anatomy; Arm; Joint; Leg. [D.Q.AJ
Further Reading
Witczak, K. T. (1989) Tocharian A apsa (pi.) ‘± (minor) limbs’ and
its cognates, in Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 3, 23-34.
LINDEN
*lenteh a - linden ( Tilia spp.)’. [7EW677 ( *lenta-)\ Wat 36
( *lento-)\ Fried 90-92], ON lind linden’, OE lind linden’ (>
NE lime with dissimilation), OHG linta linden’, Lith lenta
‘(linden) board’, Rus lut ‘(linden)bast’, lutlje ‘young linden
ready to be stripped’, Alb lende ‘wood, material’, lende (<
*lentiieh a -) ‘oak’, lis(< *lenEto-) ‘oak’. To this might be added
Lat lentus ‘pliant, sticky’. A word of the west and center of
the IE world.
?*leipeh a - linden (Tilia spp.)’. [Fried 90-92], Lith liepa
linden’, Latv liepa linden’ (< Proto-Baltic *leipa), Ukr lypa
‘linden’ (< Slav *lipa). To the Baltic and Slavic set has
sometimes been compared MWels Uwyf(en) ‘elm; linden’, and
Celtic place names in Limo-, etc. (< Celt *leimo-) although
this is more likely from *h ielem ‘elm’ because of the similarity
between the two trees. Also dubious are attempts to relate
Grk (Hesy chius) aXitpaXoq ‘a kind of oak’ (if < * linden’).
The word may derive from *lip- ‘to stick to, to slip, smear’
with a shift to the tree name because of its special properties.
There is a sharp contrast between botany and linguistics.
The tree was present in many forms and used in many ways
such that the early Indo-Europeans (excepting the Irish whose
land lacked the linden) must have had a word for it. Yet the
philological evidence, while rich and suggestive in some
stocks, leaves us with several only potentially related cognate
sets, each of which splay out into possible etymological
relations with disparate but logically associated concepts and
symbols. That the linden or lime (American basswood) was
important in the religious ritual of early Indo-Europeans is
suggested not only by the Germanic evidence but also by the
Finno-Ugric cultures of European Russia where bast bridles
were used for sacrificial horses, linden bark and branches
dripped with the blood of sacrificial animals, and there existed
linden groves and linden sacrifice trees. These functions and
the easily worked wood, the useful fibrous bark, and the
medicinal blossoms have to be combined with the fact that
the genus Tilia in three species, roughly northern, central
and southern, was spread across Europe from east to west
353
LINDEN
during the Atlantic period: the linden was an essential part of
the early IE world.
See also Soft; Trees. [PE]
LINE
*ser - ‘line up’. [7EW911 (*ser-); Wat 58 (*ser-); BK 170
(*s J 7r-/V'er-)l. OIr semaid ‘arranges’, sreth (< *sjta-) ‘row’,
Lat serd ‘line up, join, link’, sors (< *sf-ti - ) ‘lot’, Lith sens
‘thread’, Grk eipto (< *serid with loss of initial aspiration)
‘line up’, Hit sarra- ‘break’, OInd sarat- ‘thread’. Distribution
suggests PIE status.
*reik- ‘scratch; line’. [IEW 858 ( *reik(h)-)\ Wat 54 ( *rei-)\
Buck 12. 84] . Weis rhwyg 1 break’, OE raw ~ raew
(< *roik-yo-) ‘row, line’ (> NE row), MHG rf he ‘line’, Lith
rieki ‘slice (of bread)’, ?Grk epeiKO) ‘bend, bruise’, OInd rekha
~ lekha ‘line’. From *rei-k~, extended form of *rei- ‘to scratch,
cut’. This extension has only a limited distribution suggesting
late IE status.
*y6rghs (gen. *y fghds) ‘chain, row, series’. [VW 545]. Alb
varg ‘chain; row, string, strand; series’, Grk opyog ‘row of
vines’, TochB warke ‘chain, garland’. At least a word of the
center and east of the IE world.
See also Border; Right; Tear 2 . [A.D.V, D.Q.A.]
Linear Ware a. Distribution of the Linear Ware culture
spanned the region from the Netherlands, Belgium and
northern France on the west to Romania and the Ukraine on
the east. The culture flourished during the period c 5500-
4500 BC, the terminal period seeing the emergence of various
regional derivatives (e.g., Rossen in the west and Lengyel in
the east). Settlements are typically distributed over loess soils
and consist of small villages that spread horizontally over large
areas through time. The Linear Ware sites mark the earliest
intrusion of farmers into much of temperate Europe.
Both open sites and ditch-enclosed sites are known. The
individual villages consisted of perhaps five to ten houses at
any time. Settlements frequently include long houses
measuring about 6 m wide but 20 to 45 m in length, divided
into what would appear to be functionally different rooms
(living, storage).
The economic system was based on mixed agriculture and
stockbreeding. Among the arable component the following
plants are recovered: wheat ( Triticum monococcum , T.
dicoccon, T. aestivum, T. spelta ), barley ( Hordeum vulgare),
millet ( Panicum miliaceum ), and small amounts of both rye
(Secale cereale) and oats (A vena sariva); other cultigens include
peas ( Pisum sativum), grass pea ( Lathyrus sativus), lentils
(Lens culinaris) , flax ( Linum usitatissimum). Poppy (Papaver
setigerum) is conspicuous in the western regions but generally
absent from the eastern part of this culture’s distribution.
Occasionally, hemp ( cannabis ), cherries ( Prunus ) and
Cornelian cherry ( Comus mas) are recovered. Most samples
indicate that the main crop was wheat while barley tends to
be attested in smaller amounts or in somewhat later phases.
Among the domestic livestock cattle predominates while the
second position may be filled (in terms of number of indi-
viduals) by either ovicaprids (sheep/goat) or pigs. The
domestic dog is generally present in small numbers. There is
a considerable range of wild animals, the most prominent
numerically being red deer, roe, aurochs, wild pig, wild horse.
Other species include beaver, bear, badger, wolf, fox, hare,
and hamster.
The culture takes its name from its ceramics, which are
LINEAGE
*s(u)ebh- ‘lineage’. [IEW 883 {*s(u)e-bh(o)-)\ Wat 67
(*s(w>-); Szem 6.13.5]. From *sebh- we have OE sibb (>
NE sib) ‘relationship; kin’, OHG sipp(e)a ‘group’, Goth sibja
‘group’, Thrac Zafid^iog (epithet of Dionysus, cf. Grk
'EXevOepiog and Lat Liber), OInd sabha ‘assembly’. From
*suebh-we have OCS svobodl ‘free’ and perhaps OLat suodalis
‘associate’, Lat sodalis ‘associate’ (if not from *syedho- below),
and to these may be added tribal names as the German tribe
of the Suabi (OHG Swaba) ‘Swabians’ and Semnones (<
*Seb(a)names) ‘Semnones’. Distribution suggests that this
word is of at least PIE antiquity.
*syedh-o- ‘lineage’. [IEW 883-884 (*syedh-); Wat 67
( *s(w)e-)] . OLat suodalis ‘associate’, Lat sodalis ‘associate’ (if
not from *suebh - above), Grk eOog (Laconian pea 6-, i.e.,
Proto-Grk *hfeQog) ‘custom, habit’, possibly OInd svadha
‘homestead, kindred group’. If these words do go with one
another, the distribution would suggests PIE status.
Alternate terms for the lineage such as *sebh~, from which
NE sib derives, and *suedh- emphasize the commonality of
residence as a feature of shared kinship. It appears that Proto-
Indo-European family-life was centered around a “great
family” of two or three generations occupying neighboring
but separate residences which formed the *ydc - or homestead,
the physical representation of the extended household,
*u6ikos.
See also Family; Kinship. [M.E.H.]
LINEAR WARE CULTURE
The Linear Ware (German Linearbandkeramik) culture is
the major Neolithic culture of temperate Europe which
UNEAR WARE CULTURE
*
decorated with linear geometric or curvilinear designs.
Cemeteries are found close to villages with burial in the flexed
position accompanied by pottery, tools and ornaments as grave
goods. Analysis of the physical type of the deceased indicates
that the population of the Linear Ware culture belonged to
the gracile “Mediterranean” type.
The Linear Ware culture has always played a critical role
in the discussion of a possible IE homeland in Europe. Its
appearance over a vast area suggested that it was initially
spread by a highly mobile population, expanding by slash
and burn agriculture, where forests were cleared by fire, and
soil exhaustion continually drove farming communities to
open new lands (an economic model now widely rejected).
There was also little evidence for the incorporation of local
Mesolithic communities whom these earliest farmers
putatively replaced. The culture occupied the same territory
which, by the Bronze and Iron Ages, would have incorporated
many of the local territories of various IE-speaking stocks. Its
very virtues, however, were turned against it since its marked
cultural uniformity over a broad region was seen to be
confined to that very area hence it could not be employed to
explain movements into the Mediterranean and the steppe
regions of eastern Europe much less Anatolia, Iran and India.
Moreover, it was seen as a typically peaceful farming society
incapable of subjugating foreign lands (death by violent acts
has now been recorded among Linear Ware burials). The
realization that Linear Ware settlements were also enclosed
by ditches helped mitigate the later problem and a Linear
Ware solution was favored in monographs on the IE homeland
by G. Devoto and R Bosch-Gimpera.
Currently, the most vigorous case for a Linear Ware
association with at least a major segment of the Proto-Indo-
Europeans is being made by Janos Makkay who has detailed
the reasons for assigning it to PIE speakers: 1) agricultural
economy; 2) similarity over wide region attesting close
linguistic and ethnic ties; 3) marked difference between itself
and its neighbors; 4) continental rather than coastal nature
of PIE society; 5) temperate rather than Mediterranean
environment of PIE society; 6) proximity to Uralic languages,
7) distribution coincides with early IE agriculturalists in
contrast to those tribes east of the Linear Ware culture who
should be seen as Indo-Iranian pastoralists; 8) area includes
the Old European hydronymic (river name) system; 9) area
of distribution is outside those areas easily excluded as non-
IE, e.g., Iberia, Mediterranean coast, but close to same areas
which would require colonization by IE groups; 10) area is
only possible staging area for later migrations into Italy; 1 1)
most likely staging area for absorption of non-IE substrates
in western Europe; 12) only probable staging area for spread
of IE languages to northern Europe; 13) cultural similarity
and proximity with Balkan and perhaps Anatolian Neolithic
cultures which should have proved ancestral to other IE
groups.
See also Indo-European Homeland;
Lengyel Culture. [} . P. M . ]
Further Readings
Bosch-Gimpera, P (1961) Les Indo-Europeens: Problemes archeo-
logiques. Paris, Payot.
Devoto, G. (1962) Origini Indeuropee. Florence, Sansoni.
Makkay, J. (1987) The Linear Pottery and the early Indo-Europeans,
in, Proto-Indo-European: The Archaeology of a Linguistic
Problem, ed. S. Nacev Skomal and E. Polome, Washington,
Institute for the Study of Man, 165-184.
LION
LION
?*li(u)- ‘lion ( Panthera leo)\ [Cf. GI 427-428 ( *leu-)\. OCS
llvu ‘lion’, Rus 7ev‘ lion’, cf. Grk Xig ‘lion’. If the Slavic reflects
*li-uo-, then Greek would reflect a root noun *li-. If Slavic is
*7iy-o- , then Greek would be *liu-i- (cf. nypig ‘tiger’ and
ndpdaXig ‘leopard’). (From OCS llvu, via an unattested Goth
intermediary, comes OHG lewo ‘lion’; from Rus lev comes
Lith levas ‘lion’). Traditionally the Greek word is taken to be
a borrowing from Hebrew layis ‘lion’. While this is possible
there is no clear motivation for such a borrowing as lions
lived in Greece and were also to be found in both the Balkans
and Anatolia, the two areas commonly ascribed to the pre-
Greeks before their arrival in their historical seats.
The cave lion (Felix leo spelaea ) ranged rather widely from
Italy and north of the Alps eastwards across Asia during the
Pleistocene but had become extinct in many areas by early
historic times. It was, however, known from the Neolithic
period through the Iron Age in the Balkans (Herodotus speaks
of lions in Thrace) and western Ukraine, and native lions are
also known from Bronze Age deposits in Greece. The distri-
bution of the lion also extended through western Asia (it was
formerly known in both Iraq and Iran) and into India
(Gujurat) although there lions may have ultimately derived
from Africa. It does not seem accidental then that the two IE
groups longest in continuous contact with lions (Slavs and
Greeks) should have a similar word for them. The figurative
associations of Olnd simha- ‘lion’ involves kingship as is also
the case from various Near Eastern and by derivation
European traditions.
See also Animal; Leopard; Mammals. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
LIP
*gheluneh a - lip’. [IEW 436 ( *gheluna)\ Wat 22 ( *ghel -
una)\ Buck 4.25]. ON gjplnar (pi.) ‘jaws’, Grk x^Xvvq lip’
(yeiXog [Aeolic x&Xog] lip’ may be from an apocopated
*ghel(u)nos\ otherwise from *ghel-s-o-), Arm jelun ‘palate’.
Though not widely attested, the oldest reconstructible word
for lip’ in PIE.
*leb- lip’. [IEW 655-656 ( *leb -); Wat 35 (*leb-)\ Buck
4.59]. Lat labium lip’, labrum lip’, OE lippa lip’, OHG leffur
lip’. Cf. Hit lipp- lick’. As lip’ a “westernism” in late PIE.
See also Anatomy; Kiss; Lick; Mouth. [D.Q.A.]
LITTER
?*bhertlom litter’. [IEW 128-129 (*bher-)\ BK 6 ( *bar -/
*bdr-)\ ■ Lat ferculum litter, frame’, Grk (pepexpov ‘bier, litter’,
Olnd bharitra- ‘arm’. Both the verbal root *bher- ‘to carry’,
i.e., ‘that by which something is carried’ and the suffix are
widespread and may have been independent formations.
Moreover, the Old Indie meaning seems very distant to be
cognate. The form of both Greek (with -e-) and Old Indie
(with -i-) suggest later creations, as if from PIE *-h x trom-
where the *-h x - has been misdivided from verbal roots
originally ending in a laryngeal.
See also Bed; Carry. [A.D.V]
LIVE
*g w eih 3 - live’. [7EW469 ( Wat 24 ( *g w ei-)\ GI 387
(*k v !w-)', Buck 4.74], Present *g w ih 3 -ue/o-\ Lat vivo live’,
OPrus giwa live’, Lith gyjii ‘become healthy’, Latv dziju
‘become healthy’, OCS zivQ live’, Av jvaiti lives’, Olnd jivati
lives’; present *g w ieh 3 -ue/o -: Grk (axo live’, TochA so- live’,
TochB saw- live’. Cf. also the widespread derivative *g w ib 3 -
uos living’: OIr beo ‘alive’, Weis byw ‘alive’, Lat vivus ‘alive’,
Goth qius living’, Lith gyvas living’, Latv dzivs living, fresh,
healthy’, OCS zivu living’, Grk /Jioglife’, Av Jva- ‘alive’, Olnd
jlva- living’. (Related in some way are ON kvikr, OE ewie [>
NE quick as in ‘the quick and the dead’], OHG quek, also
living’). Nearly universal in the IE languages (though lacking
in Hittite) and clearly of PIE antiquity. The term apparently
referred to all classes of living things, both plants and animals.
[D.Q.A.]
LIVER
*i6k w f(t) liver’. [IEW504(*iik»-r(t-))\ Wat 79 ( *yek w f)\
GI 715 ( *yek ho r/n-t h -)\ Buck 4.45], Lat iecur (gen. iecoris-
iocineris ) liver’, OPrus iagno liver’, Lith (j)eknos (pi.) ~
(j)aknos (pi.) liver’, Latv aknas liver’, Grk qnap liver’, Av
yakaro liver’, NPers Jigar liver’, Olnd yakft (gen. yaknas )
liver’. Presumably the most likely candidate for the PIE word
for liver’, but see below
?*lesi- liver’. [GI 715]. Arm leard ( *lesi - with the ending
of the competing *iek w ft . ) liver’, Hit lissi- liver’. Either this
word represents a very old word for liver’, replaced almost
everywhere by *iek w ft, or, more likely, an Anatolian inno-
vation that, like a number of Anatolian words, was borrowed
by Armenian.
See also Anatomy. [D.Q.A.]
LOINS
*isghis- loins’. Grk icyiov ‘hip’, Hit iskis(a)- loins’. Cf.
also metathesized *iks- loins, groin’: Lat Ilia (pi.)
(< *iksliio - ) ‘abdomen below the ribs, groin, flanks’, Grk i^vg
loins, groin’. Though rather spottily attested, surely the PIE
word for loins’.
*l6ndhu (gen. *h}dh\^6s) loins’. [7EW675 ( *1 endh-)\ Wat
36 (*lendh-)}. Lat lumbus(< *londbuos ) loin’, OE lendenu
(pi.) loins’, OHG lent! ‘kidneys’, OCS ledvlj? loin’, Rus
ljadveja loin, hip’ (Gmc and Slavic < *londhuia), Olnd
randhram (by assimilation < *randhvam ) ‘± loins’. Also related
are ON lund loins, kidney- fat’ (pi. ‘flesh under the backbone’),
OE lynd' fat’, lundlaga ‘kidneys’, gelyndu loins’, OHG lunda
‘fat, tallow’. With the Old Indie cognate, clearly of PIE status.
See also Anatomy; Haunch . [ D . Q . A . ]
Further Reading
Goto, T. (1985) Altindisch randhra- und uridg. *lendh-. MSS 44,
77-91.
LONG
*duh a ros ~ *dyeh a ros long (of time, space)’. [7EW219-
— 356 —
LOVE
220 (*du-ro-s); Buck 12.44; BK 139 (*t’aw-/*t’9w-)\. Lat
durare ‘to last’, Grk Sripog, Srjpov ‘long, too long’, Arm erkar
long (in time)’, Av duire ‘far’, OInd du-ra- ‘far, distant’. Hit
tuwa- ‘far, distant’ has been placed here, reflecting a different
formation in -io-, i.e., *duh a io- , rather than -ro; Olr cundrad
‘commerce, act of buying and selling, contract’ has been placed
here but is very unlikely. A zero-grade is found in Latin and
Indo-Iranian while Greek and Armenian point to *dueh a -.
Still, wide distribution supports PIE status.
*d\high6s long’. [1EW 197 ( *delegh -) ; Wat 11 ( *del-)\
GI 685 (*t’elH(n)g b o-): Buck 12.57; BK 123 (*t’al-/*t’9l-) \.
Lat in-dulged' am long-suffering, indulgent’, OE f u/ge ‘rather’,
Goth tulgus ‘firm, steady’, OPrus ilga long’, Lith ilgas long’,
Latv ilgs long’ (the initial *d- lost in Baltic in combination
with the immediately following *-/-), OCS dlugu long’, Rus
dolgyj long’, Alb gjate (< *d\highto~) long’, Grk SoXiyog
long’, evSeXexAg long-lasting, uninterrupted’, Hit daluki-
long’, dalugasti length’, Av daraga- long’, draja- length’, OInd
dirgha- long’, draghayati lengthens’. Cf. the derivative
*dlhighoteh a - in OCS dlugota length’, OInd dirghata length’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*dlonghos long’. [IEW 197 ( *(d)longho-s)\ Wat 11
(*de/-); Gl 685 ( *t , elH(n)g h o-)\ Buck 12.57; BK 123 ( *t’al-/
*t'dl-)]. Lat longus long’, ON langr ‘long’, OE fang long’ (>
NE long), OHG lang long’, Goth laggs long’, MPers drang
long’. Related in some way to the previous entry. Not as
widespread but clearly old in IE.
*meh a k- long, especially thin’, slender’. [IEW 699 ( *mak-
~ Wat 38 ( *mak-), GI 179 ( *mH&-ro-)\ Buck 12.57] .
Lat macer ‘thin’, ON magr ‘thin’, OE maeg(e)r ‘thin’, OHG
magar ‘thin’, Grk paxpog long, thin’, prjKog length’, Hit
maklant- (< *mak-ro- , with -ro- > -lo-l) ‘meager’, Av mas-
long’, masah- length’. Olr mer ‘finger’ has been suggested
but is unlikely. The close correspondence in form and meaning
has led some to propose that the Germanic forms were loaned
from Latin but that, while possible, remains speculative. The
semantic development would appear to be: long’ > ‘thin,
meager’. While much of this etymology is shaky, enough
remains to suggest probable IE status.
*seros ( *sehiros ) ~ *setos ( *sehitos ) long’. [IEW 891
( *se-ro - ~ *se-to-)\ Wat 56 (*se-ro-); Buck 12.57], Olr sir
long lasting’, Mir sith- long’, Weis hir long, tall, lengthy’,
Lat serus late’, setius less, worse’, ON sfdlate’, OE sidlong,
wide’, OHG sld late’, Goth seipus late’. The inclusion of OInd
sa/am ‘evening’ here is uncertain. It is best to regard this as a
northwestern development of late PIE *sehi (i)- ‘throw, neglect’
with both -r- and -t- forms.
See also Leave; Narrow; Thin. [J.C.S., D.Q.A.]
LOOSE see RELEASE
LORD see MASTER
LOUSE
*lu- ( *lus -) louse’. [IEW 692 (*/qs); Wat 37 (*/us-); GI
453 (*Ms-)]. Weis Uau (< *luua~) louse’, ON /us louse’, OE
lus louse’ (> NE louse), OHG lus louse’ (Gmc < *luss ~ Ids,
the old nominative singular), Lith vievesa ‘goose or cattle
louse’, uti ~ hole louse’, Latv uts ~ ute ~ utele louse’, OCS
vusi louse’, Rus vosi louse’, OInd ydka louse’. Even more
than in the case for ‘ant’, this word for louse’ has been reshaped
phonologically because of its heavily affective meaning.
*k (o)nid- ‘nit, louse egg’. [IEW 608 ( *knid-/*knid-)\ Wat
32 ( *knid-)\ GI 453 (*g^nit’-)]. Olr sued ‘nit’, Weis nedd' nit’
(Celtic < *sknideh a -7), ON gnit ‘nit; louse eggs’, OE hnitu
‘nit’ (> NE nit), OHG (h)niz ‘nit’ (Gmc < *knideh a -), Lith
glinda ‘nit’, Latv gnida ‘nit’, Rus gnlda ‘nit’, Alb therije (<
*konid-) ‘nit’, Grk Kov(g(gen. KoviSog) ‘nit, eggs of fleas and
bugs’. Arm anic louse’ (by dissimilatory loss < *sanic <
*konid-s). From a preform something like Lith glinda
probably comes Lat lens (gen. lendis) ‘nit’. Though its exact
PIE shape is difficult to reconstruct because its various
' descendants have undergone phonological deformation of one
sort or another, this word seems clearly to have been originally
pan-IE. Its exact semantic relationship to the next threesome
of words is hard to reconstruct as well.
*rik- 1 nit, tick’. [/EW335 (*erek-)]. Lat ricmus ‘tick, sheep
louse’, NPers risk ‘nit’, Oss liskae nit’ (Iranian < *ri$ka-
metathesized from *riksa-), OInd liksa ‘nit’.
*hxorghi- ‘nit’. [IEW 335 (*erek-)\. Alb ergjez ‘nit’, Arm
orjil louse, nit’.
*hxorki- tick’. [IEW 335 ( *erek-)\ . Lith erke~ ar/ce‘tick’,
Latv irce ‘tick’, Arm ork'iwn ‘ringworm, tetter, scabies, mange’.
By its distribution on the eastern and western fringes of the
IE world *rik- would appear to be old in PIE. Both *h x orghi-
and *hxorki- appear to have been words of the center of the
IE world and the latter to have been the result of “crossing”
*hxorghi- with *rik-.
*dig(h)~ tick’. [IEW 187-188 ( *deigh-)\ Wat 10
( *deigh-)] . Mir dega ‘stag-beetle’, OE ticia ‘tick’, MHG zeche
~ zecke ‘tick’, Arm tiz ‘tick’. Germanic implies a final *-g-
while Armenian implies *-gh-\ Irish is ambiguous. Though
the exact shape of the word is not recoverable, it is clearly
one that was current at least in the west and center of the IE
world.
See also Insects. ID.Q.A ]
LOVE
*keh a - love’. [IEW 515 ( *ka-)\ Wat 26 ( *ka-)\. The
underlying verb is attested only in Indo-Iranian: Av ka- long
for’, kama- ‘desire, wish’, OInd kayamana- liking’, kama-
‘desire, wish, love’. From a verbal noun *keh a f (gen. *kh a ros)
we find the widespread derivatives: Olr caraid loves’, cara
‘friend’, Weis carat' love’, car ‘friend’, Lat carus ‘dear’, ON
horr ‘adulterer’, OE hor ‘adulterer’, bore ‘whore’ (> NE whore),
OHG huor ‘adulterer’, huora ‘whore’, Latv kars ‘greedy’.
*kem- love’. [IEW 515 ( *ka-)\. Lith (pi.) kamaros
lasciviousness’, Latv kamet ‘hunger’, OInd kamayati ‘desires,
longs for, is in love with, copulates with’, kamra- ‘charming,
beautiful’, kamana- ‘greedy’, TochB kanm- (< *kom-ne/o-)
‘play’.
357 —
LOVE
*ken- ‘love’. [IEW 515 (*ka-)}. Mir cm (< *kenu- ) ‘love,
tendency’, Av cakana ‘be pleased’, canah- ‘demand, request’,
OInd cakana ‘is pleased’, canas- ‘pleasure’. These three
( *keh a - , *kem~, *ken- ) represent different enlargements of
the same theme (cf. *g w eh a - and *g w em- ‘come’). Widespread
and old in IE.
*prih x ~eh a ~ ‘love’. [IEW 844 ( *prai-)\ Wat 53 ( *prl-)\ BK
622 (*p[ h ]ar-/*p[ h ]3r-)}. ON frja‘ love’, fraendi ‘relative, friend’,
OE frlgan ‘love’, freond ‘friend’ (> NE friend ), OHG friunt
‘friend’, Goth frijon ‘love’, frijonds ‘friend’, OCS prija-jQ ‘am
favorable’, OInd priyaya te ‘befriends’. In Indo-Iranian we also
have *pnh x -neh a - in Av frinaiti ‘loves, praises’, OInd prinati
‘pleases’ (cf. piiyate ‘is pleased’). Attested in the west, center
and east of the IE world, this word is surely of PIE date.
Originally a denominative verb from *prih x os ‘of one’s
own’, thus ‘dear’ (ON frl ‘beloved, spouse’, OE freo ‘woman’,
freod ‘love’, Av fry a- ‘dear’, OInd priya- ‘dear’, priya ‘spouse’,
priyata ‘desire’). To this may be added the names of a Germanic
goddess (ON Frigg , OE Frig, OHG Frija ) or ‘free’ (Weis rhydd,
OE freo (> NE free), OHG frl , Goth freis). in turn, *prih x os
‘of one’s own’ may be a derivative of *per ‘house’, thus ‘of
one’s own household’, which is attested in Hit per ‘house’ if
this is not a non-IE loan.
*leubh- ‘love, desire’. [IEW 683-684 ( *leubh-)\ Wat 37
( *leubh-)\ Buck 16.27; BK 585 (* law-/* law-)]. Lat lubet ~
libet ‘pleases’, lubido ~ libido ‘desire, pleasure’, OE (noun)
lufu ‘love’ (> NE love), lufian ‘love’ .(> NE to love), OHG (noun)
liubVl ove’, liubon ‘love’, Lith liaupsi ‘glorification’, liaupsinti
‘praise’, OCS (noun) ljuby‘1 ove’, (vb.) ljubiti ‘love’, Alb laps
‘wish’, Grk (Hesychius) Xvnrd (< *lubhieh a ~) ‘courtesan’,
OInd lubhyati ‘desires ardently’, lobhayati ‘arouses desire’.
Cf. the widespread derivative *leubhos ‘dear’: Runic liubu
‘dear’, ON ljufr ‘dear’, OE leof'dtaf, OHG liob ‘dear’, Goth
liufs ‘beloved’, OCS ljubu ‘dear’. In OInd lobha- ‘desire’, we
have the same formation only with the retracted accent of a
noun. Reasonably widespread, certainly old in IE.
*Ieh a d- ‘dear’. Rus lady) ‘dear’, lada ‘wife’, Lycian lada- ‘wife’
laOOe/i- (< *Iada-he/i-) ‘(husband’s) in-laws’, TochA far ‘dear’,
TochB /are ‘dear’ (Toch < *leh a d-ro-). The geographical distri-
bution would seem to assure PIE status for this word.
See also Desire; Favor, Love Goddess. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Winter, W (1965) Tocharian evidence, in Evidence for Laryngeals,
ed. W Winter, The Hague, Mouton, 190-211.
LOVE GODDESS
There is no certain evidence for a PIE Love goddess,
although the individual goddesses who fulfill this function
may have transparent but unrelated IE names.
Aphrodite was the Greek goddess of love and beauty. Her
origin is obscure with many arguing that her worship most
likely originated in the Near East, as a form of Mesopotamian
Ishtar, eastern Mediterranean Ashtarte. On the other hand,
others have sought an IE etymology for the name of this
goddess, e.g., ‘foam-bright’ with Grk -dirt) < PIE *dhei- ‘shine’
or, most recently, cuppo- < PIE *abhor- ‘very’, i.e., <
*‘exceedingly-bright’. It is also suggested that she is a reflection
of the IE goddess of the dawn. According to Hesiod ( Theogony
190-197), she was born in the sea, out of the foam which
arose from the severed genitals of Ouranos. Thus she is given
the “popular etymology”, the ‘foam-bom’, dtppo-STri 7 . Hesiod
writes that she floated to Cythera, and then to Cyprus, many
later authors called her “Cypria”. The story of her origin as
the ‘foam-born’ is similar to that of the Indie Sri Laksmi. The
latter also had a son, Kamadeva, ‘love-god’, whose function
was similar to that of Aphrodite’s son Eros.
Roman Venus (= Greek Aphrodite) was a goddess of love
and beauty. Although her name is related to Indo-European
words, e.g., OHG wini ‘friend’, Hit wenzi ‘(s)he has sexual
intercourse’, Av vanta- ‘won, desired’, and OInd vanas-
‘loveliness’, this name was superimposed upon an indigenous
Italic goddess, who later attracted the mythology of Greek
Aphrodite. Although cognate terms abound, there are no other
cognate goddess names. There were many forms of the god-
dess, including Venus Verticordia, the goddess who converted
the minds of virgins and chaste matrons ‘from pleasure to
modesty 4 (Valerius Maximus, Dictorum Factorumque
8.15.12); and Venus Genetrix, the mother of all. According
to Ovid, she created all of the gods, and she gave laws to
heaven, earth and sea ( Fasti 4.92 ff.). The duo Venus and
Cupid (Aphrodite and Eros) may be compared to the Indie
Sri Laksmi and her son Kamadeva, ‘love-god’.
Freyja, ‘the lady’, was a Germanic love goddess, similar to
the Greek Aphrodite. Just as Aphrodite, she was identified
with gold, as Gullveig. She taught the magic called seidr. She
was thought to enjoy love-poetry, and her assistance was
invoked in love affairs. She was also a battlefield goddess,
and to her fell half of the slain in battle (compare Baltic Laima)
As battlefield goddess, she was the first, or proto-, Valkyrie.
She was twin sister of Freyr. Freyja is cognate with the New
High German term frau ‘woman, lady’. Her chariot is drawn
by two cats, descendants of the lions which flanked many
Neolithic European female figures. Epithets of Freyja are Gefn
‘the giver’, and Syr ‘sow’. She had a golden necklace, the
necklace of the Brisings, which was crafted by four dwarves,
with each of whom she passed a night in payment for the
necklace. She had a ‘falcon coat’, and she lent her ‘feather
form’ to others. She thus received the bird imagery of the
Neolithic European bird goddess. Her functions and attributes
are similar to those of the Near Eastern Ishtar. Recently, she
has been compared with both the Slavic deity Proue who was
worshipped by the twelfth century Polabians and the
Mycenaean Pe-re-wa 2 , Grk (Pamphylian) flpeua, all of which
may derive from *preuieh a -.
See also Fortune; Love. [M.R.D.]
Further Readings
Friedrich, Paul (1978) The Meaning of Aphrodite Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
— 358 —
LYNX
Witczak, K. (1993) Greek Aphrodite and her Indo-European origins,
in Miscellanea Linguistica Graeco-Latina, ed. L. Isebaert, Namur,
115-123. •
LOWER MIKHAYLOVKA GROUP
Constituent element of the so-called Kurgan tradition that
occupied the steppe region of the lower Dnieper to the north
Don during the Copper Age, c 3600-3000 BC. It takes its
name from the lower level of the fortified site of Mikhaylovka
(otherwise known as Mikhaylovka 1) whose upper deposits
are ascribed to the Yamna culture. It is known from both
settlements and some tens of burials. The faunal remains
include sheep/goat, cattle, horse and pig; querns attest
agriculture. Burials are typically under low tumuli (kurgans)
and small ceremonial enclosures and anthropomorphic stone
stelae are also known. It is closely related to the Kemi Oba
culture and possibly also the Maykop culture.
See also Kemi Oba Culture; Kurgan Tradition;
Maykop Culture. [J.PM.]
LUNG
*pkumon (gen. *plumn6s) lung’. [ IEW 83 7-838 {*pl(e)u-
mon-)\ Wat 52 (*pl(e)u-mon-)\ Gl 715 (*p h l(e)u-mon-)\. Lat
pulmd ‘lung’, Grk nXevptov ‘lung’, Olnd kldman-
(< *pldman- ) ‘right lung’. A derivative of *pleu- ‘float’; the
lung was the ‘floater’ because it would not sink in water.
Despite its transparent morphology, its wide (if sparse)
distribution makes it a reasonably good candidate for Gate)
PIE status. Another derivative is to be seen in Balto-Slavic
*plou-ti-o/eh a : OPrus plauti ‘lungs’, Lith plauciai (pi.) ‘lungs’,
Latv phusas ‘lung’, OCS plusta ‘lung’.
*hiehitr- ± lung, internal organ’. I /£ W344-345 ( *eter -)\ .
OIr inathar (< *hien-hiohitr-o- ) ‘entrails’, ON aedr ‘vein’,
OE £dre ‘artery, vein, sinew’ (pi. ‘kidneys’), OHG ad(a)ra ‘vein,
sinew’ (pi. ‘entrails’), OHG inn-ethron ‘suet, lard’, Grk rjrop
‘heart’, rjxpov ‘belly, abdomen’, Av hv-adra- ‘comfort, ease’.
Adjectival derivatives ( *hiehitrds ) are ON adr ‘early, previous’,
OE sedre ‘immediately, completely’, OHG atar ‘wise, sharp,
quick’, Latv airs ‘quick, passionate, hot-tempered’ (crossed
with *h 2 eh x tr- ‘fire’). Though never attested as ‘lung’, it seems
reasonable to suppose that this organ was included in the
sphere of its original designation since it obviously related to
*h\ehitmen- ‘breath’. Perhaps it was the interior of the body
in general, the source both of breath and life, and of emotion
in general. In any case an old PIE word.
See also Anatomy; Breathe. [D.Q.A.]
Lower Mikhaylovka a. Area of the Lower Mikhaylovka culture
LYNX
*luE- ‘lynx ( Lynx lynx)'. [IEW 690 {*leuk-)\ GI 431
( *leuk h -)\ BK 580 (* law-/* low-)]. Mir lug ‘lynx’ (base
meaning, generally figurative meaning ‘warrior, hero, fighter’),
OSwed Id (< *luko-) ‘lynx’, OE lox ‘lynx’, OHG luhs ~ luchs
‘lynx’ (the -ks- of West Germanic may reflect the influence of
fox), OPrus luysis ‘lynx’, Lith 16sis ‘lynx’, (dial.) Iynsis ‘lynx’,
Latv lusis ‘lynx’, Rus rysl ‘lynx’ (whose r- may come from a
Lower Mikhaylovka b. Lower Mikhaylovka vessel; c. “Censer'
LYNX
crossing of this word with an adjective meaning ‘red’), Grk
‘lynx’ (borrowed > NE lynx). Arm (pi.) lusanunk ‘
‘lynxes’. Perhaps belonging here also are Khowar rusk ‘marten’,
Yidgha lu ‘marten’. At least a word of the west and center of
the IE world. This word is commonly taken to be a derivative
of *leuk- ‘see’. Thus the lynx is named ‘the looker’ or the like,
cf. the sharp-eyed pilot of the Greek Argo , Lynkeus, and the
epithet ‘lynx-eyed’ with reference to extra-sharp eyesight.
Once widespread over Eurasia, the lynx today is confined
largely to central and eastern Europe (with pockets in Iberia)
although it still extends across western Asia, Iran and through-
out Siberia. It does occur in Neolithic faunas of northern,
western and southern Europe as well although in quantities
that suggest that it was seldom or never hunted for its fur. It
is also known from sites in the Pontic region. No matter where
one locates the earliest Indo-Europeans, they should have
known the lynx. That they might have preserved the name in
regions where it had become extinct is suggested by its
presence in both Middle Irish and Old English since the lynx
had died out in the British Isles quite early in the prehistoric
period, the most recent find being only of Mesolithic date.
See also Cat, Mammals. [D.Q.A., J.PM.J
360 —
•M
MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE
The name of the territory which comprises the modem
Macedonian Republic, and bordering territories in south
Bulgaria and northern Greece, has been applied to a number
of variants of IE languages. Slavic Macedonian represents one
of the branches of the South Slavic language stock whose
linguistic relationship is reasonably secure. As a (possibly)
independent IE language or even stock, the term Macedonian
is also employed to describe the language spoken there before
the fifth and fourth centuries BC when the rise of the
Macedonian state also saw its gradual “Atticization”. According
to Strabo, the ancient name for the land of the Macedonians
was ’HpaBia and the name of its people has been explained
as derived from paKeSvdg" tall, taper’, with possible reference
to either the population’s stature or the hills in which they
dwelt.
The evidence for a Macedonian substrate rests on coin
inscriptions and glosses and our reliable Macedonian
vocabulary is limited to about a hundred words plus a series
of place and personal names. The majority of these words
can be confidently assigned to Greek albeit some words would
appear to reflect a dialectal form of Greek. There are, however,
a number of words that are not easily identifiable as Greek
and reveal, for example, voiced stops where Greek shows
voiceless aspirates, e g., Maced dPpovzeg but Grk otppvg
‘eyebrow’, Maced Savov but Greek Oavaroq ‘death’ or the
Macedonian royal name Bepviiai ‘Bernice’ (‘± bearing victory’)
which in Greek would have been *0epev(kt}. In some cases
there is no corresponding Greek form and Macedonian
contributes its own cognate to an IE series, e.g., Maced yoSa
‘intestines’ is from *guddm ‘intestines’ (cf. LowGerm kiit
‘intestine’, OInd guda- ‘intestine, anus’). The evidence,
extremely meager as it is, has spawned no less than four
historical interpretations for Macedonian. It has been seen as
an “Illyrian” language mixed with Greek; a Greek dialect mixed
with Illyrian and Thracian; a Greek dialect with a non-Greek
substratal influence, and a close cousin of Greek but not part
of the Greek stock (and also related to Thracian and Phrygian).
See also Greek Language; Illyrian Language; Thracian
Language. [J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Brixhe, C. and A. Panayotou (1994) Le Macedonien, in Langues
indo-europeennes, ed. F Bader, Paris, CNRS, 205-220
Katicic, R. (1976) Ancient Languages of the Balkans. The Hague,
Mouton.
MAGGOT see WORM
MAGIC
*keudes- ‘magic force’. [1EW 587 ( *keud-)\ Wat 31
{*keu9-)\ GI 734-735 ( *k h e/ou-)\ . OCS cudo ‘miracle,
wonder’, Grk tcvSog ‘renown’. In a study of the Greek term,
Benveniste has shown that in Homer the term does not mean
‘glory’ but rather indicates the edge given to a hero by the
gods which gives him an advantage over his adversaries. It
denotes the magic force, the irradiation of power a god can
bestow upon a king or hero. It is also something that is recog-
nized by his adversaries, i.e. , they perceive that one with KvSoq
cannot be defeated. Thus it fits better with the Slavic term
which indicates ‘magic’. From *keuhi - ‘pay attention to’, cf.
Lat caved ‘am careful’, OE hieran ‘hear’ (> NE hear), OHG
hor(r)en ‘hear’, Goth hausjan ‘hear’, OCS cujp ‘perceive’, Av
kavay- ‘leader’, OInd kavi- ‘wise man’. The underlying
semantic development, Benveniste suggests, is ‘perceive’ >
‘perceive something strange’ > ‘marked with magic power,
— 361
MAGIC
charmed’.
*soito/eh a - ‘sorcery’. \IEW 892 ( *soi-to -)]. Weis hud (<
*soito-) ‘magic’, ON seid ‘magic’. Compare also ON sida
‘practice sorcery’, OE -siden ‘magic’ ( aelfsiden ‘fever’ < ‘elf-
magic’). The term may be limited to the northwest although
attempts to extend it have been made, e.g., ?TochA nesset
‘magic’, ?TochB nesait ‘magic’. It has also been suggested that
the underlying etymology is to be found in the root *sehi(i)-
‘bind’, i.e., ‘magic’ is something that “binds” or “fetters”
someone, cf. ON seidr ‘band, belt’, OE sada ‘band, noose,
cord’, Lith saitas ‘bond, fetter’, etc., and other etymologies
have been proposed, it has also been claimed as a pre-IE
substrate term of northwest Europe.
*hxOlu or *alu ‘± spell’, [cf. IEW 33 (*a/u-); Wat 2
( *alu-)\ GI 708] . Runic alu ‘± magic spell’, ON pl-run ‘± myth’
(or ‘± taboo? — the meaning of neither the Runic nor the Old
Norse word is known very precisely but they have some sort
of magical import), Hit alwanzatar ‘witchcraft, sorcery, spell,
hex’, alwanzahh- ‘bewitch, hex’ (presupposing an unattested
*alwanza- ‘± affected by sorcery, bespelled’). Possibly
belonging here are also Latv aluot ‘be distraught’, Grk dXvco
‘be beside oneself, lose self-possession under extreme emotion,
be delirious’ if the meaning has been “secularized” so to speak
from *‘be bespelled’. The Germanic-Hittite equation seems
reasonably secure, thus guaranteeing the word’s PIE status.
Sometimes included here are the Germanic, Baltic, Slavic,
and Iranian words for ‘beer’ (cf. NE ale) since drinking beer
may induce a ‘bespelled’-like state of drunkenness. However,
it is at least possible that the words for ‘beer’ are to be kept
separate.
See also Beer; Binder God; Sacred Drink. [E.C.P, D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, University of Miami, 346-356.
Polome, E. C. (1975) Old Norse religious terminology in Indo-
European perspective, in The Nordic Languages and Modem
Linguistics, Stockholm, 2, 654-665.
Polome, E. C. (1996) Beer, runes and magic. JIES 24, 99-105.
MAGPIE
*karh x keh a - ‘magpie’. [IEW 569 ( *ker-)] . OPrus sarke
‘magpie’, Lith sarka ‘magpie’, Rus soroka ‘magpie’. Although
sometimes attributed to PIE, the only sure cognate set for
this word is confined to Baltic and Slavic. Armenian cognates
are sometimes suggested but Arm sarik (< l*ker-, *Rf-)
designates the ‘rose-colored starling’ and is perhaps a New
Persian loan (< sar ‘starling’) while Arm sarek is a ‘thrush,
blackbird’ and MArm sareak is the ‘blackbird’; the Armenian
word for ‘blackbird’ kac‘aiak is a loan from NPers kajala
‘magpie’. Similarly, OInd sarika- ‘starling’ although deriving
from the same root *ker- is semantically difficult (the Old
Indie name of the magpie was kusakutha- or kalkuda-).
Though bird name roots in *k are suspect of being onomato-
poeic, PIE *ker- with a palatal velar was a parent form for
various IE dialects, e.g., Grk xopa £ ‘raven’, Lat comix 1 crow’
The magpie ( Pica pica), noted for its forceful personality,
arrogant chattering and boldness, is well distributed
throughout Europe, southwest Asia and in India, where there
are several species. It is generally smaller than the crow, but
with a longer tail; its color is black with white patches under
the wings and body.
5ee also Birds. [J.A.C.G.l
MAKE
*k w er- ‘do, make, build’. [/EW641-642 ( *k' J er-)\ Wat 34
(*k w er-)\ Gl 151 (*k ho er-)-, Buck 9.11; BK 331 ( *k w { h ]ur -/
*k w [ h ]or-)]. OIr cruth ‘form’, Weis pryd ‘form, time’, paraf
‘work, shape’, Lith kuriu ‘make, build, create’, keras ‘magician’,
kereti ‘bewitch, enchant, charm’, OCS kruciji ‘smith’, Rus cary
‘magic’, carovatl ‘bewitch, enchant, charm’, Av karanaoiti
‘does, makes’, Olnd karoti ~ kpnoti ‘does, makes, performs;
executes; builds’. Widespread and old in IE.
*jehj- ‘do, make; act vigorously’. [BK 468 ( *ya-)\ . The
underlying verb is seen in Hit iezi (< *iehi-ti) ‘does, makes,
performs, acts, signals (with the eyes)’, iss(a)- (< *ih}-se/o-)
‘do, make’, TochA ya- ‘do, make’. Various derivatives are seen
in Lith jega ‘strength, force’, Latv jpga ‘mind, thought; wit’,
OCS jarQ ‘stem, severe, sharp; tart, sour’, Rus jaryj ‘violent,
furious, fiery’, Grk ijpcog ‘hero’ (< *‘one imbued with vigorous
activity’), 'Hpa Hera’ (the embodiment of vigorous activity),
(late) Doric ei'ppv ( = /irenD ‘adolescent youth’, rjfiri youthful
power, youth; pubic hair’ (the outward sign of youthful
maturity), Av yatu- ‘witchcraft; sorcerer’, OInd yatu-
‘witchcraft, magic; ghost, apparition’. Surely old in IE.
*kon- ‘do, make’. [IEW 564 ( *ken-)\ Wat 29 ( *ken -); BK
270 ( *k[ h ]an-/*k[ h ]an-)\ . OWels digoni ‘makes, does’, Lat
ednor ‘put myself in motion, attempt’, OCS ukonu ‘execution,
deed’, Czech konat ‘do, achieve’, vykon ‘achievement’, Myc
ka-si-ko-no ‘servant, companion’, Grk 5iGkov£cd ‘minister to,
serve’, Si&icovog ‘servant’ (borrowed > NE deacon), ejKoveo)
‘make haste’, Oss kaen- ‘do, make’. Widespread and old in IE.
*h a er- ‘prepare, make ready, put together’. [ IEW 55-57
(*ar~); Wat 3 (*ar-); Buck 9.943, 12.22, 14.29, 16.73, BK
383 (*har-/*har-)\. Grk dpap ictkco put together’, Arm arnem
‘make’, Av arante ‘they set themselves, remain’, OInd ara-
‘spoke’ (< *‘that which is fitted in’), TochA arwar ‘ready’, TochB
arwer ‘ready’. The verb itself looks like it is restricted to the
southeast of the IE world but derived nouns indicate that it
was once more widely distributed. ( 1 ) *h a ertis (gen. *h a fteis):
Lat ars (gen. artis) ‘practical skill, (work of) art’, artio ‘insert
tightly, wedge; am a tight fit, crowd’, Lith arti ‘near’; (2)
*h a ertus (gen. *h a ftous ): Lat (pi.) anus ‘joints; limbs’, artus
‘a narrow place’, MHG art ‘way, manner’, Grk (Hesychius)
dpzvg ‘putting together, arranging’, dpzvco put together, make
ready’. Arm ard (gen. ardu) ‘structure, ornament’, OInd ftu-
‘fixed time, time appointed for some purpose’ (cf. also Av
asa- ‘what is right or true’, OPers arta- ‘law, right’, OInd fta-
‘afflicted with; right, proper’, ftam ‘fixed rule; divine law;
sacred or pious action’).
— 362
See also Tool; Work. [D.Q.A.l
MAMMALS
MALE
*js£n ‘male (as opposed to female)’. [IEW 336 ( *fsen-)\
Buck 2.23, 2.12]. ON orri ‘capercaille’, OHG or(e)huon
‘capercaille’, Grk apar]v ‘male’, Av arasan ‘male’ (note also
such compounds as aspa-arasan- ‘stallion’ vs. aspa-daenu-
‘mare’, of gau-arasan - ‘bull’ vs. gau-daenu- ‘cow’), Olnd
fsabha- ‘bull; male animal in general’.
*u6rs£n ‘male (as sire)’. [7EW81 ( *ufsen-)\ GI 484 ( *wers-
en-); Buck 2.23, 3.12; BK427 (*aw-ar-/*aw-ar-)] . Lat verres
‘boar’, OPrus werstian ‘calf’, Lith versis ‘calf’, Latv versis ‘ox’,
Av varasna- ‘male’, varasni- ‘male; ram’, Olnd vfsan- ‘male,
manly; man; male animal (e.g., bull, stallion)’, \jsabha - ‘manly,
vigorous, strong’, TochA kayurs ‘bull’, TochB kau u rse ‘bull’
(Toch < *g w ou-ufsen-). Both this word and the previous one
are widespread and old in IE and liable to phonological and
semantic confusion (particularly in Old Indie) owing to their
near identity on both counts.
See also Man. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Benveniste, E. (1973) ‘Male and sire’, in Indo-European Language
and Society , Coral Gables, University of Miami Press, 19-22.
MAMMALS
Proto-Indo-European speakers knew and named many
species of mammals, both wild and domestic, and we are
able to reconstruct a substantial list of those names. Unlike
the case for plant names where the gaps (terms for plants that
we know the PIE speakers must have known) outnumber the
instances where we can reconstruct a proto-form, the names
of mammals, particularly the larger ones which were
economically important or environmentally salient, appear
to be much better represented. By and large it is the smaller
mammals who lack names or provide us with a reconstructible
name that appears to comprise more than one species, or
even a range of different, and occasionally disparate, species.
Since the same phenomenon can be found in the older attested
IE languages, e.g., Lat felis ‘small carnivore, e g., marten,
polecat, wildcat’, there seems no reason not to impute it to
PIE itself.
The existence of mammals known to the Proto-Indo-Euro-
pean community may also be proposed from archaeological
or bio-geographical evidence. Certain widely distributed
animals such as the badger must have been known to the
Proto-Indo-Europeans, no matter where they were situated,
even if we are unable to reconstruct with any certainty a
common word for it. In evaluating the distribution of these
mammals, however, both lines of evidence have certain
limitations. For example, animals present in the environment
and well-known to prehistoric communities may not have
been killed frequently nor their remains brought back to
settlements where they might be uncovered by archaeologists.
The reasons for this lack are varied and may range from the
economic unimportance of the animal, e.g., various types of
mice, voles, shrews, to the understandable desire for human
communities to avoid rather than seek out lions, panthers,
bears or other large predators. Modern or historical distribu-
tions of animals may also be biased in that often the modern
range of an animal is only a fraction of the earlier range because
of the hunting of animals to extinction, e.g., bears, beavers
and wolves in western Europe, or climatic and environmental
changes. The reverse situation, although less frequent, may
also occur where mammals may have established new ranges,
e.g., fallow deer, rabbits, mongooses, since the dispersion of
the IE stocks. Finally, where animals were not economically
or mythologically salient to a community, there may have been
little attempt to provide them with a precise name and just
because we can point to an animal in the environment does
not necessarily presuppose that the human occupants of the
same environment had a special name for it.
The order of presentation here follows that of traditional
zoological taxonomy, beginning with the order of insectivores
and ending with the ungulates.
Insectivora
Among the insectivores, the ‘hedgehog’ ( Ennaceus euro-
paeus) ( *hieghis ) is the best reconstructed where it is found
from Germanic to Armenian although it is lacking in the
eastern languages. A second possible word ( *gher) is restricted
to Latin and Greek. This restricted distribution of
reconstructible terms cannot be explained on environmental
grounds as the hedgehog was known in Asia as well as Europe
and its killing (under a different name) was specifically
proscribed in early Iranian law. The only other insectivore to
provide some case for reconstruction is the ‘shrew’ ( *suoraks )
where cognates maybe found in Latin and Greek. The varieties
of shrews known to the earliest Indo-Europeans, should they
have cared to distinguish them, is probably extensive and
would include the common shrew ( Sorex araneus ), the
European water-shrew ( Neomys fodiens ), Savi’s pygmy shrew
(Suncus etruscus), the lesser white-toothed shrew ( Crocidura
suaveolens ), the common European white-toothed shrew
( Crocidura russula ), the bicolor white-toothed shrew
( Crocidura leucodon), possibly the lesser shrew (Sorex
minutus ) and Alpine shrew ( Sorex alpinus).
Without reconstructible designations but surely part of the
faunal environment of PIE speakers, wherever in Eurasia they
made their home, was the mole (either or both the common
mole [ Talpa europea] and the Mediterranean mole [Talpa
caeca]). This animal has defied reconstruction despite its
marked physical characteristics, its unusual behavior, and the
importance of this animal within the realm of IE medical
beliefs as attested in both Greece and ancient India. The range
of the Russian desman ( Desmana moschata ) would have fallen
within a proposed Pontic-Caspian homeland.
Chiroptera
The entire order chiroptera (bats) is missing from the
reconstructed lexicon but bats could hardly have eluded the
— 363 —
MAMMALS
attention of the earliest IE speakers. The probable types known
should have included the greater horseshoe bat ( Rhinolophus
ferrUmequinum) , the lesser horseshoe bat ( Rhinolophus
hipposideros ), the whiskered bat ( Myotis mystacinus ), large
mouse-eared bat ( Myotis myotis ), and a variety of other
species.
Lagomorpha
The lagomorph with the most obvious economic use is
the *kasos ~ *kasen- ‘European hare ( Lepus europaeus )’,
which is not only ubiquitous across Eurasia but occurs on
archaeological sites in numbers that suggest deliberate hunting
or trapping rather than just chance encounter. A Volga-Ural
homeland might presuppose knowledge of the steppe pika
( Ochotona pusilla). The rabbit ( Oryctolagus ) would not have
been known to the early Indo-Europeans as it emerged only
in the Iberian peninsula and was first domesticated during
the historical period and spread through Europe during the
Middle Ages.
Rodentla
While the larger rodents could provide a useful source of
both meat and, more particularly, fur they are seldom
encountered on archaeological sites in large numbers that
might suggest specific exploitation. Nevertheless, some of the
larger rodents are reasonably well reconstructed to PIE. Thus
we have cognates ranging from the Atlantic to Iran for the
*Tjeruer- ‘red squirrel ( Sciurus vulgaris )’ and possibly the
‘Persian squirrel ( Sciurus anomalus)\ and the *bhebhrus
‘European beaver (Castor fiber)’ . Although the mouse played
no economic role and its remains are generally absent from
archaeological sites, its widespread presence across Eurasia is
reflected in the abundance of cognates providing us with three
terms for ‘mouse’: *mus ~ *muss , *pelus , and *glhii's, the
last of which might have designated the ‘dormouse’. Among
the possible referents would be the garden dormouse ( Eliomys
quercinus ;), the forest dormouse ( Dryomys nited ula) , the fat
dormouse (Glis glis), the common dormouse (Muscardmus
avellanarius) , the harvest mouse ( Micromys minutus ;), the
yellow-necked field mouse ( Apodemus flavicollis ), the
common field mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) , the striped field
mouse (Apodemus agrarius ), and the house mouse (Mus
musculus), all of which have enormous ranges across Eurasia.
Missing are any reconstructible terms for the common
hamster (Cricetus cricetus ), the migratory or gray hamster
(Cricetus migratorius) , the golden hamster (Mesocricetus
auratus ), the ground squirrel or European souslik (Citellus
citellus ) which has a range from Germany to the Ukraine and
into Anatolia, the spotted souslik (Citellus suslicus ) which
ranges from Poland and Romania to the Volga, the little souslik
(Citellus pygmaicus ) which ranges from the Ukraine across
Kazakhstan, the bobak marmot (Marmota bobak) which
ranges from Poland across the Ukraine and south Russia and
then south to northern India; the range of the southern birch
mouse (Sicista subtilis ) runs from Central Europe to
Kazakhstan, the great jerboa (Allactaga major) from the
Ukraine to the Altai, the little earth hare (Alactagulus pumilio)
from the north Caucasus and Volga across Kazakhstan, the
northern three-toed jerboa (Dipus sagitta) from the northern
Caucasus to the Altai steppe, the thick-tailed three-toed jerboa
(Stylodipus telum) from the Crimea to Mongolia; also missing
are any reconstructed words for the common redbacked vole
(Clethrionomys glareolus) , the water vole (Arvicola terrestris ),
the European pine vole (Pitymys subterraneus) , the snow vole
(Microtus nivalis ), the social vole (Microtus social is) , the
common vole (Microtus arvalis), possibly the field vole
(Microtus agrestis). A steppe origin might presuppose
knowledge of the northern mole-vole (Ellobius talpinus) and
the steppe lemming (Lagurus lagurus). In addition, we have
no common term for the mole rats, either the Russian mole
rat (Spalax microphthalmus) which is known from Greece
and Poland in the west across the Ukraine and Russia, or the
lesser mole rat (Spalax leucodon) , known from eastern Europe
and the Balkans to the Ukraine and Anatolia, despite the fact
that, like the moles, they play an important comparative role
in Greek and Old Indie medical tradition.
Cetacea
There are no terms for any of the cetacea (whales, dolphins
and porpoises) which is hardly unexpected. However, the
range of the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) extends
from the Atlantic, through the Mediterranean and into the
Black Sea, rarely to the Baltic, which would put it in the vicinity
of most solutions to the IE homeland problem.
Carnivora
One of the most solidly attested mammal names is that of
the canid ‘dog’ (*k(u)udn), the first wild animal to be
domesticated. Much more dubious are attempts to reconstruct
an early IE term for ‘puppy’ or ‘young dog’ (??*(s)koli-). Names
for the more widespread wild canids are also solidly
reconstructible. These comprise the *ul(o)p-, ‘fox (Vulpes
vulpes)’ with considerable phonological alteration and the
‘wolf (Canis lupus)’ (*ulk w os) and ‘she -wolf’ (*yjk w ih a -).
Other canids that may have been known would include the
Asiatic jackal (Canis aureus) which is known from the Balkans
to India, possibly the corsac fox (Vulpes corsac) which was
known from the Volga to Iran, and Blanford’s fox (Vulpes
cana), found from Anatolia, southwest Russia to Baluchistan.
The single ursid that one might expect is that of the
*h2ftkos ‘brown bear (Ursos arctos )’ whose name is clearly
old and solidly reconstructed to PIE.
As relatively smaller mammals, the mustelids are less
strongly reconstructed to PIE antiquity than many of the larger
mammals. Probably the best is the *udrds ‘common otter
(Lutra lutra)’ whose name is a transparent derivative of the
word for ‘water’. Otherwise, the reconstructed terms are either
areally specific such as the central IE designation for the
‘weasel, ermine/stoat’ *kormon- or a (western?) word for
‘weasel’, ?*(h a )uiselos or ‘marten’ (possibly ‘wildcat’) ?*bbel-.
— 364 —
MAMMALS
or more widespread terms whose underlying meaning is even
less certain, e.g. , *kek - which underlies ‘polecat’ (in the center)
but ‘weasel’ (in the east). Setting aside the lexical confusion
between the different species, the mustelids most likely to
have been known to the PIE community would include the
pine marten ( Martes martes), the stone or beech marten
C Maries foina), the stoat or ermine (Mustek erminea ), the
weasel (Mustek nivalis), the European polecat (Mustek
putorius), and the marbled polecat (Vormela peregusna). The
distribution of the wolverine ( Gulo gulo ) ranges across
northern Europe but may have been too far north for the
earliest IE speakers (although its prehistoric range extended
as far south as the Tripolye culture and the early Neolithic of
the Ukraine); however, the distribution of the badger (Meles
meles) is so widespread across Eurasia that it is difficult to
imagine it not being known. Its presence on European
Neolithic sites ranges from chance (remains of one to five
individuals) to deliberate hunting, e g., over twenty from
various lake-side Neolithic sites in Switzerland. It is recon-
structible at the level of IE stock in Celtic, Germanic, Baltic
and Slavic but, with the possible exception of a Latin-Slavic
isogloss, no further, all of which suggests a series of late
formations, possibly based on pre-Indo-European substrates.
Among the cats, the least controversial animal to be
reconstructed is the *luk- ‘European lynx (Felis lynx )’ for
which a common word is attested in the west and center of
the IE world. The caracal lynx (Felis caracal) ranges over the
distribution of the Asiatic IE stocks. A perennial cause of
debate are the possible cognate terms for the large cats, the
?*li(u)- ‘lion (Panthera leo)' and the ??*singhds ‘leopard
(Panthera pardus)'. An animal far more ubiquitous on archaeo-
logical sites across Eurasia, the European wildcat (Felis
silvestris) and the Asiatic African wildcat (Felis Libyca), lie
beyond reconstruction (unless preserved as ?*bhel~) although
it must have been known to the earliest Indo-Europeans. The
jungle cat (Felis chaus) was known from the Volga and
Anatolia southeast to India as is also the Pallas cat (Felis
manul).
Ungulates
The major equids, indeed one of the mammals most closely
associated with the Indo-Europeans, is the *hiekuos ,
‘(presumably domestic) horse (Equus caballus)', which is also
attested in the female form *hiekueh a - ‘mare’, and in more
regionally confined terms: *markos ‘domestic horse (Equus
caballus )’ and/or ‘wild horse (Equus przewalskii or gmelini)'
and *gheios ‘horse (Equus caballus)’. Two other equid terms
are preserved in specific regions; from the east is ?*gordebhos
‘ass/donkey (Equus hydruntinus)' or ‘onager/kulan (Equus
hemionus )’ or ‘domestic ass (Equus asinus )’, and from (he
west and center of the IE world comes ?*mu(k)skos ~
*mukslos ‘ass/donkey (Equus hydruntinus )' or ‘onager/kulan
(Equus hemionus)'.
Pigs are attested under a number of names: *sQs ‘pig (wild
or domesticated) ( 5 us scrofa )’ which along with *porkos
‘young pig, piglet’ is strongly reconstructed and *hjeperos
‘boar (Sus scrofa )’ which is confined to the west and central
regions of the IE world.
Terms for deer, among the most widely hunted animals of
Eurasia, are relatively abundant and include the strongly
reconstructed *hielhi6n ‘red deer/(American) elk (Cervus
elaphus)' and its feminine derivative (here found in the west
and center) *hielhinih a - ‘hind/cow-elk’. Presuming that the
underlying meaning is best retained in the west and center,
we also have the *h x olkis ‘elk/American moose (Alces alces)'
which tends to mean some form of sheep or antelope in the '
east. Geographically much more confined terms would
include ?*bhrentos ‘stag’ and ??*b(h)roid(h)is ‘red deer; elk’.
Widely attested archaeologically is also the roedeer whose
name in IE survives at least in the far west and center as *iorks
‘roedeer (Capreolus capreolus)'. If the IE homeland existed
'on the east Russian steppe, then the saiga antelope (Saiga
tatarica) should have been known. If the homeland lay
somewhere further west, i.e., anywhere between Spain and
the Caucasus, including the Balkans and Anatolia, one might
have expected the chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) to have been
known. The absence of a word for the fallow deer (Dama
dama), which is confined to southern Europe is not
unexpected.
The bovids comprise primarily but not exclusively the main
domestic livestock of the early Indo-Europeans and terms for
both cattle and sheep/goat are abundant and very strongly
attested. Words for the domestic cow include *g w 6us (gen.
*g w ous) ‘cow’ (in both the English senses: ‘adult female bovine’
and ‘bovine of any age or sex (Bos taurus)' which is found in
most IE stocks and words like *h jegh- ‘cow’, *uokeh a - ‘cow’
and *ukf w ken ‘ ox ’ which are found on the peripheries of the
IE world. Wild bovids are found under the names of *tauros
‘aurochs; bull (Bos primegenius)’ which is widespread and
old in IE and the regionally more confined ??*uis - and/or
*g(h)ombhros ‘bison (Bison bonasus)’.
Sheep and goats may be discussed together for a number
of reasons. It is not only the fact that palaeozoologists who
study their remains from archaeological sites find it difficult
to distinguish them (except for horns and certain bones) but
it is clear that the PIE speakers themselves may have grouped
them together under the category of ‘small domestic animal’
( *mehil~) and opposed them to large stock, cattle and horses.
This can also be found in modem IE languages, e.g., NHG
kleinvieh ‘small livestock’ (although here pigs may be
included), and Rus melkij (rogatyj) skot ‘sheep and goats’
The linguistic evidence, however, for the two kinds of animals
is rather different in that sheep terminology tends to be both
persistent and pan-IE while there is no single word for goat’
although the goat’s presence is supported by numerous
regional isoglosses. Words primarily associated with sheep
comprise *h26uis ‘sheep (Ovis aries)', a word virtually
ubiquitous among the IE stocks and the less strongly but still
PIE feminine derivative *h20uikeh a - ‘ ewe ’. The young sheep
is found in regional terms, *h a eg w hnos ‘lamb’ and *h/er-
— 365 —
MAMMALS
lamb, kid’ in the west and center, and *ufhien- lamb’ in the
center and east. Further terms associated with sheep are
*moisos ‘ram, sheep; fleece, skin’, found in the center and
east, and ?*(s)Kego- ‘sheep/goat’ which is known on the peri-
pheries. The terms for goats include one widespread and
clearly PIE term: *bhugos ‘buck, he-goat (male Capra hircus)',
and a series of regionally specific words in the west: *ghaidos
‘goat ( Capra hircus)', *kapros ‘he-goat’; the west and center:
*dfks{ gen. *digos) ‘goat ( Capra hircus)' ; the center: ?*kogheh a -
‘goat ( Capra hircus)' ; and the center and east: *h a eigs ‘goat
( Capra hircus)' and *h a egos ‘he-goat ( Capra hircus)'. The ibex
( Capra ibex) ranges across the mountainous regions of
northern Italy to the Caucasus and south to northwest India.
In addition to the genus or species labels for the various
mammals, the early Indo-Europeans also had a number of
more generic terms for animals/mammals that contrasted them
with other categories, e.g., fish, insects. These comprise the
transparent compound *k w etuor-pod- ‘animal’ (i.e.,
‘quadruped’) which is strongly reconstructed as well as
designations for both the *ghuer ‘wild animal’ and the
domestic *peku livestock’, both old and widespread in IE.
Other cognate series suggest the existence of *g w ieh 3 uiom
‘animal’ (< * living thing’) and *leuh x on ‘animal’ (< *‘the one
of the hunt’), both of possible PIE date. Mammals were also
divided by categories of size and we can reconstruct to PIE
general terms for both large and small animals: *steuros large
(domestic) animal’ and *meh}l- ‘small animal’.
See also Animal; Ass; Badger; Bear 1 ; Beaver; Cat; Cow; Deer;
Dog; Elephant; Elk; Fox; Goat; Hare; Hedgehog; Horse;
Leopard; Lion; Lynx; Marten; Monkey; Mouse; Otter; Pig;
Polecat; Sheep; Shrew; Squirrel; Weasel; Wolf.
JD.Q.A., J.PM.]
Further Readings
Clutton-Brock, J. (1987) A Natural History of Domesticated
Mammals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Clutton-Brock, J. and C. Grigson (1984) Animals and Archaeology:
3. Early Herders and their Flocks. BAR International Series 202,
Oxford.
Mason, I. L. (1984) Evolution of Domesticated Animals. London
and New York, Longman.
Zeuner, E E. (1963) A History of Domesticated Animals. London,
Hutchinson.
Mallory, J. P (1982) Indo-European and Kurgan fauna I: wild
mammals, JIES 10, 193-222.
MAN
*pih x rds' man, husband’. [IEW 1177-1178 ( *uiro-s)\ Wat
78 ( *wi-ro-)\ GI 391 ( *wir-)\ Buck 2.21; Wordick 210-211].
OIr /er‘man, husband’, Weis gwr ‘man, husband’, Lat vir ‘man,
husband’, Umb ueiro ‘man’, ON verr'man, husband’, OE wer
‘man, husband’ (> NE werewolf), OHG wer ‘man, husband’,
Goth wa/r‘ man’, OPrus wijrs ‘man’, Lith vyras ‘man, husband’,
Latv virs ‘man, husband’, Av vir a- ‘man; person (as opposed
to animals)’, Olnd vira- ‘hero; (eminent) man; husband’. A
derived adjectival form of this word is to be found in TochA
wir ‘young, fresh’; possibly Alb ri ‘young’, which might also
be placed here as a metathesized form of *uih x ros (i.e., >
*urih x os). Clearly PIE status.
*h a nir (gen *h a Qrds) ‘man, person’ [IEW765 ( *ner-(t-)~
*aner-)\ Wat 44 ( *ner- ~ *oner-)\ GI 703 ( *Hner-(t h )~), Buck
2.21; BK 558 (*nir-/*ner-)} . Weis ner'hero’, Umb ncr-‘ chief’,
Osc ner- ‘man, chief’, Alb njeri ‘person’, Grk avfip ‘man’,
Arm ayr (gen. am) ‘man, person’, Phryg avap ‘man’, Luv
annara/i - ‘forceful, virile’, Av nar- ‘man, person’, Oss nrel ‘man’,
Olnd nar- ‘man, person’. Cf. the derivatives: Olr nert ‘strength,
power’, Weis nerth ‘manliness, courage; army’, Lat neridsus
‘firm’, OPrus nertien ‘anger’, Lith noras ‘will’, Olnd nftu- ‘hero’;
and from *su-h a nptos ‘provided with vital energy’ we have
OIr sonairt (< so + nert) ‘brave, strong’, Weis hynerth ‘brave,
strong’, Olnd sunfta- ‘exultation’. Distribution supports PIE
status.
*dhghip-on- man’. [IEW 414-415 ( *ghdem-)\ Wat 14
( *dhghem-)\ GI 720-721 ( *d h (e)gf ] om -); Buck 2.21; BK 81
(*diq[ h ]-/*deq[ h ]-)]. Olr duine ‘human’, Weis dyn ‘person’,
OLat hemo ‘man’, Lat homo ‘person’, ON gumi ‘man’, OE
guma ‘man’ (> NE bridegroom after folk etymology), OHG
gomo ‘man’, Goth guma ‘man’, OPrus smoy ‘person’, Lith
zmud ‘person’. From *dhghom- ‘earth’. Although sometimes
cited here, TochB saumo ‘man’, akin to TochA som ‘youth’
are both < PIE *g w ieh3U-mon- ‘living’. A word of the IE
northwest.
*m6rtos ‘man, mortal’. [IEW 735 ( *mdr-to-)\ Wat 42
( *mer-)\ GI 396; BK 525 ( *mir-/*mer -)]. Grk (Hesychius)
poprog ‘man, mortal’, Arm mard ‘man’, Av manta- ‘mortal’,
Olnd marta- ‘mortal’. From *mer- ‘die’. Banal derivation from
very productive root coupled with distribution among
southeastern stocks often sharing isoglosses suggests that this
is a late dialectal term in IE.
*mVnus ‘man’. [IEW 700 ( *manu-s)\ Wat 38 ( *man-)\ GI
396 (*manu-)\ Buck 2.1], ON madr~ mannr ‘man’, OE mann
‘man’ (> NE man), OHG mann ‘man’, Goth manna ‘man’
(?Gmc < *monwon-), Olnd manu- ‘man; person’
(< *menu-). Often derived from *men- ‘think’. The nature of
the relationship between the Germanic and Old Indie is not
entirely clear as the Germanic words are derived n-stems.
Distribution on the peripheries of the IE world suggests PIE
status.
The most common word to designate the adult male
human, *uih x ros, may be connected to a root ‘strong’. A
similar passage in both Umbrian ( ueiro pequo) and Avestan
(Ys. 9.4) ( pasu vira), which finds ‘men’ joined in context with
‘flocks’, indicates that the PIE *uih x ros was also seen as a
worker. In the stocks where it co-occurs with the second term,
*h a nir-, it is always the less honorific. The second term for
man, also relatable to the concept of strength, often has a
sense of honor or prestige about it and the semantics of
*uih x ros and *h a ner may perhaps be compared to German
mann and mensch. In addition to seeing men as sources of
366
MARLIK
either physical or social strength, Indo-European society
viewed humans as inhabitants of the earth and a widespread
term *dhghip-on - ‘earthling’ is recorded in northwestern
Europe. In southeastern Europe and western Asia a term based
on the concept of ‘death’ designated humans as *mortos
‘mortals’. A root found only in the extreme west (Germanic)
and the east (Indie), *mVnu~, was perhaps the original Indo-
European designation of humans without regard to gender.
Some have argued that this form may be based on the root ‘to
think’ and designates humans as rational beings. The English
cognates of this root have recently become associated
exclusively with the male gender (cf. also NHG mann ‘man
(male)’), and a host of originally gender-free compounds are
now being revised to restore the earlier unbiased meaning,
‘rational being’. Slavic forms: OCS mpzV man’, Rus muz ‘man’,
are perhaps from a different root signifying virility, which is
also seen in Alb mez ‘colt’ (< *mong w io - ) and is the basis of
the Greek word ’Apa^cov, which although frequently folk-
etymologized as ‘breastless’ by the ancient Greeks and more
recently identified with Iranian tribes, it is more probably
from PIE *p-mpg w -ton-es ‘man-less, without husbands’.
See also Death; Earth; Husband; Kinship; Male; Manu;
Strength; Woman. [M.E.H.l
MANE see HAIR
MANU
*manu- ‘Man, ancestor of humankind’. [IEW 700
( *manu- ); Wat 38 ( *man-); BK 542 ( *manY-/*m9n> r -)] . Germ
Mannus (ancestor of the Germans), Av Manus-ciOra
‘descendent of Manu’, Olnd Manu (ancestor of mankind).
The correspondence, although confined to Germanic and
Indo-Iranian, appears both phonologically and structurally
sound.
The story of the Germanic Mannus is recorded solely by
Tacitus ( Germania 2) who relates how the ancestor of the
Germans was Tuisto ‘Twin’ who had a son Mannus ‘Man’ who
then begot the three primary Germanic tribes, the Ingvaeones,
the Herminones and Istaevones. In the Old Indie account,
Vivasvat couples with Savarna ‘Same Looks’, a “double” of
his wife Saranyu, and begets Manu ‘Man’. He then goes on to
father Yama Twin’, the ancestral figure of all mortals. Manu
also initiates sacrifice and human laws, the Law of Manu.
Structurally, both tales relate the foundation of human society
which is brought into being when a primeval *Man ( Mannus ,
Manu ) sacrifices his *Twin ( Tuisto , Yama).
See also Cosmogony; Divine Twins; Man. [J.RM.]
MAPLE
*kl 6 inus (gen. *klindus) ‘maple (Acer spp.)’. [IEW 603
( *kleno-)\ Fried 64-691 . From *kleinu OE him ‘maple’, OHG
lln-boum ‘maple-tree’, Lith klevas ~ kliavas ‘maple’, Latv kjavs
‘maple’ (Baltic < late Proto-Baltic *klieva-< earlier *kleiva - ,
from *kleinva-?)\ from *klinu-\ ON hlynr (< Proto-Gmc
*hluni- by metathesis from *hlinu-) ‘maple’, Rus klen (< Proto-
Slav *klinu-) ‘maple’, Maced (Hesychius) Kkivoiclxpoxog
‘kind of maple’. Perhaps Grk y/Uvo- ‘(a kind of) maple'
(perhaps = Acer sempervirens [aka A. orientae or A. creticum f)
belongs with *kleinu- , though the initial g- is not well-
explained. Certainly a word of the northwest, possibly also
of the center of the IE world.
*h 2 &kf( gen. *h 2 &kr(o)s or ?*h 26 kps) ‘maple (Acer spp.)’.
[IEW 20 (*aker)\ Fried 64-69]. Lat acer (gen. aceris) ‘maple’,
Dan aer(< Proto-Gmc *ahira~) ‘maple’, OHG ahom (< Proto-
Gmc *ahuma -) ‘maple’, Grk (Hesychius) dxapva ‘sweet bay’,
aKaoxog (< *akarstos) ‘maple’. Hit hiqqar - ‘± maple’.
The maple, valuable for bowls and other wooden artifacts,
was present throughout early IE times in much of Europe,
with subgeneric diversification that, depending on the area,
included the common, Norway, sycamore, and, in the
Caucasus, the mighty maple. It is also known from southwest
Anatolia. Consonant with this great spread and variety, there
are two early names for this tree, which overlap in Germanic,
where there is much botanical subspeciation as well. One of
these names, *kleinus is reflected in Germanic, Baltic and
many Slavic languages — all of which denote the ‘maple’.
Sometimes set here are the Celtic forms (OIr cuilenn, Weis
celyn(en)) but these both mean ‘holly’ and the British Isles
lies outside the native prehistoric distribution of the ‘maple’
and ‘sycamore’.
The second name is reflected in Latin, Germanic, Greek,
Hittite and probably Indie; one can posit a PIE *h 2 eker- or
*h 2 ekem - , probably derived from the root for ‘sharp’, as in
Lat acer (whence NE acrid). In the Germanic area, at least,
the reflexes of this ‘maple’ name were probably used for the
Norway or sharp-leafed maple, complementing the uses of
the other term for other maples present. The second name,
speculatively but probably, is related to an Old Indie ( Rgvedic )
form akra-. At first blush, this denotes something high that
the sons of Aditi grew into, but closer analysis makes it likely
that the Vedic poet, drawing on his cultural memory, meant
that “the sons of Aditi grew upward like the mighty maples”,
which, as it happens, flourish in the .central and eastern
Caucasus near to where the ancestors of the Indie and Iranian
speakers lived. It is possible that both maple forms go back
to a single PIE **kR-n- , but this is highly conjectural.
See also Trees. [PE, D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Oettinger, N. (1994) Der Ablaut von Ahom’ lm Indogermanischen.
KZ 107, 77-86.
MARLIK
This Iranian cemetery, dated to the mid second millennium
BC, is situated near the Caspian Sea. It yielded funeral altars
and fifty-five burials in stone lined chambers with a wide
range of gifts of bronze and gold, including figures, vessels,
weapons and horse-gear. Many of the objects are regarded as
prestige goods obtained from the western parts of the Near
East. G. N. Kurochkin has proposed that the identification of
— 367 —
MARLIK
the Indo-Aryans in this region would be secured if one can
find evidence for the horse-drawn chariot, widespread trading
relations, the presence of typical Hurrian goods (as the basic
language of the Mitanni was Hurrian), and elements typically
displaying Indo-Aryan motifs. He has attributed Marlik to
the Mitanni (it contained seals typical of those found in the
Mitanni region) as it met all of his criteria. The graves produced
both the remains of horses and models of war-chariots which
attest the specifically equestrian Indo-Aryan element in
Mitanni. Of the ritual elements, Kurochkin cites the evidence
for ritual mortars with spouts which he likens to instruments
that might be employed in pressing the soma, the sacred drink
of the early lndo-Aryans, and to similar devices found in con-
temporary Hindu shrines. Further afield, Marlik has yielded
a golden bowl with scenes depicting the birth and torment of
hoofed animals which corresponds to a widely attested artistic
motif found not only on Mitanni seals but also among the
Iranian-speaking nomads of the Eurasian steppe.
See also Hasanlu; IndoIranian Languages;
Sacred Drink. 1J.PM.]
368 —
MARRIAGE
Further Reading
Kurochkin, G. N. (1994) Archaeological search for the Near Eastern
Aryans and the royal cemetery of Marlik in northern Iran, in
South Asian Archaeology 1 993, ed. A. Parpola and P Koskikallio,
Helsinki, 389-395.
MARRIAGE
*gemhx- ‘marry (from the male point of view)’. [7EW369-
370 (*gem(e)-)\ Wat 19 (*gema-); GI 775; Buck 2.33; Szem
20.3.1; BK 215 (*tfim-/*t£ 'em-)]. Grk yapeo) ‘marry (of
males)’, yapeopai ‘marry (of females)’. Derivatives: Lat gener
(< *gemros< *gemiros) ‘son-in-law’, Grk yapppog (< *grpros )
‘son-in-law’, Alb dhender (Gheg dhanderr) ‘groom’, Av
zamatar- (< *gomh x -ter-) ‘son-in-law’, OInd jarttatar- (<
*gomh x -ter~) ‘son-in-law’, jara- (< *giph x -r/lo-) ‘suitor’. This
productive root would appear to be of PIE status. A possible
continuation of this root in Pashto zoman ‘payment of wages,
stipend’ has suggested that the underlying meaning of this
word may have referred to the payment by the suitor for the
bride of the bride-price. Others, however, have taken the
semantics of this word (NGrk ya/idco is the obscene register
of ‘copulate’) to suggest that it reflected the actual
consummation of a marriage.
*sneubh- ‘marry (from the female point of view)’. [JEW
977-978 ( *sneubh-)\ Wat 62 ( *sneubh-)\ GI 663
( *(s)neub h -); Buck 2.33], Lat nubere ‘marry (of females)’.
Derivatives: OSC snubiti ‘to pander’, Grk vvptpri ‘bride’. A
word confined to the west and center of the IE world. If *sneu-
bh -, then perhaps related to *snusos ‘daughter-in-law’ (<
*‘bride’).
*h2vedh(hx)~ ‘lead in marriage, marry (from the male point
of view)’. [TEW 1109 ( *uadh -), 1115-1116 (*yed/i-); Wat
73 ( *wadh-)\ GI 658-660 ( *Hwed h -)\ Buck 2.33; BK 474
( *wad-/*wod -)]. Weis dyweddio ‘marry’, OE weddian (<
*h 2 Uodh(h x )eie/o-) ‘marry’ (> NE wed), OPrus wedde ‘wed’,
Lith vedit ‘lead, marry (of a man)’, Latv vedu ‘lead, marry’.
Derivatives: Lith vedekle ‘son’s wife’, Av va5u- ‘bride’, OInd
vadhu- ‘bride’, UdM(< *h 2 udh-teh a -) ‘married woman, wife’.
Perhaps ORus nevesta ‘husband’s brother’s wife, brother’s wife,
son’s wife’ with analogic lengthening from ORus veno ‘bride-
price’. Cf. OIr fedid ( DIL feidid) ‘leads’, OCS vedp ‘lead’, ORus
voditi ‘get married’, Hit huttiye- ‘pull, drag’, Av va5ayeiti ‘pulls’.
A productive root which is clearly old in this meaning among
the northwest stocks and with the Indo-Iranian derivatives
probably of PIE status.
Indo-Europeans did not possess a single term for marriage;
instead, a number of different verbs were employed for male
and female subjects and various aspects of the marriage
process. The active verb *gemhx- is preserved only in Greek
yajieco ‘marry (of male subjects)’, but a variety of derivative
nouns signifying males (cf Alb dhender ‘bridegroom’, Lat gener
< *gemros and OInd jimatar- both ‘son-in-law’) assures its
Indo-European presence. The original connections of this root
are doubtful. A relation to Lat geminus ‘twin’ and an original
concept of ‘pairing’ has been suggested, but others have seen
in Latin geminus a special development of the root *iem-
‘twin’; therefore, it is best to assume that ‘marry’ is the primary
meaning. The widespread use of phrases with the concept
‘lead’ as in Lat uxorem ducere ‘to lead a wife’ in the sense ‘to
marry’ and especially derivatives of the root *h 2 \jedh(h x )-
‘lead’ in this use, best seen in the English verb wed
< *h 2 \iodh(h x )eie/o-, confirms the Indo-European practice
of virilocal post-marital residence and native idiom probably
used causatives of the verb *h 2 uedh(h x )- ‘lead’ in this sense.
A second verbal root *(s)neubh-, is seen in Lat nubere ‘marry’,
used of female subjects and RusCS snubiti ‘pander’; it also
provides the basis for a number of feminine nouns, e g., Grk
vviKprf ‘virgin, bride’ and Alb nuse ‘bride’ (< *(s)nubh-tih a
the same source as Lat nuptiae ‘marriage rites’). The existence
of this second verb for women points to the fact that the Indo-
European couple had markedly divergent marital roles,
although it would be unwise to assume that these were
necessarily those of dominance and subservience. In Albanian
and South Slavic great families of the nineteenth century, elder
females exercised considerable independent powers within
the family. Younger females were certainly restricted in their
decision making, but so too were younger males, who often
possessed no private property beyond their clothing and
weapons.
Eric Hamp has suggested that we can recover (at least)
four terms relating to the institution of marriage in PIE. The
well-attested root *perl<- (~ *prel 1-) ‘ask, beg’, also carries
the specific meaning of ‘initiate a proposal of marriage’, e.g.,
Lat procus ‘wooer’, Lith persu ‘propose in marriage’, Arm
harc‘anem ‘ask’, harsn ‘bride’. This would be followed by the
exchange of presents, the *uedmo- ‘bride-price’. As part of
the wedding the bride would be literally led away into
matrimony, i.e., *h 2 uedh(h x )~ ‘lead (into marriage)’. Finally,
he argues that *gemhx- is more precisely translated ‘consum-
mate a marriage’ which may well explain the particular bias
of this word towards males in the various IE stocks (in a central
and eastern dialect area we can also reconstruct *iebhe/o-
‘copulate’, a semantic specialization of *iebhe/o- ‘enter’
preserved in Tocharian and Anatolian).
Types of Marriage
The system of analysis applied to IE mythology has also
been extended to the structure of IE marriage institutions,
particularly in Roman and Old Indie traditions. Georges
Dumezil noted that the eight types of marriage listed in early
Indie traditions can be divided into essentially three basic
social types. There were four associated with the priestly
function ( brahma [< ‘priest’], daiva l< ‘of the gods’], arsa [<
‘priest’] and prajapatya [< ‘of Prajapati’]) that were surrounded
with religious ceremony and sanction and associated with
the priest class. Dumezil found their correspondence in the
Roman confarreatio the marriage union of priests which was
sanctioned by the highest priest and held before Jupiter. In
ancient India the warrior function found its expression in the
marriage types knows as gandhar\ r a, the co-habitation of man
— 369 —
MARRIAGE
and women without ceremony and raksasa ‘marriage by
capture’. The Roman equivalent was held to be the usus which,
like the gandharva, involved co-habitation for a year preceding
the official marriage bonds. The third or fertility function in
India was marked by asura which involved the purchase of
the wife; it was specific to the third estate vaisya and the lowest
estate, the sudra. In ancient Rome it found its parallel in the
coemptid, marriage by purchase. Similar extensive systems
of marriage can be found in Ireland where they descend from
legitimate marriages sanctioned by both families to marriages
based on cohabitation (cf. the Old Indie gandhara and Lat
usus ) and marriage by capture (OIr lanamnas eicne).
The range of types of marriage within different IE societies
tends to be large (and on a world-wide ethnographic sample
would be extended many times over). A number of early IE
societies exhibit sufficient evidence to presume formal
arrangements of marriage involving the payment of a ‘bride-
price’, a word reconstructible to PIE. The forcible abduction
of the bride (which may include the bride’s consent in the
absence of her parents’) is so widely seen in both the early
literature and the ethnographies of the IE (and other) peoples
that it would be difficult to deny its possible existence in PIE
even if there are no specific lexical grounds to demonstrate it.
G1 have suggested that the verbal root *h 2 uedh(h 2 )-,
commonly translated as ‘lead away (in marriage)', expressed
rather greater force and that abduction may have been the
earliest form of marriage. As some institution of marriage is
likely to have long predated the form of the PIE community,
it is much more likely that marriage by abduction, still
practiced into the present century, was always an option but
hardly the earliest known in PIE society. We should be cautious
about trying to assign a single type to the speakers of the
proto-language which, if like their later descendants, probably
themselves recognized a considerable variety of marriage
forms.
Cross-Cousin Marriage
One specific form of marriage has been attributed to PIE
antiquity: cross-cousin marriage where the preferred marriage
partner is sought with a cross-cousin, i.e., one who is related
through a kin of different sexes (father’s sister’s son, mother’s
brother’s son). In its simplest form, symmetrical cross-cousin
marriage, a male in family A will invariably marry the sister
of a male in family B who in turn will marry A’s sister. This
process may be continued for generations between the two
families. Other variations, particularly popular among
patrilineal groups, is to select by preference one’s partner from
the mother’s line, i.e., matrilateral selection. The existence of
cross-cousin marriage in PIE rests largely on certain solutions
to the problem of *h 2 euh 20 s ‘grandfather’ and *nepots
‘grandson’. It has been argued that the best way to explain
why the word for ‘grandfather’ should also yield derivative
meanings for ‘mother’s brother’ (and conversely why
‘grandson’ should also yield ‘nephew’, perhaps via ‘sister’s son’)
is that the terms were created in a system of cross-cousin
marriage. In this way one would simultaneously be the
grandfather (fathers father) of ego and his mothers mothers
brother; the term for ‘grandfather’ would then be employed
to derive another term for the ‘mother’s brother’, i.e., the ‘little
grandfather’ (cf. Lat avunculus ‘mother’s brother’ from avus
‘grandfather’). This explanation has been embraced by GI who
regard the dualism of two intermarrying families as one of
the underlying frameworks for the binary opposition in IE
mythic structures. As the basis of the problem has not been
firmly established, i.e., the validity of projecting the different
semantics to the PIE forms, the ascription of cross-cousin
marriage to the PIE speakers (among probably other forms of
marriage as well) may well be possible but is hardly required
by the existing evidence. Against such a proposition also is
our failure to reconstruct specific terms for the cross-cousins
in PIE, the paucity of examples of this type of marriage
occurring within the individual IE stocks (and where it does
occur such as India, it is largely confined to the east and south,
i.e., those areas where we have the greatest reason to suspect
a non-IE substrate), and, finally, where it does occasionally
occur, it does so in the very stocks which do not show evidence
of the shift from ‘grandfather’ to ‘mother’s brother’ or the
nepotic skewing rule.
See also Bride-price; Husband; Kinship; Sexual Organs
and Activities; Wife. [M.E.H., J.PM.l
Further Readings
Beekes, R. S. P (1976) Uncle and nephew. JIES 4, 43-63.
Dumezil, G. (1969) Marriages indo-europeens, in Qumze Questions
romaines, Paris, 17-58.
Hamp, E. P (1988) The Indo-European terms for ‘marriage’, in
Studies in Honor of Edgar C. Polome, eds. M. A Jazayery and W
Winter, Berlin and Amsterdam, Mouton, 179-182
Sergent, B. (1984) Three notes on the trifunctional Indo-European
marriage. JIES 12, 179-191.
MARROW
*mosghos marrow, brain’. \IEW 750 ( *moz-g-o-), Wat 43
( *mozgo-)\ GI 713]. ON mergr‘ marrow’, OE mearg ‘marrow’
(> NE marrow ), OHG mar(a)g ~ mar(a)k ‘marrow’, OPrus
musgeno ‘marrow’, Lith smagenes ‘marrow’, smegenys ‘brain’,
Latv smadzenes ‘brain, marrow’, smedzene ‘brain’, OCS mozgu
‘brain, marrow’, Av mazga- ‘marrow, brain’, OInd majjan- (for
expected *majjhan- ) ‘marrow’. Widespread geographically, at
least a late PIE word for ‘marrow’. See also *mdstf ‘brain,
marrow’.
See also Anatomy; Bone; Brain [D.Q.A.]
MARSH
*s6les- ‘marsh’. [7EW901 ( *selos-)\ Wat 57 ( *sel-es-)\. Grk
eXoq ‘marsh, meadow’, Av Haraxvati, OPers Harauvati, OInd
Sarasvati(< *saras-vant- ‘marshy’) all river names, saras- ‘lake,
pond’. Perhaps here Weis heledd (< *sel-iieh a -), he/ ‘meadow
along the side of a river’. Clearly of some IE antiquity.
*pen- ‘water’, *poniom swamp’. 1 1EW 807-808 (*pen-)\
— 370 - —
MASTER, MISTRESS
Wat 49 (*pen-)\. Mir en (< *peno -) ‘water’, enach ‘swamp’,
Gaul (acc.) anam ‘swamp’, ON fen (< fanja- < *ponio -)
‘swamp’, OE fenn ‘moor’ (> NE fen), OHG fenna ‘swamp’,
Goth fani ‘swamp’, OPrus pannean (< *panja-) ‘peat-bog’,
Lith paniabude 1 toadstool’, Latv pane ‘liquid manure, slurry’,
pepava ‘puddle’. Distribution indicates a “northwestemism”.
*h xfhx-lu - ‘mud; swamp’. [IEW 499 ( *//-)] . Latv ils ‘pitch
dark’, OCS ilu ‘mud’, Rus ll ‘mud’, il ~ \la ‘loam’, Grk tXiig
‘mud, swamp’. The analysis must yield *h x ih x -lu- as *ih x -
would probably have produced Grk *iV-\ Slavic shows -u-
while Grk -uhx-. At least a late isogloss in IE.
?*penk- ‘damp, mud’. [/EW808 ( *pen-ko-)\ . Mir eicne
(< *penk-in-io-) ‘salmon’, OE fuht (< *funxtja- < *pnkt-io-)
‘wet’, OHG fuht ‘wet’, OInd panka - ‘mud, mire*. These
connections are no more than a possibility; the underlying
form may contain the root *pen- ‘water, mud, marsh’.
See also Dirt, Lake; Wet. IR.S.PB]
MARTEN
l*bhel- ‘± marten’ (or ‘± wildcat’). [IEW 119]. Weis be/e
‘marten’, Lat felis ‘small carnivore, e.g., marten, polecat,
wildcat’. Possibly a word of the far west of the IE world, with
a meaning much as is attested by Lat felis (cf. NIr cat crainn
‘marten’ [literally ‘tree-cat’]). A possible Indie cognate bharujl
(some kind of unidentified animal) might suggest the center
of the meaning was ‘wildcat’ rather than ‘marten’. The current
distribution of both the pine ( Martes martes) and beech
marten ( Martes foina ) embraces almost all of Europe with
the exception of southern Iberia and the Aegean. There is
also evidence of the pine marten in Iran while the beech or
stone marten is also known in Iran, Afghanistan, Baluchistan
and northwest India. Martens are known from prehistoric
sites from Britain to the Crimea and in the Near East. In the
Baltic region there is evidence for selective hunting of marten
where large numbers are recovered on sites in Estonia and
Latvia while some sites of the Tripolye culture also show more
than occasional numbers of marten. It is also known from
riverine sites of the steppe region. The linguistic evidence
notwithstanding, the earliest Indo-Europeans would have
known the marten, probably both the pine marten and the
beech marten.
See also Cat; Mammals; Polecat; Weasel. [D.Q.A., J.PM.]
MASTER, MISTRESS
The words gathered here appear to be those used to
describe the first level of leadership in Indo-European society,
the master of a particular household.
*p6tis ‘husband’. \IEW 842 ( *poti-s)\ Wat 52-53
( *poti-)\ G1 661 (*pV h -); Buck 2.31; Wordick 214-215].
Bret ozah (< *potis stegesos) ‘husband, master of the house’,
Lat hospes (< *ghos(t)-pot-) ‘host’, Goth brup-faps ‘bride-
groom’ (whence Alb fat ‘husband’), Lith pats ‘husband, self’,
Latv pats ‘master of the house, self’, Rus gospodi(< *ghos(t)~
pot -) ‘host’, Alb zot (< *dzopt- < *± wlsa + *pot- ) ‘master of
the house’, Grk nooig ‘husband’, Hit pat ‘self’, Av paiti-
‘husband’, OInd pad- ‘husband, master’, TochA pats ‘husband’,
TochB petso ‘husband’. Distribution clearly indicates PIE
status,
*pot-nih a - ‘mistress, lady’. 1/EW842 ( *potni), cf. Wat 52-
53 ( *poti-)\ G1 661 (*f/ 1 ot h nf)\ Buck 2.32; Wordick 1 96—
197]. OPrus (acc. sg.) waispattin ‘wife, mistress’, Lith viespatni
‘lady’, Myc po-ti-ni-ja ‘lady, wife, mistress’, Grk noxvia ‘lady,
wife’, Alb zonje (< *doptnja- < *uisa + *potnja ) ‘lady, wife’,
Av -paOna- ‘lady’, OInd patnl ‘lady, wife’. Although clearly
derived from the masculine form above, the distribution
suggests that it is likely to be old in IE as well.
Terms for ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ often reflect the general Indo-
European terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’, but the terms *potis and
*potnih a -, ‘lord’ and ‘lady’ seem to have functioned in this
sense, although when combined with the feminine noun *uik-
‘settlement, homestead’ the terms come to assume a quasi-
' political sense. It is perhaps significant that * pot is has a
persistent feminine counterpart in the form of *pol-nih d - with
a non-productive suffix. Both terms are probably related to a
root for ‘power’, PIE *pot-, and referred to the control over
the household. It is possible that the feminine did not refer to
the wife of the *potis but his mother as was still the case of
Albanian zonje ‘lady’ the feminine of zot ‘lord’ even in the last
century
*dom(h a )u-no-s ‘master’. [IEW 198- 199 (*dem-); Wat 1 1
( *dem -); Gl 646], Lat dominus ‘master of the house’, Lith
namunaitis (< *namunas< *damunas ; cf. Av nmana- ‘house’
for the dissimilation) ‘son of the propnetor’, OInd damuna-
‘master of the house’. A common -no derivative for leader of
the house, parallel to such constructions as Proto-Gmc
*peudanaz ‘leader of the tribe’ (OE peoden ‘chief of a tribe,
ruler’, Goth piudans ‘ruler’) or Grk Koipavoq (< Proto-Grk
*korjanos ) ‘leader of the army’ is inferred from the presence
of an identical derivative of the archaic u-stem noun ‘house’
even after the replacement by thematic nouns was complete
in Baltic and Indie and the u-stem remained only vestigially
in Latin.
*dems-pot- ‘master of the house’. [IEW 198-199
( *dem-)\ Wat 11 ( *dems-pot-)\ Gl 646; Buck 7.12, 7.122;
BK 133 (*fim-/*t , em-)]. Grk deonoTpq ‘master, lord, owner’,
Av dang pati- ‘master, lord, ruler’, OInd dam-pati- ‘master,
lord, ruler’ (in the dual ‘heads of the household, husband
and wife’). Notionally the same as the previous entry, i.e.,
‘ruler of the household’, but limited to languages of the
southeast. Still, the archaic shape of the compound virtually
assures its presence in this dialect area of late PIE. An originally
wider distribution may be suggested by Bret ozah (< *potis
stegesos) where we have the same semantic combination but
with a newer word for ‘house’.
?*hiesh2ds ‘master’, *hiesh2^h a - mistress’, [cf. IEW 342
(*esu-s); Gl 400-401; BK 434 (*as>VW-)[. OLat esa
‘mistress’, Lat erus ‘master of the house or family, lord, owner’,
era ‘mistress, lady, owner’, Hit isha- ‘master, lord, owner;
mistress, lady’, ishassara- ‘lady, mistress’. This Latin-Hittite
connection has been affirmed and denied in about equal
— 371 —
MASTER
measure. In its favor are the almost exact semantic equation
and the possibility of exact phonological equation. Adding
weight to the latter point is the fact that Hittite has very few
end-stressed thematic nouns, this one and ara- ‘companion’
and yukan ‘yoke’. Since both of the latter are unequivocally
inherited from PIE it is likely that isha- is as well. Arguing
against the equation is the fact that there is no obvious root
etymology: *hies-h 2 -ds ‘one who is’ from *hies- ‘be’ does
not explain the *-hz- and relating it to *hiesh 2 f ‘blood’ as
‘one of the blood’ does not explain the semantics.
See also Home. [M.E.H., D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Pennaod, G. (1983) Le mattre de maison et son entourage en breton.
E/E 3, 41-46.
MAYKOP CULTURE
The Maykop culture, which takes its name from the famous
royal burial of Maykop, was the major early Bronze Age culture
of the north Caucasus. Its area of distribution extended from
the Taman peninsula in the west across the plains and valleys
of the north Caucasus as far as Dagestan. The Caucasus
mountains served as a natural barrier to its south while to its
north lay the steppelands which served as the home of the
Novotitorovka and Yamna cultures. The center of Maykop
development is generally situated in the Kuban region. The
dates of Maykop are still a question' of dispute but it falls very
broadly within the range c 3500-2500 BC.
There are about thirty known settlements belonging to the
Maykop culture. They tend to be on the order of one to two
hectares in size, the largest reaching some ten hectares. Some
of the settlements such as Meshoko were defended by stone
walls (here 2 m high and 4 m thick). Settlements reveal semi-
subterranean houses, measuring c 10 by 5 m arranged in small
villages of seven to ten houses. Circular structures are also
found and may be the result of influence from the Kuro-Araxes
culture. Stockbreeding is indicated by the remains of pig,
cattle, sheep, goat and horse while hunting (red deer, wild
pig, etc.) played a minor role in the economy.
Maykop is known primarily for its burials. The standard
burial rite was inhumation in a pit (which might be stone
lined and timber roofed) which was surrounded by a stone
cromlech (ring) and covered by a kurgan (tumulus). The
central chamber at Maykop was very large (it measured 5.3 x
3.7 x 1.4 m in size). Other Maykop burials were of similar
dimensions (e.g., the kurgan at Nartan was 100 m in diameter
and stood some 13 m high; its burial chamber was 7 x 4 m in
size). Later Maykop burials tended to employ a stone cairn in
their construction. Stone cists were also utilized. When not
found in a destroyed state, burials tend to be flexed on their
sides.
Burial goods in large amounts have been recovered from a
number of the Maykop kurgans. A wide range of stone tools
and weapons (axes, arrows, spears, knives) as well as ceramics
are recorded but the major interest lies in the abundance of
metal artifacts which is almost unprecedented for its period.
Bronze was employed in axes (over forty known), awls, chisels,
daggers (about a hundred are known), what have been
presumed to be psalia (horse bridle-pieces) and other tools
while vessels were also manufactured of bronze as well as
gold and silver. The gold and silver vessels are noted for their
artwork and attest external influences (Iran, Mesopotamia,
Anatolia, the Aegean are all cited) as well as local creations.
The Maykop culture impinges on various solutions to the
IE homeland problem. Its ethnic identity is entirely unknown
although it is often assumed to be Indo-European according
to some models of IE origins. For example, wall paintings
from a late fourth millennium BC burial at Klady have been
interpreted in the light of Indo-European or Indo-Iranian
religion. Within the Kurgan theory, Maykop is used as a
covering term for not only the Maykop cultural remains of
the north Caucasus but also the Lower Mikhaylovka and Kemi
Oba cultures north of the Black Sea. Some archaeologists also
suggest that the Maykop culture had genetic links with the
TRB, Globular Amphora and Corded Ware cultures and thus
represented an extensive cultural region from the Baltic to
the Caucasus. Such a theory, it must be emphasized, is highly
speculative and controversial although there is a recognition
that this culture may be a product of at least two traditions:
— 372 —
MAYKOP CULTURE
kl. k2. k3.
Maykop k. Wall decorations from Novosvobodna tomb at Klady. The bow depicted in kl and k2 has been seen as symbolic of the
death of a king, e.g. , in Vedic tradition the successor to a dead ksatriya would take the bow of the deceased in his hand as emblematic
of the succession of power. The horses shown in k3 have been interpreted as the procession of horses that would encircle (counter-
clockwise) the grave of the deceased. Finally the seated figure with the grill-like visage has been interpreted as Vayu/Vayu, the Indo-
Iranian god of the wind and death, whose baleful glance could cause death.
the local steppe tradition embraced in the Novosvobodna MEASURE
culture and foreign elements from south of the Caucasus *med- ‘measure, weigh’. \IEW 705-706 (*med-); G1 711
which can be charted through imports in both regions. (*mef’-); Wat 39 ( *med-)\ Buck 4.87; BK 527 ( *mat ’-/
That Maykop was the recipient of artistic influences from OIr midithir 1 judges’, Lat meditor ‘mediate’, ON meta
the Near East might also be employed to explain the occasional ‘reckon, estimate’, met ‘weight’, OE metan ‘measure, mete
appearance of what have been presumed to be Near Eastern out’ (> NE mete), ge-met ‘measuring’, metian ‘weigh, consider’,
(largely Semitic) loanwords in Indo-European. Alternatively, OHG mezzan ‘measure, compare, evaluate’, mez ‘measure’,
in the theory of Indo-European origins proposed by T. mezzon ‘measure, compare, evaluate’, Goth mitan ‘measure’,
Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov, the Maykop culture may be miton ‘plan’, Grk ftedoftai ‘provide for, be mindful of’,
presented as a movement of IE-speaking groups from a ppSopai ‘intend, plot, contrive’, Arm mit 'thought, reason’;
homeland in Armenia-eastern Anatolia northwards to a with an even more specialized meaning (< *‘± judge well’)
secondary “European” homeland in the north Caucasus. But we have Lat medeor ‘heal, cure’, medicus ‘doctor’, Grk MijSog
it should also be observed that the Maykop culture lies within a healing divinity, Av vi-mad- ‘healer’, vi-ma8aya 'act as a
the present distribution of the non-IE north Caucasian healer’. Cf. further ON mjptudr ‘creator, god’ (< ^'dispenser’),
languages and that its ascription to the early Indo-Europeans OE meotod ‘creator, god’. Widespread and old in IE.
is merely an assumption by some scholars while others prefer *m6hitis( gen. *mpit6is) ‘measure’. [/EW703 ( *me-)\ Wat
to attribute the Maykop culture to non-IE groups of Anatolia 39 ( Buck 14. 1 1 ; BK 408 ( *mih-/*meh-)\ . Lat metior
such as the Hatti or Kaska. ‘measure’, OE m£p ‘measure’, Alb mot ‘season, rainstorm’,
See also Kemi Oba Culture; Kurgan Tradition; Lower mat (< *mhjti-e/o-) ‘measure’, Grk /ifjTig'plan’, Av zastd.miti-
Mikhaylovka Group. [J.PM.] ‘having the measure of a hand’, OInd matt- ‘measure’. From
*meh}- ‘measure’, other derivatives of which are OE m£l
Further Readings ‘measure, mark, appointed time, (time for a) meal’, Goth mel
Munchayev, R. (1994) Maykopskaya kul’tura, in Epokha Bronzy ‘time’, Hit mehur ‘time’, Av ma- ‘measure’, OPers a-mata-
Kavkasa i SredneyAzii, eds. K. Kh. Kushnareva and V I. Markovin, ‘grand, elegant, approved’, OInd mimati ‘measures’.
Moscow, Nauka, 158-225. Sufficiently widespread to guarantee PIE status. Perhaps
Rezepkin, A. D. (1992) Paintings from a tomb of the Maykop culture. ultimately related to *mehi(i)~ ‘grow’.
JIES 20, 59-70. See also Medicine; Moon. [D.Q.A.]
Vasil’kov, Y. V (1994) Some Indo-lranian mythological motifs in the
art of the Novosvobodnaya (‘Maykop’) culture, in South Asian MEAT
Archaeology 1993: //, eds. A. Parpola and R Koskikallio, Helsinki, *me(m)s ( gen, *mems6s ) ‘meat’. [IEW 725 ( *m£mso -);
777-787. Wat 41 (*mems-); G1 604 ( *mems-o -)]. Goth mimz ‘meat’,
374
MEDICINE
OPrus mensa ‘meal’, Lith mesa ‘meat’, Latv miesa ‘meat’, OCS
m?so ‘meat’, Alb mish ‘meat’, Grk /ufjviyi; ‘skin, meninges’,
Arm mis ‘meat’, Olnd mas ‘meat’, mamsa- ‘meat’, TochB mlsa
(pi.) ‘meat’. The derivative *me(m)s-ro/eh a - is seen in Olr mir
‘bit (< *‘a bit of meat’), share, portion’, Lat membrum ‘member’
(< *‘part of carcass’), membrana ‘membrane’, Rus mjazdra
‘meat side of skin’. Both widespread among the IE languages
and archaic in morphology. Certainly the PIE word for ‘meat’.
See also Anatomy; Food. [D.Q.A.]
MEDICAL GOD
The structure of IE medicine appears to reflect the tripartite
social divisions of society and just as there are three classes of
medical practitioners attending three different socially-
associated types of diseases and injury, so also were deities
arranged to both inflict and lift pains appropriate to each class.
In Vedic India, for example, Varuna, the deity associated with
the priestly class and the one charged with the maintenance
of order, punished trespassers of his realm with bonds,
identified as jalodararoga-, i.e., dropsy (‘water-belly’), which,
appropriately enough to his social role, could only be lifted
by prayers. The deity assigned to the warrior class who was
concerned with disease was the archer Rudra who inflicted
disease in the form of fevers, coughs. Finally, the Asvins, the
Divine Twins who were linked to the third estate, were the
general practitioners who renewed sexual vigor, healed broken
limbs, and were generally concerned with the restoration of
health. The etymology of their Iranian counterparts Haurvatat
‘wholeness, health’ and Amaratat ‘long life’ also suggests such
concerns and as these two were particularly associated with
water and plants respectively, one might conclude that potions
and healing herbs were the particular stock of the lndo-lranian
Third Function medical deities.
Possible comparative data derives from Greek mythology
where Apollo, like the Indie Rudra, is both an archer who
inflicts disease from afar ( Iliad 1.48-52) and is invoked as a
healer. Moreover, both share the same and peculiar association
with rodents; Rudra s animal was the ‘(rat) mole’ ( akhu -) and
he was himself described as Vanku-, the ‘tottering one’ while
Apollo shared the epithets Smintheus (the rat god) and Loxias
(the one with the oblique gait). A dualism arises in that the
name of Apollo’s son, the healer Asklepios, derives from
OKaXoxff ‘blind rat, rat mole’ and his sanctuary at Epidauros
was built to resemble a molehill while Rudra s son Ganesa,
beside his typical association with the elephant, was also
connected with the rat. All of this is at least suggestive of a
mythic complex involving a disease-dealing or -healing archer
god who may have been reflected as the disease-ridden rat or
the more beneficent (healing) mole. Although Asklepios is
credited with the ability to heal by spells, surgery and herbs,
thus matching the three medical “functions” recorded in
Iranian tradition, Jaan Puhvel has suggested that this corres-
pondence could have resulted from a borrowing of concepts
from Persia where Greek physicians were in attendance.
Another possible mythic reflection of a healing deity may
be seen in the Indo-Iranian Aryaman-Airyaman and the Irish
Eremon (< ^h^eno-men-). The Vedic Aryaman is generally
associated with the institution of marriage, the building of
roads and paths, and to some extent also healing. This asso-
ciation is better reflected in his Iranian guise where Airyaman
who, in the Avesta ( Videvdat 22), institutes the decontamina-
tion ritual of the gaomaeza -, where the patients bathed in
furrows filled with the urine of bulls and water. In Irish myth-
ology, Eremon, like Aryaman, provided wives, built causeways
and roads, and during his reign, one of his allies was healed,
from poisonous darts by bathing in furrows filled with milk,
another bovine liquid to parallel that of the gaomaeza-.
See a Iso Medicine . U P M . ]
Further Reading
Puhvel, J. (1970). Mythological reflections of Indo-European
medicine, in Indo-European and Indo-Europeans , eds. G.
Cardona, H. Hoenigswald and A. Senn, Philadelphia, University
of Pennsylvania, 369-382.
MEDICINE
There is both lexical and mythological evidence that
permits us to reconstruct at least some of the diseases and
procedures of cure of the earliest Indo-Europeans.
Diseases
Modern classification of diseases by topography, anatomy,
physiology, etc., are probably too specific to be employed
against the evidence of lexical reconstructions for the Indo-
Europeans. Other than the more obvious physical defects such
as blindness, most of the terms relating to disease that we can
reconstruct seem to be confined to skin diseases which would
not necessarily have led to death, a word for which the IE
vocabulary produces abundant cognate sets, e.g., *mer- ‘die’
and a large series of derived forms ( *mp6s ‘dead; mortal’,
*mftis ‘death’, *mptom ‘death’, *moros ‘death’), *nek- ‘perish,
die’ (and *nekus ‘death; dead’), and later (?) regional terms
such as *dhg w hei- ‘perish’ and *dheu- ‘die’. The oldest term
for ‘sickness’ or ‘to be sick’ is *suergh- ‘sickness, be sick’ while
other terms, less well attested, such as *hiermen- ‘sickness’
and *seug- ‘be sick’, are also found. There are also a series of
references to pain and suffering which suggest either an
original or derived medical basis, e g., *seh 4 i- ‘± be angry at,
afflict’ which yields such terms as OE sar‘bodily pain, wound,
sore’ (> NE sore ) and Grk aipcoSia ‘kind of tooth-ache’;
*k w ent(h)- ‘suffer’; *h a eghleh a - ‘affliction’; *h a enghes- ±
suffering, grief, fear’ which carries connotations of ‘con-
striction’; *pehimp ‘misfortune, suffering’ and *h a em(h x )-i-
ueh a - ‘suffering’.
Evidence for skin diseases and swellings can be found in a
series of words such as *dedrus 'tetter, skin eruption, leprosy’,
*kreup- '± rough, scabby’, *k\nos ‘callosity’, *ijfh x os l pimple’,
*uorhxdo- ~ *uerh x deh a - ‘wart’, *h\elkes- ‘± ulcer’, and a
number of terms for ‘pus’ or ‘suppurating wound’; *puh x e$-
‘putrefaction, pus’, *sueros ‘(suppurating) wound’, *ueh a t-
— 375 —
MEDICINE
‘(suppurating) wound’. More general wounds are attested in
*uolno/eh a - (~ *uorno/eh a -) ‘(bloody) wound’, *h a eru(s)-
‘wound’, and *pelos- ‘wound’.
Finally, among the physical ailments, there are several terms
relating to the eyes, e.g., *h a endhds ‘blind’, *kolnds ‘one-
eyed’, and *kaikos ‘one-eyed, cross-eyed’. Hearing and speech
defects are seen in *bhodh x ros ‘deaf’ and *mu- ‘dumb’. Other
physical disabilities are seen in *mendo/eh a - l ± (bodily) defect’,
*lord(sk)os ‘crooked of body’, *(s)keng- limp’ and *(hi)ng w en-
‘± (swollen) gland’.
Cures
There are both general terms for curing an individual and
occasionally suggestions as to how this might have been done.
For example, *hi/^eis- ‘refresh (using a liquid), renew the
strength of’ yields specifically medicinal connotations in Grk
idofiai ‘heal, cure’ and iaxpoq ‘doctor’, and OInd is-kfti-
‘healing’, while *iak(k)- ‘± cure, make well’ provides another
cognate set. The specific medical use of *med- ‘heal, cure’, a
root which is widely enough attested, is seen only in Italic
and Iranian and is derived from a base with the meaning of
restoring a particular situation to normal by following a
customary set of practices. A possible late term for more direct
medical treatment may be found in *bher- ‘± cure with spells
and/or herbs’ which is limited to Baltic, Albanian and Greek.
There is also the verbal root *h 3 eng w - ‘anoint (with salve),
(be)smear’. The expected result of such remedies would be
to render the patient healthy again, i.e., *koh a ilus ‘healthy,
whole, complete’ or *soluos ‘whole’.
Sick Maintenance
The care of the injured in many of the world’s systems of
traditional law requires that the individual who inflicted an
injury also be responsible for the recovery of the injured, either
by undertaking the nursing himself or employing a medical
practitioner to effect the cure. It has been argued that there
are both structural and lexical reflections of such a system in
Indo-European, specifically in the legal texts of both the early
Irish and the Hittites. The evidence from Hittite (KBo 6 2 1
16-19) states that if someone injures another, he shall take
care of him and provide a replacement for him in his house-
hold until the injured party recovers. He shall also make a
payment to the injured party and pay any necessary medical
expenses. In the Old Irish legal tracts relating to medicine we
find a similar system involving the injury of the individual
and their sick maintenance, the substitution of the injured
party during convalescence, and payment to the injured and
for attendant medical expenses. The structural similarities,
as Calvert Watkins argues, suggests an inherited expression
of customary law from Proto-Indo-European. He also argues
that there is some lexical support in that the Hittite term ‘to
take care of, perform sick maintenance’, i.e., saktaizzi , is a
denominative from an unattested *sakta- (< PIE *sokto-)
which may also be reflected in OIr socht (< *soktos ) ‘stupor,
silence’.
The Medical System
The tripartite or trifunctional conceptual system seen in
other IE social behavior is also reflected in its medical system.
The Iranian Videvdat (7.44) lists three medical specialists:
those who heal by the knife (kdmto-baesaza-) , those who heal
by herbs ( urvard-baesaza -) and, the most effectual, those who
heal by spells (mpOro-baesaza-) , where the three methods are
associated with diseases and the appropriate medicinal cures
of the warrior class (healing with the knife), the herder-
cultivator class who would utilize herbs and other plants,
and the priest class (healing with spells).
A parallel set of cognate medicinal lore is to be found in
Old Indie tradition where the Asvins (RV 1 0.39.3) are credited
with curing blindness with spells, fractures with knives and
emaciation with herbs. The evidence for tripartition is
particularly strong in Indie mythology where the divinities
Varuna, Rudra and the Asvins have clearly defined spheres of
disease and healing. Varuna, the god charged with maintaining
religious order punishes transgressors with debilitating
diseases, in particular dropsy ( jalodararoga -), which can only
be healed by prayers, the “tool” of the First Function. Rudra,
known in Vedic texts as the ‘first divine physician’ also inflicts
and cures disease. He is closely associated with Indra and the
second or warrior estate of IE social tripartition and he inflicts
disease with his arrows. In this and other features, he shares
parallels with the Greek Apollo who, in the Iliad (1.50) also
inflicts disease with his bow. Apollo is associated with the rat
(opivOog) while Rudra is closely associated with the mole
( akhu -) as is also the case with Apollo’s son Asklepios
{GK&Xoy). The third estate or function is connected with the
Asvins who undertake general curing, and who had a close
link with healing waters and herbal cures.
Other than the parallels already mentioned, the archetypal
Greek healer Asklepios (Pindar’s Third Pythian Ode 40-55)
apparently heals spontaneous sores with incantations,
weapon-inflicted wounds or injury from stone-throwing with
external medications or incision, and fevers with potions,
again reflecting both diseases and cures appropriate to the
social tripartition of society. Parallels may also be adduced
from Old Irish tradition where the physician Mlach ( Cath
Maige Tuired 33-35) restores a severed hand by incantation,
he is then killed by his father’s own sword stroke, and herbs
subsequently grow out of his grave.
In addition to evidence for an underlying medico-religious
system, there are occasional traces of common healing charms
found widely throughout the IE area. In Old Indie tradition
we find a charm in the Atharvaveda (4.12) for healing (a lame
horse?) where marrow is to be put to marrow, skin to skin
and flesh to flesh. In ninth to tenth century German tradition
we find in the Second Merseburg charm the words by which
various deities attempted to heal the sprain to Baldr’s horse:
Ben zi bena, bluot zi bluoda, lid zi geliden, sose gelimida sin
(‘bone to bone, blood to blood, limb to limb, so let them be
joined’) while the Irish physician Mlach ( Cath Maige Tuired
34.135-136) attempts to rejoin the severed arm of Nuadu
376 —
MEHRGARH
with the incantation ault fri halt di & feith fri feth (‘joint to
joint of it, and sinew to sinew’) . The antiquity of this charm
is insured by its presence in a Hittite-Luvian document (CTH
760) where the spells of the “Old Woman” conclude: “bone
to bone is fitted, sinew to sinew is fitted, blood to blood is
fitted’. Traces of this charm are also found in the traditions of
Norway, England, Russia and Greece.
A second widely attested medical solution to a problem
concerns cures for baldness. In Indo-European cosmology
where the universe is created from the parts of a primordial
giant, plants are formed from the giant’s hair. There appears
to be a specific relationship between grass and hair within
this system with the former behaving like hair in that it is
long, appears on the surface (flesh = earth in the cosmogonic
system) and the two materials both grow longer. This nexus
of associations helps explain not only the widespread beliefs
concerning disposal of hair in the ground (as if it were a plant)
but also the cures for baldness. The Atharvaveda (6. 136-137)
describes how baldness should be cured by sprinkling the
remains of a plant with strong roots on the head while Pliny
( Natural History 26.30) recommends the application of
ladanum , an extract from the Cistus plant. Germanic folk
practice advises the use of burdock root and fireweed to restart
the growth of hair through the nourishment of plants. The
persistence of such cures until today hardly requires comment.
In the cure for baldness and other maladies or injuries,
there is clear evidence that the etiology of Indo-European
disease required the application of the cosmogonic principles
to restore the “wholeness” of the individual. As the universe
was created from the body of a giant, the appropriate members
or parts of the body possessed correlates in the material world
which might then be applied for their restitution. The
Atharvaveda , for example, explains the healing properties of
the Arundhati plant (AV5.5) from the fact that the first man’s
(Yama’s) horse spattered blood on it which can then, in turn,
be employed to restore broken limbs in a horse (A V 4.12).
Similarly, healing plants and herbs are attributed to the
dismembered parts of a primeval Irish healer, Dian Cecht, or
a primeval Iranian ox, the herbs’ efficacy being related to the
particular body part from which it originally derived.
Finally, comparative evidence also suggests a recurring
pattern of removal of a disease or infestation from the body
of the diseased. In the Indie cure (A V2.33.6) for the decaying
disease yaksma, it is charmed out of the body from the bones
to the marrow to the sinews to the veins and out the
extremities (hands, fingers and then nails) while an Old Saxon
charm drives the ‘worm’ of disease out from the marrow, to
bone, to flesh, to skin, and then out through the sole of a
horse’s hoof. Corresponding examples can be found in Slavic
and Iranian traditions which again show how the cosmogonic
dissection of the universe is brought to bear to restore health.
Hence, one drives the disease from the central core, the bone
and marrow (stone) through the flesh (earth) and blood
(water) and out one of the extremities. The restitution of
health, in short, constitutes a restoration of the cosmic
“wholeness” to revive that of the body.
See also Anatomy; Bund; Cosmology; Deaf; Defect; Hernia;
Measure; Medical God; Sick. ID.Q.A., J.PM.I
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1945). La doctrine medicale des lndo-E:uropeens
RHR 130, 5-12.
Lincoln, B. (1986) Myth, Cosmos and Society. Cambridge, Mass,
Harvard University Press.
Puhvel, J. (1970) Mythological reflections of Indo-European
medicine, in Indo-European and Indo-Europeans , ed. G.
Cardona, H. Hoenigswald and A. Senn, Philadelphia, 369-382.
Watkins, C. (1975) Sick maintenance in Indo-European. Indo-
European Studies He d. C. Watkins, Cambridge, Mass , 379-
387.
Watkins, C. (1995) How to Kill a Dragon. New York, Oxford
University Press.
Zysk, K. G. (1992) Reflections on an Indo-European healing
tradition, in Perspectives of Indo-European Language, Culture
and Tradition (Festschrift Polome), vol. 2, JIES Monographs, 321—
336.
MEET
•mod- ‘meet’. \IEW 746-747 ( *mdd-)\ Wat 43 (*mod-)\
Buck 19.65], ON mceta ‘meet’, mot ‘meeting, public assembly’,
OE metan ‘meet’ (> NE meet), gemot 'meeting, public
assembly’ (> NE moot), OHG muoten ‘meet as enemies’, MHG
muoze ‘meeting, public assembly’, Goth ga-motjan ‘meet’, Arm
matc‘i- (< *mad-e-ske/o-) ‘approach’. At least a word of the
west and the center of the IE world.
See also Find. [M.N.]
MEHRGARH
Long lasting settlement in Baluchistan spanning the period
Irom c8000 to 2500 BC. The site is of critical importance for
determining the origins of the Neolithic economy in the Indian
borderlands. Already by the eighth millennium BC there is
evidence of einkorn ( Triticum monococcum), emmer
( Triticum dicoccum), bread wheat ( Triticum durum/
aestivum), and barley ( Hordeum \mlgare) along with utensils
such as sickle blades and grinding stones. Initially, the primary
mammalian fauna was hunted, e.g., chinkara (gazelle) ( Gazella
dorcas), wild sheep, wild goat, swamp deer ( Cervus
duvauceli), nilgai or blue bull ( Boselaphus tragocamelus) and
wild cattle ( Bos namadicus). Through time the percentage of
cattle, sheep and goat increases at the expense of wild fauna.
Domestic goat may have been kept from the very beginning
of the site.
The importance of Mehrgarh is that it appears to exhibit a
local transition to agriculture or, at least, a transition that was
almost as early as that experienced in western Asia and
Anatolia. For those who propose that the Indo-Europeans
spread with the expansion of early agricultural communities,
Mehrgarh renders it unlikely that the earliest farmers in the
territory of later Indo-Aryans and those of the west, e g.,
— 377 —
MEHRGARH
Anatolians, southeast Europeans, would have had any cause
to have spoken the same language. Rather, it makes it more
likely that the Harappan culture or Indus Valley civilization
was rooted both economically and perhaps linguistically (i.e.,
a non-Indo-European language) in local developments of the
region.
Mehrgarh also plays a prominent role in arguments for
later Indo-Aryan migrations to India. In Mehrgarh 7 (and also
at the site of Sibri) there have been found graves which have
been regarded as intrusive from the Bactrian-Margiana
Archaeological Complex (BMAC) which a number of other
scholars have suggested is to be identified with Indo-Iranians.
Such evidence, dated to c 1800 BC, has been employed to
suggest the movement of Indo-Aryans into northwest India
in the late or final period of the Harappan culture.
See also BMAC; Harappan Culture;
Indo-Iranian Languages. [J.PM.l
MELT
*teh a - ‘to melt’. [IEW 1053-1054 ( *ta-)\ Wat 69 (*ta-)\
BK 1 1 1 ( *t[ h ]ah-/*t[ h ]9h-)] . Weis toddi (< *ta~ or *tau- ) ‘melt’,
Lat tabeo ‘melt’, ON peyja ‘thaw’, OE pawian ‘thaw’ (> NE
thaw), OHG douwen ‘thaw’ (Gmc *paujari), OCS tajQ ‘melt’,
Grk vrjK(o ‘melt’, Arm t‘anam (formation unclear) ‘moisten’,
Oss tajyn ~ tajun (< *tai~) ‘melt’. The Germanic forms
represent *pau- which may derive from *teh a -u-. Distribution
and formation clearly indicate a PIE root.
*(s)meld- ‘to melt’. [7EW718 ( *mel-d-)\ Wat 40 ( *mel -)] .
OE meltan ‘melt’ (> NE melt), OHG smelzan ‘melt’, Grk
fieXSofiai ‘melt’. The meaning ‘to melt’ is clearly derived from
a more general ‘dissolve’ (cf. ON melta ‘to malt, to digest’,
etc.) from PIE *mel-(d) ‘(become/make) soft’. A word of the
west and center of the IE world.
See also Ice, Soft. [R.S.PB.l
MESSAPIC LANGUAGE
Messapic is the designation usually given to the Indo-
European language of southeastern Italy, spoken by a series
of Iron Age peoples such as those designated by the Greeks
as Messapians or known locally as the Iapyges. Other peoples
of the region included the Apuli, Calabri, Daunii, Peucetii
and Sallentini. Messapian proper is attested in c 250 inscrip-
tions which date from the sixth to first centuries BC. The
inscriptions are short and generally comprise only the names
of the deceased inscribed on a gravestone but there is sufficient
evidence to indicate that they comprise an IE language, e.g.,
an inscription found at Vaste which includes the name of the
town Basta (cf. Grk (f)dcjrv ‘town’, OInd vbsati ‘dwells’), and
which, like a number of other inscriptions, begins klaohi
presumably ‘hear!’ (< *kleu- ‘hear’). Other possible words of
IE origin include Mess penke- ‘five’ (< *penk w e-). Mess
barzidihi ‘birch’ (< *bherhxgos). Ancient traditions held that
the ancestors of the speakers of Messapic (including their
immediate neighbors) had come to Italy in the not too distant
past from Illyria, the Adriatic coastal region of Croatia, Bosnia
Messapic a. Distribution of the Messapians (and Greek colonies)
— 378 —
METAL
and Albania, and modern linguistic tradition may be in
agreement. In fact, Messapic is considered by some to be the
best attested variety of Illyrian, a feat of little distinction as
Illyrian proper is virtually unattested. What we actually have
is a series of personal and place-names on both sides of the
Adriatic Sea whose similarity suggests a close genetic relation-
ship, e.g., Illyrian Aa^ioq and Messapic Dazes, Illyrian
AaiSuxq and Messapic Ladi - and Illyrian IJXarcop and
Messapic Plator-. The Peucetii are found in Apulia and also
northwest across the Adriatic in Libumia; Apuli is a tribal
name in southern Italy while Apulus is a personal name in
Illyrian territory; Dalmathus is a personal name in Messapia
which, it is claimed, corresponds to the Illyrian personal
names Dalmata and toponyms Dalmatas, Dalmana. Such
comparisons have been adduced to support the idea that the
Messapians spoke a dialect of Illyrian and that they migrated
to Italy sometime before the eighth century BC. In any case
Messapic represents a kind of IE that is quite independent of
the Italic languages and its Balkan relationships, whatever
they might be precisely, have been employed to suggest east
to west movements in the establishment of IE-speaking
populations in Italy.
See also Illyrian Language. [j.PM.l
Further Readings
De Simone, C. (1964) Die Messapischen Inschriften und ihre
Chronologie, in Die Sprache der Illyrier; zweiter Teil , ed. H.
Krahe, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1-152.
Haas, O. (1962) Messapische Studien. Heidelberg, Winter.
Huld, M. (1995) Grassmann’s law in Messapic. JIES 23, 147-155.
Radulescu, M.-M. (1994) The Indo-European position of Messapic.
JIES 22, 329-344.
METAL
*haei-es- ‘metal > copper > bronze’. [IEW 1 5-16 ( *aios-)\
Wat 4 ( *ayes-)\ GI 614 ( *Haye/os-)\ Buck 9.661 Lat aes
‘bronze, copper’, Umb ahesnes ‘copper mine’, Osc eisemim
‘copper mine’, ON eir ‘ore’, OE ar ‘ore’ (> NE ore), OHG er
‘ore’, Goth aiz ‘money, metal coin’ (< Germ *ayiz ), Av ayah-
‘metal (probably bronze)’, OInd ayas- ‘copper; iron’. The
geographical distribution assures PIE status for this word but
its underlying meaning is difficult to specify. Although the
Iranian form has sometimes been taken to indicate ‘iron’, there
are references in the Avesta (51 ,9b) to ayanha xsusta ‘molten
metal’ which accords far better with copper or a copper-alloy
than presuming the technology of cast iron for the early
Iranians. Reference to Mi0ra carrying a mace zardis ayanho
frahixt?m ‘cast of golden metal’ is surely a reference to copper
or bronze rather than iron. Similarly, in Old Indie the earlier
meaning of ‘copper’ for Ayas- is well attested, e.g., reference
to a milk vessel made out of ayas- without an admixture of
‘tin’ (Kapistha-Katha-Samhita 4,2; MaitrayanI Samhita 1,8,2),
which clearly indicates unalloyed copper in contrast to bronze
(an alloy of copper and tin) and in no way can be construed
as ‘iron’. Early Indie literature also reveals no word for ‘bronze’
but requires a circumlocution where both constituent ele-
ments are mentioned together. The absence of PIE terms for
either of the other two constituent elements of bronze, i e. ,
tin and arsenic, as well as the absence of a term for ‘alloy’ all
suggest that the IE metal term may predate bronze metallurgy.
The original referent was probably simply ‘metal’ which in
practical terms first meant ‘native copper’ or ‘smelted copper’,
then only later ‘bronze’. Among the Indo-Iranians *h a eies-
eventually came to mean ‘iron’ but in Germanic it came to
mean ‘ore’ suggesting that *h a eies- was a generic term and
not a specific element among a constellation of other metals.
?*hiroudh6s the red metal, i.e., copper’. [IEW 872-873
( *roudho-)\ GI 616-617 ( *r(e)ud h -), 773; Buck 9.661. ON
raudi ‘red iron ore’, OHG aruzzi ‘ore’, OCS ruda ‘ore, metal’,
Rus ruda'o re’, MPers rod ‘copper’, OInd loha- ‘copper’ (also
‘reddish; iron’). These are transparent and banal extensions
of *hireudh- ‘red’ and cannot be employed to reconstruct a
PIE ‘copper’. Lat rudus is frequently placed here but this s-
stem neuter actually means ‘lump’, the material, stone, bronze,
iron or lead, being identified by an attributive genitive saxl
‘of stone’, aeris ‘of bronze’, ferrl ‘of iron’, or plumbi ‘of lead’.
The true cognates of Lat rudus may lie with OE greot ‘gravel’
(> NE grit ) and Rus grudy ‘breast’. If so, we have evidence of
a borrowing on the part of pre-Latin from some IE language
of central Europe. The Sumerogram URUDU which provides
the Hittite form has frequently been linked to the PIE form
under the presumption that either it or a pre-Sumerian form
was borrowed into PIE. But this may well be a chance
similarity since PIE *hiroudhos is clearly an adjectival term
and the only solid term in PIE for ‘red’. In Hittite the
Sumerogram appears phonetically as kuwannu and is
probably related to Grk Kvavoq ‘blue’, perhaps with reference
to the color of copper ores, further suggested affinities such
as OCS svinec ‘lead’ and Lith svinas ‘lead’ (the latter a loan
from Slavic), are phonologically and semantically distant.
For the modem metallurgist, bronze is a generic term for
an alloy whose principal constituent is copper which is
coupled usually with tin, more rarely with arsenic. Lexically,
the terms for ‘bronze’ are late or are restricted to specific
regions. Myc ka-ko ‘bronze’, Grk x^Xxoq ‘bronze’, points to
a non-IE source, for PIE did not tolerate a root with both a
voiceless and an aspirated stop. Yet this word lacks the open
sonority and the characteristic suffixes of other “Aegean”
lexical items. The Greek word is perhaps related to Lith gelezis
‘iron’ and OCS zelezo 1 iron’, which themselves may be related
to Sino-Tibetan *qhleks ‘(cast) iron’, though the direction and
details of the borrowing are obscure. The Hittite word for
‘bronze’ is indicated by a Sumerogram ZABAR but its phonetic
equivalent is unknown. Lat cuprium ‘Cypriot’ came to mean
the raw material found on Cyprus as native copper (it has
been suggested that the name KvTrpoq ‘Cyprus’ was derived
from Hurrian kabali ‘copper’), and gave rise not only to
Romance forms such as French cuivre , Spanish cobre and
Romanian cupru but also loans in Germanic such as OE copor
(>NE copper ), and NHG kupfer ‘copper’. Latv kapars is from
— 379 —
METAL
a Low Germanic trade language. The name of the town of
Brundisium, a leading center for the manufacture of bronze
mirrors, is the probable source of Italian bronzo ‘bronze’,
French bronze ‘bronze’ (borrowed > NE bronze ) as well as
Byzantine Grk fipovrricnov ; whether this word was carried
through Roman trade into the Near East (where for example
the Roman denarius remains today as the dinar of Bahrain,
Kuwait and Iraq) and resulted in Arm phnj ‘bronze’, NPers
birinj ‘bronze’ is unlikely for the phonetics are inexact and
more likely candidates occur in the Caucasus, i.e., Kartvelian
*pilenji , e.g., Georgian spilenji ‘bronze’. These and a variety
of other terms for copper and its alloys are clearly late, post-
P1E terms whose affinities are not always easy to determine.
Archaeological Evidence
Copper as a diacritic of early PIE culture has but limited
value as it occurs quite early and appears over a considerable
area of Eurasia already by c 3000-2500 BC. Copper could be
acquired either as a native metal, i.e., as pieces of metallic
copper, or through the reduction of copper ores to metallic
copper by smelting. Native copper could be worked into beads
or other small ornaments and tools through beating. In order
to strengthen the copper, annealing is required whereby the
copper is subjected to temperatures of c 200-400 C although
annealing might be achieved as low as 150 C.
Copper is already present at Qatal Huyiik in Anatolia by c
7000-6000 BC. Copper beads were found in association with
slag which may have derived from either the melting of native
copper or the smelting of copper ore (it is exceedingly difficult
to distinguish the two processes). By the fifth millennium BC
copper objects are known from both Iran and the Balkans.
Copper mines dating from the fifth millennium BC are known
at both Rudna Glava in Yugoslavia and Ai Bunar in Bulgaria
and the Vinca and east Balkan Eneolithic cultures reflect the
consumption of copper in the form of axes, awls and orna-
ments. Copper exchange systems are in evidence where the
Balkan centers supplied the area northwest of the Black Sea,
e.g., the Karbuna hoard in Moldova of the fourth millennium
BC which yielded over 850 copper objects, and copper objects
of Balkan derivation are found across the entire European
steppe region, notably in the cemeteries at Khvalynsk on the
middle Volga. The steppe region was also served by the
development of copper-working in the Caucasus and by the
beginning of the early Bronze Age a local copper center was
established in the southern Urals associated with the Yamna
and neighboring cultures. Further east, copper appears in
the Afanasevo culture in the Minusinsk-Altai region where
another major copper and bronze industry would later
emerge.
From the Balkans we can trace the spread of copper
elsewhere in Europe. It was employed in the Eneolithic
Tiszapolgar and Bodrogkeresztur cultures in the Danube
region, and in northern Italy by the late fourth millennium
BC. Copper was exported northwards from central Europe
into the Baltic region by the period of the TRB culture where
it may have been used in exchange to acquire flint. A
particularly thriving copper industry developed in Iberia also
by the fourth millennium BC. In Atlantic Europe, copper is
often associated with the Beaker horizon which appears by c
2500 BC, and copper mines are known as far west as Ireland
by the late third millennium BC. From this pattern, it should
not be surprising that a considerable number of stocks share
a common word for ‘copper’ or ‘metal’ although it is still very
much uncertain whether the distribution of its lexical cognates
was a product of expansion from an early copper-using center
or whether a common term circulated over a wide area of
closely associated IE dialects.
See also Gold; Iron; Lead 2 ; Silver; Tin. (M.E.H., J.PMJ
Further Readings
Chernykh, E. N. (1992) Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Rau, W (1973) Metalle und Metallgerate im vedischen Indien. Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur , Mainz, 1973, 8.
MIDDLE
*(s)me ‘middle, among’. [IEW 706-707 ( *medhi-)\ Wat
39 (*me-); GI 58; Buck 12.371. Alb me ‘with’, Av mat
‘(together) with’, OInd smaCwith’; *me-th a -: ON med'with’,
OE mid ~ mip ‘with’, OHG mit(i) ‘with’, Goth mip ‘with,
among’, Alb mjet ‘middle’, Grk gem ‘with, among’; and the
widespread derivative *medhios ‘middle’: Mir mide ‘middle’,
NIr Mi (Irish county in the ‘middle’ of the island), Weis mewn
‘in’, Lat medius ‘what is in the middle, intermediary’, ON
midr ‘middle’, OE midd ‘middle’ (> NE mid), OHG mitti
‘middle’, Goth midjis ‘middle’, OPrus median ‘forest’, Lith
medzias ‘wood, tree’, Latv mezs ‘wood, forest’ (Baltic < *‘what
lies between [settlements]’), OCS mezda ‘street’, mezdu
‘between’, Rus meza ‘border’, Alb mjesdite ‘noon’, mjesnate
‘midnight’, Grk gee r(o)og ‘middle’, Arm me] ‘middle’, Av
maiSya- ‘middle’, OInd madhya- ‘middle’. Old in IE.
See also Adpreps. [D.Q.A.]
MIDDLE DNIEPER CULTURE
The Middle Dnieper culture is an eastern variant of the
Corded Ware cultural horizon (c 3200-2300 BC) and was
situated primarily in the north Ukraine between the other
Corded Ware regional groups and the forest-steppe and steppe
zone cultures. The culture is known from over two hundred
sites, primarily tumulus barrows, some of which have been
inserted into earlier Yamna burials and the cultural substrate
is seen to be both Yamna and late Tripolye. Settlements are
poorly known but would appear to have been small villages
with surface dwellings. Burials were within kurgans with the
deceased usually in the extended, more rarely in the flexed,
position; there is also evidence of cremation from sites in
Belarus. The burials were accompanied by pottery (amphora
and beakers), stone battle-axes and possibly ornaments. Metal
imports appear in the late stages along with ornaments of
amber. As the primary contenders for staging areas of major
— 380 —
MILK
IE migrations are the Corded Ware culture and the Yamna
culture of the steppelands and forest-steppe, the Middle
Dnieper culture occupies a pivotal role in attempts to define
the interrelationships between these two vast cultural blocks.
The territory of the Middle Dnieper culture would appear to
have been later occupied by the Proto-Slavs.
See also Corded Ware Culture;
Fatyanovo-Balanovo Culture. (J.PM.]
MIDGE see FLY 1 , INSECTS
MILK
We can reconstruct a rich vocabulary for PIE concerning
milk and milk products, a testimony to the importance of
these things to a people who were heavily dependent on
animal husbandry for sustenance. In some stocks, Indo-
Iranian particularly, milk and its products come to be the
type example of both food and richness in general. Curiously .
perhaps, it is difficult to reconstruct the original PIE words
for ‘milk’ itself, most PIE stocks using derivatives of the
extremely widespread verb for milking.
*h a melg- ‘to milk’. [IEW 722-723 ( *meg -); Wat 41
{*melg-)\ GI 486 (*melK’-)\ Buck 5.86; BK 552 ( *mal -/
*m9l-)}. From pres. *h a melgti/*h a mlginti: Mir bligid (<
*mlig- < *mlg- ) ‘milks’, ON molka ‘milk’, mylkja ‘suck’, OE
melcan ‘milk’ (> NE milk), OHG melchan ‘milk’, Lith melziu
Middle Dnieper b. Decorated bowl; c. Bone hammer-head pin;
d. Bronze spearhead; e. Stone “battle-ax”; f. Bronze shaft-hole ax.
‘milk’, ORus mQlzu ‘milk’, Grk otfieXyco ‘milk’; from pres.
*h a molg6ie/o-: Mir bluigid (< *h a mlogeie/o- with metathesis)
‘milks’, Lat mulged ‘milk’, Lith malzyti ‘to milk’; from pres.
*h a molgeh a ~: Lith mAlzau ‘milk’, ToehA malka- ‘will milk’.
Cf. derived words for ‘milk’ (noun): Olr mlicht , ON mjolk,
OE meolc{> NE milk), OHG miluh, Goth miluks, OCS mleko,
Rus molokd (Slavic < Germanic), Alb mjel ‘milk’, TochA
malke , TochB malkwer. In Latin, perhaps also in Celtic, this
verb came to have, in addition to its basic meaning, a more
general one ‘bring to light, make public’, e.g., Lat promulgare
legem ‘to promulgate a law’. Widespread and old in IE. We
do not know the Hittite word for ‘to milk’; in Indo- Iranian
the original word has been replaced by a verb whose earlier
meaning was ‘to make/become useful’.
*gQ)l£kt (gen. *giakt6s) ‘milk’. [IEW 400-401 ( *glag- ~
*glak-)\ Wat 41 (*g(a)lag- ~ (g(a)lakt-)\ GI 85; Buck 5.87].
Lat lac (gen. lactis) (< *lakt < *dlakt with regular reduction
of dental stop + -l- cluster < *glakt with regular dissimilation)
‘milk’, Grk yctXxx (gen. yaXaKioq) ‘milk’ (with generalization
of the Lindeman variant *gllakt), yXoaczocpayog ‘living on milk’
(without the *-twe have yhxK&vreg [pi.] ‘full of milk’, yXdyog
[With voicing assimilation] ‘milk’). Hit galaktar (= /glaktar /)
‘sap, milky fluid from trees and plants’. Since Latin, Greek,
and Hittite are all centum languages the reconstructed initial
is ambiguous; it could be *g- or *g~. If the latter, it is very
— 381 —
MILK
tempting to add the various Nuristani words for ‘milk’: Ashkun
zo, Kati zu, Tregami dzor, Waigali zor. These words reflect a
Proto-Nuristani *dzara-, Proto-Indo-Iranian *z(h)ara- or
*z(h)fra-. A *zfra- would match Grk yaXa exactly. There is
also an Ancient Chinese *lak ‘dairy product, cottage cheese,
or similar commodity, imported from northern barbarians’
that would appear to reflect an even older Chinese *g/krak
or the like and it has been suggested that this word reflects a
borrowing on the part of Chinese from some IE group in
eastern Central Asia. With or without the evidence from
Chinese, both the archaic morphological shape and the
geographical distribution would seem to guarantee this item
as at least a regional word in PIE. Possibly the original noun
‘milk’ since it has no known root connections within PIE.
*dh6dhhii (gen. *dhedhn6s ) ‘± coagulated (sour) milk’.
[7EW241-242 ( *dhedhn-)\ GI 487], OPrus dadan ‘milk’, Alb
djathe ‘cheese’, OInd dadhi ‘coagulated milk, thick sour milk,
curds and whey’. A reduplicated derivative of *dhehi(i)-
‘suck(le)’. Related are the unreduplicated Grk Srfviov ‘milk’,
Arm del ‘colostrum, milky liquid’. At least a word of the center
and east of the IE world.
*ksih x rdm ‘± (skim) milk, whey’. [GI 487], Alb hirre (<
*ksih x r-neh a - ) ‘whey’, MPers/NPers sir ‘milk’, Yidgha xSira
‘milk’, Oss aexsyr' milk’, OInd ksiram ‘(thickened) milk, milky
sap’. A word of the center and east of the IE world. If *ksih x ro-
is metathesized from *skih x rom it might be possible to connect
this word with Lith skiedziu ‘weaken, dilute’, skystas ‘fluid,
liquid; thin (of soup)’, Latv spiedu ‘dissipate’ [cf. IEW 921
( *skei-d-)] but the connection is obviously most speculative.
*pipih x usih a - rich in milk’. \ IEW 7 93 ( *pi-pi-us-i)\ BK 40
( *p[ h ]a-/*p[ h ]d-)] . Lith papijusi ‘cow who produces milk’, Av
a-pipyusi ‘milkless’, OInd pipyusi ‘rich in milk’. At least a
word of the center and east of the IE world. A participle of
*peihx- ‘be swollen, overflowing’, other derivatives of which
are *pih x uf ‘fat(ness)’, Lith pienas ‘milk’, Latv piens ‘milk’,
Av paeman - ‘mother’s milk’, OInd payas- ‘milk’.
?*(k)syeid - ‘milk’. I IEW 1043 ( *sueid -)]. Lith sviestas
‘butter’, Latv sviests ~ sviests ‘butter’ (Baltic < *(k)sueid-to-
*± milk product’?), Av xsvid- ‘milk’. It is not certain that the
Baltic and Iranian words belong together. If they do, we have
evidence for a word of the center and east of the IE world.
??*gh(e)rto-‘± milk’. [JEW 446 ( *gherto-)\ GI 486; cf. Buck
5.89]. Mir gen ‘product of cattle (not calves) but especially
milk and manure’, OInd ghfta- ‘cream, butter, ghee’. An
equation that is both phonologically and semantically less
than perfect; very dubiously a PIE word.
*t6nkj (gen. *tpklds) ‘buttermilk’. [ IEW 1068 ( *t(e)nk -
lo-rri)\ cf. Wat 70 ( *tenk -)]. ON pel ‘buttermilk’, MPers taxr
‘bitter’ (< *‘sour’), OInd takram ‘buttermilk mixed with water’.
From *tenk- ‘become firm, curdle, thicken’. Though attested
only on the fringes of the IE world, and there only late, there
is a reasonable chance that we have in these attestations the
reflexes of a PIE word.
?*r£ughmen- 1 cream’. [IEWS73 (*reugh-m(e)n-)-, cf. Buck
5.89]. ON rjumi ‘cream’, OE ream ‘cream’ (> NE ream), OHG
raum ‘cream’ (OE and OHG < *roughmo~), Av raoyna- butter’
(< *reugh(m)n-o- ‘pertaining to cream’). The apparent
agreement of Germanic and Iranian suggests but does not
guarantee PIE status for this word.
*hj£ng w {i ‘butter’. [IEW 779 (*pg y -en-); Wat 46
( *ong w -)\ GI 609 (*ong^ 0 -); Buck 5.89], OIr imb ‘butter’,
Weis ymenyn ‘butter’, Lat unguen ‘fat, grease’, OHG ancho
‘butter’, OPrus anctan ‘butter’. Cf. OInd anjas- ‘ointment’. A
word of the west and center of the IE world. From *hjeng w -
*tudhxf (gen. *tuh x rds) ‘curds, curdled milk’. [/EW1083
( *tQro-)\ Buck 5.88] . OCS tvarogu ‘curdled milk’, Rus tvorog
‘curds, soft cheese’, Grk r vpog ‘cheese’, ( fomvpoi ; ‘butter’
(> Lat butyrum , whence ultimately NE butter ), Av tuiri-
‘curdled milk, whey’. This looks to be a nominal derivative of
-382 —
MILLET
an underlying verb *tueh x - which, however, is otherwise
unknown (it is sometimes connected with *teu(h a )- ‘swell,
grow strong’ — from the notion of the curds “swelling” in the
whey?). At least a word of the center and east of the IE world.
The identification of milking and dairy products in pre-
history rests in general on secondary evidence that is fre-
quently disputed. The earliest milked animal was probably
the goat or the sheep, the former providing the greater quantity
of milk. Iconographic evidence from the eastern Mediter-
ranean suggests that cattle were milked only after goat and/
or sheep dairying had been established as the earliest cattle-
milkers are depicted to the rear of the animal (as one might
milk a goat) rather than at the side as one customarily milks
a cow.
That sheep and goats may have been milked since the early
Neolithic is rarely disputed unlike the evidence for exploiting
cattle for milk which is a common cultural and also mythic
motif among many IE stocks. Arguments for cattle dairying
rests primarily on two lines of evidence. The first is the age-
slaughter pattern of livestock where it has often been assumed
that calves were competitors for milk with humans and thus
a dairying economy would be indicated where there is
evidence of a very high slaughter pattern of calves. Such
criteria, however, may be proceeding from an invalid
assumption and there is also considerable ethnographic
evidence among African cattle-milking populations and early
medieval European sources to argue that in prehistoric and
early historic times cows would not give milk in the absence
of their calves. Some empirical evidence, such as the
examination of animal remains from historically attested dairy
economies such as that of early medieval Ireland, suggests
that the latter may well be true and hence most claims for
Neolithic cattle dairying on the basis of the slaughter of young
animals may not be secure.
The second group of evidence is technological and rests
primarily on the presence of a series of clay strainers (and for
the Bronze Age, “milk boilers” and open strap-handled vessels)
which were presumed to be part of the dairy economy. The
identification of the function of these utensils is based largely
on their similarity with modem metal strainers which were
employed, for example, in separating curds from whey. As
fragments of ceramic strainers have been found on early
Neolithic sites in central Europe, e.g., Linear Ware sites, it
has been suggested that the raising of cattle for their dairy
products as well as their meat was known already in the early
Neolithic. But it should be emphasized that the modern
strainers which suggest this interpretive scheme are employed
in the production of cheese from sheep’s milk and there is no
reason to assume that they must have been utilized for cow’s
milk in the early Neolithic. Generally, on the evidence of age-
slaughter pattern and similar strainers, and the increase in
the numbers of cattle in some areas, the origins and dispersion
of cattle-based dairying is set to the period c 3500 BC, i.e., at
the transition from the late Neolithic to the Bronze Age, when
a series of other “secondary products” such as the use of
animals for draught, the plow, and the appearance of woolly
sheep are recorded.
Dairying, at whatever date, has certain genetic implications
as well as economic. Many of the world’s populations, after
the age of four, do not produce sufficient quantities of the
enzyme lactase which breaks down lactose (milk sugar). The
consumption of milk by an adult who cannot process the
lactose results in a variety of unpleasant side-effects —
flatulence, belching, upset stomach, and extreme diarrhoea.
The enzyme is present among populations of Europe and
north Africa extending eastwards to east India but even here
there are large areas where people are lactose intolerant, e.g.,
about half the population of the Mediterranean. Some have
argued that the gene for producing lactase developed in
northwest European populations, when their diets shifted to
cereal agriculture in an environment low on sunlight. The
consumption of milk, which is high in calcium and would
have helped mitigate against vitamin D deficiency, would have
presented them with a selective advantage. Those lacking the
necessary enzyme can still consume cattle-based dairy
products provided that they have been processed to make
butter or cheese.
See also Anatomy; Cow; Food; Goat; Sheep
[D.Q.A.J. P M.]
Further Readings
Bogucki, P (1986) The antiquity of dairying in temperate Europe.
Expedition 28,2, 51-58.
McCormick, E (1992). Early faunal evidence for dairying. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 11, 201-209
Sherratt, A. (1981) Plough and pastoralism. Aspects of the Secondary
Products Revolution, in Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of
David Clarke , eds. 1. Hodder, G. Isaac and N Hammond,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 261-305.
MILLET
?*melh 2 - ± grain, millet’. 1/EW718 ( *mel~i-/ *meln-es)\
Wat 40-41 ( *meh-)\ Gl 567-568 (*me/-); BK 518 ( *mul -/
*mol~) 1. Lat milium ‘millet’, Lith malna (mostly pi. malnos)
‘row of mown grain or grass; Italian millet’, Grk geXivri ‘millet’.
It may be that these are all rather banal derivatives of *melh 2-
‘grind’, in which case the apparent agreement of these three
stocks is not very significant. It is, however, also possible that
the Latin and Greek words reflect different derivational
enlargements of a PIE *melh2i- or even, as the IE W supposes,
that all three reflect different rebuildmgs of a heteroclitic
(nom./acc.) *melh2i,( gen.) *melh2nos. Certainly the presence
of the latter type of paradigm would be strong evidence for
the existence of this word in PIE but positing such a paradigm
would be speculative.
?*pano-~ *paniko/eh a - millet’, [cf. 1 EW 789J. Lat panicum
‘millet’ (borrowed > NE panic grass), Shughni pinf ‘millet’,
Sarikoli pen]' millet’, Khufi rusbinj(< *rusta- ‘reddish’ + word
for millet) ‘a kind of millet’, Yaghulami xarhan ‘millet,
(particularly Panicum halicum)', Wanji xarban ‘millet,
— 383 —
MILLET
(particularly Panicum halicum)' (both < Proto-Iranian *xarda-
pana- ‘± black/dark millet’). The apparent agreement of Latin
and the lexically conservative Iranian languages of the Pamir
region makes probable, but not certain, the (late) PIE status
of this word.
Unlike wheat and barley, millet does not seem to have been
part of the initial “package” of cereals introduced by the earliest
farmers of the Near East into Europe although it does appear
on later Neolithic settlements. Its origins are uncertain but
the evidence points to Central Asia rather than the Near East
where certain evidence of its exploitation as a domesticate
begins only in the first millennium BC. It is known much
earlier in eastern and central Europe, for example, on sites of
the Linear Ware and Tripolye cultures as well as further east
in the Dnieper Donets and Sredny Stog cultures. It is also
recorded from western Siberia by about the fourth millennium
BC. Other than a possible middle Neolithic exception, millet
does not seem to appear on Greek sites until the early Bronze
Age and it tends to appear similarly late, late Neolithic or
Bronze Age, elsewhere in the Mediterranean or in Switzerland.
It appears on the frontiers of India by the third millennium
BC while foxtail millet ( Setaria italica) is known from the
Harappan culture.
Millet is regarded as one of the hardiest cereals since it can
prosper in desiccated environments on poor soils, and for
this reason some have proposed that it expanded along the
steppe which accounts for its prominent appearance in
cultures north of the Black and Caspian seas. It was consumed,
boiled like rice or ground as porridge.
See also Agriculture; Grain. [D.Q.A., J.P.M.]
MINNOW see FISH
MISTLETOE
*yikso- ‘mistletoe, birdlime’. [7£W 1134 (*yl/cs-); GI 555
( *wik h s-)\ . Lat vi scum ‘birdlime’, OHG wichsila ‘black cherry
( Prunus cerasus)', Rus visnja ‘cherry’, Grk itgog ‘mistletoe’.
This dialectal form is mainly supported by the Latin and
Greek cognates although the latter primarily denotes the
golden, parasitic plant which cloaks the wand of druids and
shamans discussed in James Frazer’s The Golden Bough,
whereas in the former stock the primary meaning is ‘birdlime’,
a kind of sticky stuff smeared on branches by fowlers to catch
(perching) birds. Viscum, incidentally, is the source of NE
viscous. The classical language forms have been linked to
Germanic and Slavic although the two latter stocks all yield
the meaning ‘cherry’. Given the low similarity between the
mistletoe and the cherry (granted that both bear berries) and
the absence of any information on the value of any part of the
cherry for making birdlime or glue, the Germanic and Slavic
forms must be questioned and *uikso- be classified as very
late and dialectally limited.
See also Grove; Oak; Plants; Trees. [PE]
MIX
*ieuhx- 1 mix something moist’. [ IEW 507 ( *ieu-)\ Wat 79
( *yeud-)\ Gl 608 (*ieu-s-)]. Olr ith ‘pottage’, MWels iwd
‘porridge’, Lat ius ‘sauce, soup’, OPrus juse ‘fish-soup’, Lith
jauti ‘mix, entangle’, Latv jam ‘mix, mix dough’, Grk £vpq
‘leaven’, OInd yauti ‘binds, unites’, yds- ‘soup, broth’. The
zero-grade of the root provides the base for the nominal forms
meaning ‘soup’ or ‘porridge’. Distribution suggests PIE status.
*kerhx~ ‘mix’. [ IEW 582 ( *kera-)\ Wat 30 (*kera-), Buck
5.17]. ON hroera ‘move, stir’, OE hreran ‘move, stir’, OHG
hruojan ‘move, stir’, Grk Kipvrjpi ‘mix’, Av sar- ‘associate with,
mix with’, OInd srinati ‘mixes, mingles’. Cf. the participle
*krfrx-to-s attested in Grk a-Kpazog ‘unmixed, pure’, and
OInd snta - ‘mixed’. The Old Indie form is unexpected but
may be explained as an attempt to avoid homophony with
sfnati ‘smashes’. Both Greek and Old Indie show a nasal infix
for the present stem. Distribution supports PIE status for this
word.
*meil c-‘mix’. [/JEW714 (*me/-/c-); Wat 40 ( *meik-)\ Buck
5.17]. Olr mescaid ‘mixes, agitates, troubles’, Weis mysgu
‘mix, mingle’, Lat misced ‘mix’, OE miscian ‘mix’, OHG misken
‘mix’, Lith migsti ‘mix’, Latv maisit ‘stir, mix’, OCS mesiti ‘mix’,
Grk piayo) (< *meig- ) ‘mix’, Av minasti ‘mixes’, OInd
meksayati ‘mixes, stirs’. Celtic, Latin, Germanic (if the
Germanic words are not ultimately loans from Lat misced )
and Greek all exhibit the suffix *-ske/o- while the Old Indie
causative is based on a s-extension of the root. Distribution
indicates PIE status.
See also Broth I M . N . ]
MOAN
*sten- ‘moan’. [IEW 1021 ( *(s)ten-)\ Wat 66 (*(s)tena-)j.
ON stynr ‘moaning’, OE stenan ‘moan, Lith stenu ‘moan’,
OCS stenjQ 1 moan’, Grk crrevftTroar’, OInd stanati ‘thunders’.
Cf. Rus ston ‘moaning’, Grk erzovog ‘moaning’, OInd abhi-
stana- ‘din’. Sufficiently widespread to be a likely candidate
for PIE status. Related to *tenhx~ ‘thunder’.
See also Thunder. [D.Q.A.]
MONKEY
There is no reconstructible word for ‘monkey’ or ‘ape’ in
PIE although there are several borrowed forms that underlie
words in various IE languages. [IEW 2 ( *abo(n))\ GI 442
( *q h e/op h -); Buck 3.76] . Celtic (Hesychius) dppdvag
‘monkey, ape’, ON api ‘ape’, OE apa ‘ape’ (> NE ape), OHG
affo ‘ape’, ORus opica ‘monkey, ape’, Grk Krjnog ~ Kfjffog long-
tailed monkey’, OInd /cap/- ‘monkey’. The Greek and Indie
words are cognates by borrowing with other Near Eastern
words for ‘ape’ such as Hebrew qoph and Egyptian qephi but
what language was the ultimate donor and what the exact
route of transmission was remain unclear. The Germanic
words are generally taken to be borrowings from Celtic,
presuming dfipdvag, recorded by Hesychius, is a mistake
for dpavag. Again the ultimate source of the Celtic word is
not known, but surely it does not reflect anything PIE.
— 384
MOTHER
The only monkeys to survive in Europe up until the time
of humans was the macaque ( Macaca ) whose remains are
found from Britain to the Caucasus from five million years
ago to c 200,000 BC. The Barbary ape (Macaca sylvanus ), if
not a relic, was re-introduced to Gibraltar from North Africa.
The earliest context for monkeys in Greece is their depiction
on the walls of Minoan palaces in Crete during the Bronze
Age. Their earliest appearance in west European contexts is
when they appear as the result of long-distance contacts,
presumably prestige gift-exchange, with North Africa. Barbary
apes have been uncovered from both Ireland and Luxembourg
in apparently “Celtic” (i.e., La Tene) contexts during the last
three centuries BC.
[D.Q.A., J.P.M.J
MOON
*louksneh a - ‘moon’. [IEW 687 ( *louk-s-no-)\ Wat 37 '
( *leuk-sna-)\ G1 591 ( *louk h sna-)\ Buck 1.53; BK 580
(*Iaw-/*hw-)\. Mir dia luain ‘Monday’ (or Latin loan?), Lat
luna (< *le/ouksna ) ‘moon’, OCS luna (< *louksna ) ‘moon’
(Latin loan?). A word meaning ‘shining, gleaming’ (cf. Av
raoxSna- ‘gleaming’) from the root *leuk- ‘light’, was no
doubt an epithet for the ‘moon’ and adopted by a few
languages as one of the words for the ‘moon’, e.g., Arm lusin
(< *le/oukenos ) ‘moon’. The OPrus (pi.) lauxnos means ‘stars’.
*m€hi-ndt ~ *mehi-n(6)s- ‘moon’. [IEW 731-732
( *menot)\ Wat 39 (*men-); Gl 590-591 ( *meH-s /
*me(H)-n-)\ Buck 1.53]. Olr mf month’, Weis mis(< *mens)
‘month’, Lat mensis (gen. pi. mensum ) ‘month’, ON mani
‘moon’, OE mona ‘moon’ (> NE moon), OHG mano ‘moon’,
Goth mena ‘moon’ (cf. ON manadr ‘month’, OE monaja
‘month’ (> NE month), OHG manot ‘month’, Goth menojas
‘month’), Lith menuo ‘moon, month’, Latv minesis ‘moon’,
OCS mespci (< *mes-n-ko-) ‘moon, month’, SC mjesec
‘month’, Alb muaj (< *mdn- < *men-) ‘month’, Grk pqv
‘month’, Arm amis ‘month’, Av mi (= maah) ‘moon, month’,
OInd mis- ‘moon, month’, TochA man ‘moon, month’, TochB
mene ‘moon, month’. Lithuanian probably retains the old
paradigm *mehindt, (acc) *mehines-iji, (gen.) *meh ins-os
(with retraction of the stress according to Hirt’s Law).
Germanic generalized the t-stem, but the loss of -t in the
nominative stimulated the creation of an n-stem; the t-stem
was retained in the plural, where the meaning ‘month’ occur-
red most often. Arm amis has been contaminated by am- ‘year’.
Indo-lran *maas< *mehiQs-. From *mehi- ‘to measure’.
*(s)kend- ‘moon’. [IEW 526 ( *(s)kend-)\ Buck 1.531.
MBret cann (< *k$d-) ‘full moon’ (cf. Weis cann ‘brilliant’),
Alb (Gheg) bane ‘moon’, (Tosk) hene (< *skondna) ‘moon’,
OInd candra-rnas ‘the Moon (god)’, Sindhi candru ‘moon’.
Grk xavSccpog ‘charcoal’ does not belong here. From the root
*(s)kend- ‘shine’.
Within the structure of reconstructed IE cosmogony, the
moon tends to be derived from the mind or from the seat of
thought, the breast. Unlike most of the other cosmogonic
transformations, e g., wind is from the breath (of a primordial
giant), the heavens are from the head, the association between
the moon and human anatomy, found in Indie, Greek, Slavic
and Romanian sources, lacks a transparent connection. Bruce
Lincoln has suggested that it may have been motivated in
early IE times on the (?vague) phonological similarity between
*mehi-ndt~ *meh}-n(e)s- ‘moon’ and *men- ‘to think, mind’
and its extensions.
See also Cosmology. [R.S.P.B.]
Further Readings
Beekes, R. S. P (1982) GAv ma, the PIE word for ‘moon, month’ and
the perfect participle. J/ES 10, 53-64.
Lincoln, B. (1986) Myth, Cosmos, and Society. Cambridge, Mass.,
Harvard University Press.
MORNING see EARLY
MOSQUITO see FLY 1
MOSS
*mius( gen. *musdts) ‘moss, mould’. [IEW 742 ( *meus-)\
Wat 42 ( *meus-)\ Gl 572 (*m(e)us-)l. Lat muscus ‘moss’,
ON mosi ‘moss’, myrr(< *meusi-) ‘mould’, Dan (dial.) musk
‘mould’, OE meos ‘moss’, mos ‘bog, marsh’ (> NE moss), OHG
mos ‘moss, bog’, mios ‘moss’, Lith (pi.) musos ‘mould’, (pi.)
musaE mould on soured milk’, ORus rndchd ‘moss’, Rus mokh
‘moss’. Restricted to the west and center of the IE world.
Probably a late and dialectally restricted word in IE.
See also Plants. ]D.Q.A.]
MOTHER
*meh a t£r( or *meh a ter or *mitif)( gen. *meh a tr6s) mother’.
[IEW 700-701 ( *mater-)\ Wat 39 ( *mater -); Gl 667
( *maHt h er-)\ Buck 2.36; Szem 2; Wordick 103-104], Olr
mathair mother’, Lat mater ‘mother’, Osc maatreis ‘mother’,
Umb mater- ‘mother’, ON modir 1 mother’, OE modor ‘mother’
(> NE mother), Fris moder ‘mother’, OHG muoter ‘mother’,
OPrus mothe ‘mother’, Lith mote ‘mother’ (later ‘wife’), Latv
mate ‘mother’, OCS mati ‘mother’, Rus mat! ‘mother’, Czech
mati ‘mother’, Grk p-qr r\p ‘mother’, Doric pdtnip ‘mother’,
Phryg garccp ‘mother’, Arm mayr' mother’, Av matar- ‘mother’,
OPers matar- ‘mother’, Sogd m ’(‘mother’, Oss maed ‘mother’,
OInd matar- ‘mother’, TochA macar ‘mother’, TochB macer
‘mother’. The stress pattern we find in Indie and Germanic
for ‘mother’ is probably analogical to that of ‘father’ and
‘daughter’. Derivatives: Weis modreh ‘mother’s sister’, Alb
moter{< *meh a tr-eh a - ‘[maternal] sister') ‘sister’. The PIE word
for ‘mother’.
*h^en- (or *an ) ‘(old) woman, mother’. [/£W36 ( *an-)\
Wat 2 ( *an -); BK 454 ( *an y -)\ . Olr Ana ‘mother of the gods’,
Lat anus ‘old woman’, Hit annas ‘mother’, Palaic annas
‘mother’, Luv anna/i - ‘mother’, Lydian ena- ‘mother’, Lycian
ene/i ‘mother’. A word, probably ultimately derived from
child-language, which is widespread and old in IE. Only in
Anatolian and Armenian is this word phonologically distinct
385
MOTHER
from *hzen - ‘grandmother’ as seen in OHG ana ‘grandfather 1 ,
Goth and ‘grandmother’, OPrus ane ‘female ancestor’, OCS
vunpku ‘grandfather’, Rus vnuk ‘grandfather’ (Proto-Slavic
*ononko- < *h2en-h2en-ko -), Grk avvig (Hesychius)
‘grandmother’, Arm ban ‘grandmother’, Hit hannas ‘grand-
mother’, Lycian xnnahe/i- ‘of a grandmother 1 , OPers nyaka
(< *h2n-ieh a -keh a ~) ‘grandmother 1 . It seems likely that the
form of *hzen- ‘grandmother’ has been influenced by that of
*h2euh20S ‘grandfather’ (compare the alliterating pairs in
Hittite of alias annas ‘father and mother’ and huhhas hannas
‘grandfather and grandmother’.
*n-h^en- (or *n-an~?) ‘mother’. [IEW 754 ( *nana ), Wat
43 (*nana); BK 454 ( *an y -)\ . Weis nain ‘grandmother’, Late
Lat nonnus ‘nurse 1 , Alb nene ‘mother 1 , Rus njanja ‘nurse’, Grk
vavvr] ‘cousin, aunt 1 , NPers nana ‘mother 1 , OInd nans-
‘mother 1 . Possibly a reduplicated form of the previous entry
In any case, widespread and old in IE.
*h^em- (or *am~) ‘mother’. [IEW 36 ( *am(m)a ); Wat 2
( *amma)\ BK 439 ( *am(m)-/* 9 m(m)-)]. Late Lat amma
‘mother’, ON amma ‘grandmother 1 , OHG amma ‘mother 1 , Lith
amba ‘nurse 1 , Alb erne ‘mother’, Grk dppdg ‘mother’, OInd
amba ‘mother 1 , TochB amma-kki ‘mother 1 . Another word that
reflects child-language. By its widespread distribution, it is
likely to reflect a pet form for ‘mother’ of PIE age.
*m-h 4 em- (or *m-am -) ‘mother’. [IEW 694 (*ma ~
*mama)\ Wat 38 (*ma-)\ Buck 2.36; BK 439 ( *am(m )-/
* 9 m(m)-)\. NIr mam ‘mother’, Weis mam ‘mother 1 , Lat
mamma ‘breast; mommy, grandmother 1 , OHG muoma ‘aunt’,
Lith mama ‘mother’, Latv mama ‘mother’, Rus mama ‘mother’,
Alb meme ‘mother’, Grk pdppr 7 ‘mother’ (later ‘grandmother’),
Arm mam ‘grandmother 1 , NPers mam ‘mother 1 , OInd ma
‘mother’. Possibly a reduplicated form of the previous entry
and may obviously derive from the universally observed
pattern of children’s references to their mother, e.g., NE ma,
Chinese ma ‘mother’.
*h a ekkeh a - ‘mother’. [IEW 23 ( *akka)\ BK 417
(*ak[ h J(k[ h ])-/* 9 k[ h ](k[ h ])-)]. Lat Acca ‘mother’ (Roman
goddess), Grk ’Akkco (nurse of Demeter), OInd akka ‘mother’.
Although less widespread than many of the other popular
words for ‘mother’, it is possible that this one too is of (late)
PIE antiquity.
?*genhitrih a - ‘mother, procreatrix’. [IEW 374 ( *gen-)\ Wat
19 (*gend-)\ BK 275 ( *k’an-/*k’dn-)\. Lat genetrix ‘procreatrix 1 ,
Grk yevezeipa ‘procreatrix’, OInd janitn ‘procreatrix 1 . Since
the morphology is productive, it is not certain that these words
reflect a PIE ancestor.
The most common Indo-European term for ‘mother’ was
*meh a ter , a formation absent only in Hittite. Speculations on
whether this term was built on an existing semantic root or
derives from a common human tendency to use labials and
alveolars for parental terms is even more fruitless than most
etymological speculation of kinship terms although it has been
shown on a cross-language family basis that stops, nasals and
a- vocalisms predominate in the words for ‘mother’ and ‘father’.
If the deep etymology of PIE ‘mother’ is indeed only the ‘one
who gets addressed ma-ma 1 , then we might presume that the
reconstructed laryngeal is hardly etymological.
In addition to this formal term, PIE also possessed a number
of pet terms, *an- and *am- , identified by a-vocalism; often
these appear in variants ( *n-an- and *m-am -) which reflect a
peculiar reduplication in which the second consonant of the
stem is added to the beginning of the word. Finally, there
may also have been a biologically precise term, *genhitrih a -
‘progenitrix’ (if the Latin, Greek, and Old Indie words are not
independent creations). The need for a specific term for
biological mother suggests that the social term ‘mother’
included more than the biological mother, possibly the
mother’s sister and mother’s brother’s daughter.
See also Grandmother; Kinship; Sister. [M E. H.l
MOTHER-IN-LAW
*sydcruhaS ‘mother-in-law’. [IEW 1 04 3-1 044 ( *syekrQ-);
GI 662 ( *s°eR h ruH-)\ Buck 2.62; Szem 17-18; Wordick 1 90—
191f. Weis chwegr ‘mother-in-law’, Lat soems ‘mother-in-law 1 ,
ON svaera (< Gmc *swehrdn ) ‘mother-in-law’, OE sweger
‘spouse’s mother’, OHG swigar ~ swigur ‘mother-in-law’, Goth
swalhro ‘mother-in-law’ (< Gmc *swegrd ), Lith sesiure
‘mother-in-law’ (widely replaced by anyta ‘husband’s mother’),
OCS svekry ‘husband’s mother’, Rus svekrovl ‘husband’s
mother’, Alb vjeherr (< older vjeherre ) ‘mother-in-law’
(refashioned after *ueskuros ), Grk eicvpG ‘husband’s mother’
(refashioned after the masculine Etcvpog ), Arm skesur
‘husband’s mother’ (refashioned after masculine *skekuros ),
NPers xusru ‘father-in-law; mother-in-law’ (New Persian has
generalized the inherited words for both ‘father-in-law’ and
‘mother-in-law’ to both sexes), OInd svasrb- ‘mother-in-law’.
Wide distribution indicates PIE status.
The forms for parents-in-law undergo extensive deforma-
tion in virtually all Indo-European branches which makes
determining the original shape and nature of the velar stop
and the position of the accent difficult. It seems clear that the
word for ‘mother-in-law’ was derived from that of the ‘father-
in-law’ ( *suekuros ) and that the original feminine contained
a palatal stop and was an end-stressed u-stem. In Baltic, Greek
and Armenian, the feminine has been remodeled after the
masculine. Albanian has suffered regressive assimilation, while
Germanic has shifted the form to the typical ostems except
Norse which has a refashioned n-stem based on the masculine
with initial accent. The original u-stem is preserved only in
Italic, Slavic and Indie. An alternative explanation, suggested
by Uli Linke, analyzes the word as *sue- ‘own’ + *kruh a -
‘(outside) blood’, i.e., ‘own outside-blood-woman'. This
ingenious explanation, which is supported by evidence from
IE beliefs, unfortunately not only ignores the likelihood that
the feminine form is derived from the masculine but also the
palatal velar in the kinship term which is decidedly not present
in *kreuh a ‘(outside) blood’.
See also Father-in-law; Kinship ; Mother. [ME. H . , J . P M . 1
386 —
MOUTH
Further Reading
Linke, U. (1985) Blood as a metaphor in Proto-Indo-European. JIES
13, 333-376.
MOTHER’S BROTHER see UNCLE
MOULD see MOSS
MOUNTAIN see HILL
MOURN see GRIEVE
MOUSE
*mUs ~ *muss (gen. *mus6s ) ‘mouse’. [IEW 752-753
(*mus)\ Wat 43 ( *mus)\ GI 449 (*mQs-); Buck 3/63] . Lat
mus ‘mouse’, ON mus ‘mouse’, OE mus ‘mouse’ (> NE mouse),
OHG mus ‘mouse’, OCS mysl ‘mouse’, Rus mys ‘mouse’, Alb
mi ‘mouse’, Grk pvg ‘mouse’, Arm mukn ‘mouse’, NPers mus
‘mouse’, Oss myst ‘mouse’, OInd mus- ‘mouse’, TochB (pi.)
mascltsi ‘mice, rats’. Widespread and clearly old in IE. Possibly
originally a root noun, *‘the stealer’, from *meus- ‘steal,
remove’. A similar semantic association is perhaps to be seen
in Hittite where the word for ‘mouse’, kapirt, may reflect a
PIE *kom-bhir-t, a derivative of *bher-, usually ‘carry, bear’,
in its secondary meaning ‘steal’ (cf. Lat fur ‘thief’). An apparent
denominative verb, derived from the Proto-Anatolian ancestor
of kapirt, may exist in Lydian kabrdokid ‘steal’.
*p6lus (gen. *pQ)l6us ) ‘mouse’, [cf. IEW 804-805
(*pel-)]. Olr luch ‘mouse’, Weis llyg ‘mouse’ (Celtic
< *pluko-), Bulg plach ‘rat’, SC pu ‘dormouse’, Rus polokhok
‘dormouse’ (Slavic < *pUlxQ < *pluxu < *plukso-), Wakhi
purk ‘mouse’, Shughni purg ‘mouse’ (Iranian < *paruka- <
*peIuko-). The distribution of attestations suggests that we
have here at least a late PIE word for ‘mouse’ < *‘gray one’
(from *pel- i be gray’). OPrus pe/e- ‘mouse’, Lith pelt ‘mouse’,
Latv pele ‘mouse’ represent an independent Baltic creation
from the same root.
*glhils‘ dormouse?’. [IEW 367 (*g e li-)\. Lat glis ‘dormouse’,
Grk yaAep ‘weasel’ (< *‘± mouse r’; cf. Lat mustela ‘weasel’ <
*mus-dhers-leh a - ‘mouse-grabber’), Ormuri gilak ‘rat’,
Bakhtiari girza ‘rat’ (Iranian < *g\hiio-), Olnd giri-~ girika-
‘mouse’. Sufficiently widespread to reflect PIE age.
We evidently have three words that can be plausibly
reconstructed as meaning ‘mouse’ in PIE, *mQs, *pelus, and
*glhjis. If the distinction in Latin is anything to go on, one
might suggest translations as ‘mouse’ and ‘dormouse’
respectively for *mOs and *glhps, the latter including any
one of a group of species, among which we could number
the garden dormouse ( Eliomys quercinus), the forest dor-
mouse ( Dryomys nitedula), the fat dormouse (Glis glis), and
the common (= hazel) dormouse (Muscardinum avellanarius).
Such a distinction, however, is by no means certain and there
are at least nine other species of rodents, living in relevant
parts of Europe, that may well have been called ‘mouse’ by
early IE speakers. In all contemporary IE languages *mQs has
as the focal point of its meaning the species Mus musculus
which is ubiquitously commensal with man. However, it is
not altogether clear that that commensality had begun with
man in those parts of Europe where PIE may have been spoken
at the time when it was spoken. The rat, of course, is an animal
of Asia and only introduced into Europe in historically recent
times.
The distribution of the mouse covers all Eurasia; however,
it is very rarely attested on archaeological sites of the pre-
historic period, no doubt because it fulfilled no evident
economic role. Later, in early Greece, mice were employed
for both fortune-telling (Pliny) and medicinal purposes, e g,
mouse blood, cock’s gall and a woman’s milk was the
recommended remedy for cataracts according to Galen while
mouse blood also was used to cure warts (Hippocrates). Mice
also had broadly healing uses in Hittite ritual. In the folklore
of a number of IE stocks the mouse is conceived of as blind
and hence related to the mole.
See also Mammals; Medicine; Muscle, Steal. [D.Q.A., J.PM.l
Further Reading
Oettinger, N. (1995) Anatolische Etymologien. KZ 108, 39-49.
MOUTH
*hi/ 4 dhi(e)s- (gen. *hi/^ehis6s) ‘mouth’. [IEW 784-785
( *ous-)\ Wat 46 ( *os-); GI 714 ( *ois-)\ Buck 4.241. Mir a
‘mouth’, Lat os ‘mouth’, ON oss ‘mouth of river’, Hit a(y)is
(gen. issas< *i(hi/ 4 )hisds with prothetic vowel *-i-) ‘mouth’
(nom./acc. reflects putative PIE *hi/idh jes), Luv ass- ‘mouth’,
Av ah- ‘mouth’, Olnd as- ‘mouth’. Widespread and old in IE.
*h x oust-eh a - ‘mouth, lip’. [IEW 784-785 ( *aus-ta)\ Wat
46 ( *os-to-)\ GI 7 14 ( *ous-t h -)-, Buck 4.241 . Lat ostium ‘mouth
of a river’, OPrus austo ‘mouth’, Lith uosta ‘mouth of river’,
uostas ‘port, harbor’, Latv uosts ‘harbor’, ap-ausi
(< *-austio-) ‘halter’, OCS (pi.) usta ‘mouth’, ustina lip’, Rus
usttje (< *h x oustiiom) ‘mouth of river’, Av aost(r)a- ‘lip’, Olnd
ostha- (< *h x oust-h x -os) ‘lip’. The initial vowel in Latin,
Lithuanian, and Latvian (uosfs) has been influenced by that
of *hj/ 4 oh i os ‘mouth’. It is conceivable, . if not demonstrable,
that *hxOUst- is ultimately related to *h a ous- ‘ear’, perhaps
both from a more general meaning ‘± orifice’.
*stdmiji ‘mouth’. [IEW 1035 (*stomen-)\ Wat 67 (sta-
men-)-, Buck 4. 241 . Weis safn ‘jawbone’, Grk oropa ‘mouth’,
Hit istaman- ‘ear’, Luv tum(m)an(t)- ‘ear’ (Anatolian <
^orifice’), Avstaman- ‘maw’. The Germanic group represented
by NHG stimme ‘voice’ (<Proto-Gmc *stemno ‘voice’ [< *‘that
of the mouth’]) represents a derivative. Another derivative is
to be seen in Hit ista(n)h- ‘taste, try (food or drink)’ from PIE
*stem-h 2 ~.
*gheh a (u)-mf( gen -mnds) ‘interior of mouth (e.g., gums,
palate)’. [IEW 449 (*gheu-), Wat 23 (*gheu-)\ BK 234
(*ga-/*ga-)\. ON gomr ‘palate, gums’, OE goma ‘inside of
mouth or throat; gums’ (> NE gums), OHG guomo ~ goumo
~ giumo (where giumo is certainly secondary and goumo may
be) ‘palate’, Lith gomurys ‘palate’, Latv gamurs ‘windpipe,
larynx’. A “northwesternism” in late PIE.
387 —
MOUTH
*yd/syom ‘gums’. Grk ouAov ‘gums’, OInd barsva-
(dissimilated from *varsva- ) ‘gums’. Apparently a dialectal
term in late PIE. From *uels- ‘bulge, be padded’.
See also Anatomy; Chin; Jaw; Lip; Tongue; Tooth. [D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Lindeman, F O. (1967) Indo-Europeen *os ‘bouche’. To Honor
Roman Jakobson II, The Hague, Mouton, 1188-1190.
Wennerberg, C. (1972) lndogermanisch *stomen- ‘Mund’. Die
Sprache 13, 24-33.
MOVE
*meu(hx)- ‘move’. [IEW 743 ( *meu-)\ Wat 42 ( *meuo -);
Buck 10.11]. Lat moved ‘set in motion’, Lith mauju ‘put on
or off’, Grk (aorist) dpevcracrOai ‘surpass, outstrip’, dpvvco
‘ward off’, apvvopai ‘defend oneself against’. Hit mauszi ‘falls’,
Av ava-mlva- ‘take away’, Olnd mlvati ‘shoves, pushes, sets
in motion’, TochA mew- ‘shake, quake’, TochB miw- ‘shake,
quake’ (the Indo-Iranian and Tocharian < *meih x -u- by
dissimilation from *meuh x - y-). Widespread and old in IE.
*meus- ‘move; remove’. [/£W743 ( *meu-s-)]. OHG chreo-
mdsido ‘grave-robbery’, Khot mussa (< *mus-ya- ) ‘robbers’,
OInd musnati ~ mosati ‘steals’, TochAB musna- (TochB subj.
musa-/muse -) ‘lift, move (aside)’, musk- ‘disappear’, TochB
mas- (< *mus- ) ‘go’. An old enlargement of the preceding
verb which was also widespread in IE. On both the eastern
and western fringes of the IE territory, it shows a tendency
(not shared by Tocharian) to come to mean ‘steal’; cf. PIE
*mds ‘mouse’.
*dheu(h x )~ ‘be in (com)motion, rise (as dust or smoke)’.
[IEW 261-263 ( *dheu-)\ Wat 14 ( *dheu-)\ G1 177
( *d h euH-) ] . Lat suf-fio ‘smoke’, ON dyja ‘shake’, OCS dunp
‘blow’, Rus duju ‘blow’, Alb deh ~ dej (< *dheu-ske/o- ~
*dheu-nie/o -) ‘intoxicate, make drunk’, Grk Ovca ‘rush on’,
Ovveco ‘dart along’, Arm de-dev-im ‘shake’, Av dvazaiti
‘flutters’, OInd dhundti ~ dhunati ‘shakes, moves about,
kindles a flame’. The basic meaning is illuminated by some
nominal derivatives: ON daunn ‘stench’, dunn ‘down’
(borrowed > NE down), Goth dauns ‘smoke, dust’, Lith duja
‘dust’, duje ‘down’, OInd dhuli - ‘dust’, TochA twe ‘dust’, TochB
tweye ‘dust’. Widespread and old in IE.
*hirei- ‘move’ (pres. *hirin6uti) [ IEW 330-33 1 ( *erei-)\
Wat 54 ( *rei-)} . ON rinna ‘flow, run’, OE rinnan ‘flow, run,
swim’ (> NE run), OHG rinnan ‘flow, run, swim’, Goth rinnan
‘run, walk, go’, OCS vy-rinpti ‘thrust out’, Grk optv(o ‘stir’,
(Arcadian) epTvvco ‘be angry at’, OInd rinvati ‘lets flow’,
TochAB rin- ‘renounce’. Cf. the derivatives *hjroios : OCS roju
‘bee-swarm’, OInd raya- ‘stream, run, haste’.
?*h\tig- ‘move’ (pres. *hj6ige/o-). [IEW 13-14 (*aig-)].
ON eikinn ‘furious’, OCS igrati ‘play’, Grk eneiyco' drive on’,
OInd ejati ‘stirs, moves’. It is not altogether certain that all
these words belong together. If they do, the geographical
distribution would argue for a word of PIE date.
See also Come; Flow; Go; Hurry; Mouse;
Set in Motion; Smoke; Steal. [D.Q.A.]
MOW see HARVEST
MULBERRY
*mdrom ‘blackberry’. [IEW 749 (*moro-); Wat 43
( *moro-)\ GI 555-557 ( *moro-)\ BK 532 ( *mur-/*mor -)\ .
Weis merwydd(en) ‘mulberry’, Lat morum ‘mulberry, black-
berry’, moms ‘mulberry tree’, Grk popov ‘mulberry, black-
berry’, popea ‘mulberry tree’, Arm mor ‘blackberry’, mori
‘blackberry vine’. Hit muri- ‘(bunch of) grape(s)’, despite the
unexplained difference of vowel.
The two main meanings of the cognates are motivated by
the fact that the tender and juicy fruits of the blackberry are
similar in taste and shape to those of the mulberry. Thus Lat
momm denotes or has at least been translated as ‘mulberry’
in Horace and ‘blackberry’ in Virgil. The Greek form has been
glossed ‘mulberry’, ‘blackberry’ and, even more specifically
‘black mulberry’. Armenian helps supplement the classical
languages and the Celtic cognate is unlikely to reflect a Greek
loan as has sometimes been alleged. In both northern and
Mediterranean Europe, the mulberry was grown for what is
in general its main use: sericulture. At another cultural level,
Greek myth has it that the red mulberry had its origin in the
white when the roots of the latter were stained by the blood
of the suicidal lovers Pyramus and Thisbe.
See also Berry; Plants, Trees. [P.E1
MURMUR
?*murmur - ‘murmur’. [IEW 748 ( *mormor - ~
*murmur-)\ Wat 43 ( *mormor-)\ BK 547 (*mur-/*mor-)].
Lat murmuro ‘murmur’, OHG murmuron ‘murmur’, Lith
murmenti ‘murmur’, Grk poppvpo) ‘murmur’, Arm mrmram
‘murmur’, OInd marmar- ‘roaring’. Clearly onomatopoeic but
perhaps reflecting a late PIE onomatopoeic word rather than
independent creations in the various stocks that have it.
See also Speak; Stammer. [D.Q.A]
MUSCLE
*mQs(tlo)- ‘(little) mouse; muscle’. [IEW 752-753 ( *mus)-,
Wat 43 (*mus)l. Lat musculus ‘little mouse; muscle’, Khot
mula- ‘mouse; muscle’, mulana- ‘calf (of leg)’. Cf. also OHG
mus ‘mouse; muscle’ (especially of the upper arm)’. Arm mukn
‘mouse; muscle’, Grk pvq ‘mouse; muscle’. The metaphorical
leap from ‘mouse’ to ‘muscle’ (based presumably on the
perceived similarities of certain muscles, such as the biceps,
when contracting, to a mouses movements, say, under a doth)
is sufficiently odd that it is unlikely to have happened
independently in so many IE groups. Therefore, the metaphor
must be of PIE antiquity The form *mus-tlo- may very well
also be old since *-tlo- is not common as a diminutive marker.
See also Anatomy; Mouse; Tendon. [D.Q.A. 1
MUSSEL see SHELLFISH
— 388
•N-
NAIL
*h 3 nogh(u)- ‘(finger- or toe-)nail’. [IEW 780 ( *onogh-)\
Wat 45 ( *nogh-)\ cf. GI 60; Buck 4.39] . OIr ingen ‘nail’, OWels
eguin ‘nail’, Lat unguis ‘nail, claw’, ungulus ‘hoof’, ON nagl
‘nail’, OE nsegel ‘nail’ (> NE nail), OHG nagal ‘nail’, OPrus
nage ‘foot’, Lith nagas ‘nail, claw’, naga ‘hoof’, Latv nags ‘nail’,
OCS noga ‘foot, leg’, nogdtl ‘nail’, Rus noga ‘foot, leg’, Grk
ovv£ ‘nail’, NPers naxun ‘nail’, Olnd artghri- ‘foot’, nakha-
(with -kh- for expected -gh-) ‘nail, claw’, TochA maku (pi.)
‘nails’, TochB mekwa (pi.) ‘nails’ (< *nekwa). The PIE word
for ‘nail’.
See also Anatomy; Foot; Hand. [D.Q.A.]
NAKED see BALD
NAMAZGA
The site of Namazga-depe is the type site for the Namazga
culture and with its 24 m of material provides the backbone
of periodization for southern Turkmenistan, an area critical
for the discussion of the movement of early Indo-lranian
speakers. Namazga I dates to the fifth millennium BC and
marks the early Eneolithic period. Sites have yielded domestic
animals (cattle, sheep/goat and some pig) and evidence for
the hunting of onager. Namazga II (c 4000-3500 BC) sees
more impressive architectural evidence of stone-built
fortifications (with circular towers) and the erection of shrines
with their comers oriented to the cardinal directions, raised
altars and an ash-sump for offerings. Although wheat was
raised, it was in insignificant amounts compared with barley
and cattle were outnumbered by sheep/goat. Namazga III (c
3500-3000 BC) sees the appearance of extensive irrigation
systems and the rise of urbanization in the region which
increases markedly in the next period, Namazga IV (c 3000-
Namazga Location of the site of Namazga.
2500 BC). Namazga IV also sees the first unequivocal evidence
for wheeled vehicles, models of vehicles drawn by camels or
bulls. Metallurgy is more advanced and involves the deliberate
— 389 —
NAMAZGA
alloying of copper, lead and silver. Namazga V (c 2500-2100
BC) sees the final urban expansion in the region with major
sites such as Altyn-depe which occupied an area of some 25
ha. Namazga VI (c 2100-1700 BC) represents an urban
collapse in the local region although it is also coincidental
with the rise of the Bactrian-Margiana Archaeological Complex
(BMAC). Reasons for the collapse are diverse (environmental
deterioration, over-urbanization, shifting trade-routes) and
include incursions of steppe tribes (Andronovo culture) which
are generally connected with some phase of Indo-Iranian
expansions. The smaller Namazga VI settlements indicate the
introduction of the horse to the region and also there are
traces of spoked- wheeled vehicles. All of these have been taken
to indicate an intensification of an Indo-Iranian presence in
southern Turkmenistan.
See also BMAC; Djeitun Culture; Indo-Iranian Languages.
U.P.M.]
Further Reading
Kohl, P (1984) Central Asia: Palaeolithic Beginnings to the Iron Age.
Paris, Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
NAME
*hin6mQ (or *hi€nhyrrgL or *hin6hsni]}l) name. [IEW
321 ( *en(o)mp-)i Wat 45 OJnoa-mn); GI 732 (*nom(e/o)n)\
Buck 18.28; BK 569 ( *in-im-/*in-em -)]. OIr ainm ( DIL
ainmm ) ‘name’, OWels anu ‘name’, Lat nomen ‘name’, ON
nafn ‘name’, OE nama ‘name’ (> NE name), OHG namo
‘name’, Goth namo ‘name’, OPrus emens ‘name’, OCS ime
‘name’, Rus Imja ‘name’, Alb emer(Gheg emen ) ‘name’, Grk
ovoga ‘name’, Arm anun ‘name’, Hit laman ‘name’, OInd nama
‘name’, TochA nom ‘name’, TochB nem ‘name’ (Toch <
*hin£mg or *h 3 nehimg metathesized from *hineh 3 mp). We
can also reconstruct a phrase *hinomn dhehj- ‘to set a name,
give a name’ [Gl 732] found in several stocks: OCzech died
jme, Grk ovogazoOerqg ‘name -giver’ , Hit laman da-, HierLuv
atamain tuha ‘gave a name’, Av nampn da-, OInd nama
dha-, TochA horn ta-, TochB nem ta-. These constructions,
which employ the root *dhehj- ‘put, set, establish’ (cf.
‘Believe’, ‘Law’) often have a particular sacred or ritual
association and there is widespread evidence that the giving
of a name also established the identity of the named, i.e., was
an essential part of his/her own persona and power and
expressed an individual’s true essence. There is also a
widespread denominative verb ‘to name’: ON nefna ‘name’,
OE nemnan ‘name’, OHG nemnen ‘name’, Goth namnjan
‘name’, Grk ovogaivco ~ ovoga^co ‘name’, Hit lam(ma)niya-
‘name’, but these are all likely to be independent formations
in the various stocks in which they occur. The distribution of
the noun ‘name’ clearly supports PIE status; however, the
reconstructed form(s) underlying this series of cognates has
long been discussed and argued and the exact phonological
relation between all the attested forms remains disputable.
Indo-European Personal Names
A broad similarity among the personal names of the earliest
attested Indo-European peoples reveals a series of patterns
that can probably be projected back to the proto-language
itself. Unfortunately, the system is so pervasive and productive
(and personal names are continuously “invented”) that it has
generally been found very difficult to demonstrate that forms
in two or more stocks, no matter how similar, are necessarily
inherited from PIE rather than independent creations.
Personal names among the early Indo-Europeans may
consist of either a single lexeme or two elements, e.g., ON
Ulfr ‘Wolf’ or Kveld-Ulfr ‘Evening Wolf’. A “long” name
consisting originally of two lexemes may be abbreviated, e.g.,
OInd Rudra-ta (< *Rudra-bhat(t)a) . The source of names
would be drawn from various classes of phenomena. Deities
(and names expressing relationships with deities) are
particularly common, e.g., Gaul Lugus (the Celtic god Lug),
Lugudeca ‘chosen by Lug’, Luguselva ‘possessed by Lug’,
Lugenicus ‘bom of Lug’. The relationship may also be with a
metaphysical quality associated with the world of the sacred,
e.g., OIr Medb ‘intoxication’, Lat Augustus ‘possessed of
spiritual power’, Av XFaronbaxsa ‘having well being as his
share’, OInd Bhutamsa ‘having living beings as his share’. Some
of the few names suspected of being cognate between stocks
are built on an element meaning ‘fame’, e.g., Grk EvKkeqg,
OInd Susrava- both ‘whose fame is wide’; OCS Sobeslavl,
Grk EotpoKXfjg both ‘wise-famous’. Physical attributes may
also be selected, e.g., Lat Dentatus ‘big-toothed’, ON Grant
‘slender’. Names of weapons and arms (e.g, OInd Jyamagha-
‘who fights with a bow’) were popular as well as animal names
which frequently supply one of the elements of a name, e.g.,
words for canines seen in OIr Cu ‘Hound’, Ole ‘Wolf’, OE
WulO Wolf’, Grk Avxog ‘Wolf’, AvKotpov rr\g ‘Wolf-killer’,
OInd Vfka- ‘Wolf’; ‘cow’ seen in the comparable forms of OIr
Boand (cf. the name of the Boyne, Bovinda ) ‘White -cow’, OInd
Govinda- ‘White-cow’; or the horse, e.g., OIr Eochu ‘Horse’.
The names of plants, e.g., Lat Cicero ‘Chick-pea’, are also to
be found. Numbers are frequently found as elements in names
and, as there appears to be a general trend for the widespread
use of numbers in earlier texts and lesser use in later, it has
been suspected that the use of naming with numbers was an
archaic practice, e.g., Lat Quarta, Lith Keturai , Rus Cetvertoj,
Myc Qe-ta-ra-je-u , Grk Terapricov all ‘Fourth’, or the
mythological figure of OInd Trita ‘Third’. With respect to the
employment of deities in IE names, T. Markey has suggested
that while we find clear instances of the names of deities in IE
personal names and what we may presume to be totemic
references, e.g., OIr Bodb ‘Raven’ (a bird especially associated
with the god Lug), we do not find totem and deity together
in the same name, e.g., ON Odinulfr' Odinn’s wolf’ (but cf.
Grk ’ApqiXvKog ‘Wolf for Ares’), and this argues against the
presumption that the early Indo-Europeans employed totem-
ism, i.e., divided themselves into clans or other descent groups
which had specific ritual associations with animals or plants.
See also Fame, Poetry. [E.C.P, J.PM.l
— 390 —
NECK
Further Readings
Beekes, R. S. P (1987) The PIE words for ‘name’ and ‘me’. Die Sprache
33, 1-6.
Hahn, E. A. (1969) Naming Constructions in Some Indo-European
Languages. Philological Monograph 27. Cleveland, Case Western
Reserve University Press (for the American Philological
Association).
Kazansky, N. (1995) Indo-European onomastics as an historical
source. JIES 23, 157-177.
Markey, T. L. (1981) Indo-European theophoric personal names and
social structure. JIES 9, 227-243.
Pinault, G. (1982) Eexpression indo-europeenne de la nomination.
E/E 3, 15-36.
Schmitt, R. (1973) Indogermanische Dichtersprache und
Namengebung. Innsbruck, lnstitut fur Sprachwissenschaft der
Universitat Innsbruck.
Smith, R. M. (1984) What’s in a name (in ancient India). JIES 12,
293-313.
NARROW
*h a enghus narrow’. [IEW ^2 ( *anghu-s)‘, Wat 2 ( *angh-)\
G1 683 ( *Hanghu-)\ Buck 12.62], Olr cumgae ‘strangling,
suffocation’, cumung (< *kom-pghu-) ‘narrow, restricted’,
Weis eang (< *eks-nghu~) ‘wide’, Lat angi-portus ‘narrow
street, cul de sac’, ON pngr ‘narrow’, OE enge ‘narrow’, OHG
angi ‘narrow’, Goth aggwus ‘narrow’, Lith ankstas ‘narrow’,
MPers hnzwg- ‘narrow’, OInd arnhu- ‘narrow’. Other possible
cognates include: OCS ozQkti ‘narrow’, Grk ag(pr\v ‘neck’
although doubtful, Arm anjuk ‘narrow’ appears to be an
Iranian loan. Even excluding the Greek form, this word is
likely to be PIE. The concept of narrowness or constriction
also underlies the PIE notion of ‘fear’ which is reflected in the
modern German cognate angst ‘fear’ and Olnd amhas- ‘fear’.
?*sten- ‘narrow’. [ IEW 1021-1022 ( *sten-)\ Wat 66
(*sten-)]. ON stinnr ‘stiff, hard’, OE stip ‘stiff’ (Gmc <
*sten-to- ), Grk azevog ‘narrow’. Restricted to two branches,
with both the Germanic and Greek etymologies unclear,
although possibly connected, but still very weak grounds for
positing a PIE form.
See also Fear; Long; Neck; Pain; Thin. Q.C.S.]
NAVE
*h 3 nobh- ‘navel; nave’. [IEW 3 14-3 15 ( *ndbh-)\ Wat 45
( *nobh-)\ G1 716 {*nob^-)\ Buck 4.43], ON ngf' nave of
wheel’, OE nafu ‘nave’ (> NE nave), OHG naba ‘nave’, OPrus
nabis ‘navel, nave’, Latv naba ‘navel’, OInd nabhya- ‘nave’.
Sometimes put here also is Arm ani w ‘wheel’ though there,
are phonological irregularities (one would expect *anow or
the like). The ‘nave’ is named after its resemblance to the
‘navel’ (in Old Prussian a single word retains both meanings).
Usually the word for ‘navel’ (the original meaning) is in form
a morphological derivative of the word for ‘nave’, thus Olr
imbliu ~ imbliu ‘navel’, Lat umbilicus ‘navel’, umbo ‘boss on
shield’, ON nafli ‘navel’, OE nafela ‘navel’ (> NE navel), OHG
nabalo ‘navel’, amban ‘belly’, Grk optpaXog ‘navel; boss of
shield’, OInd nabhi- ‘navel’. The semantic and morphological
relationship between the words for ‘nave’ and ‘navel’ is similar
to that between the words for ‘axle’ and ‘shoulder( -joint)’.
The metaphorical extension of ‘navel’ to ‘nave’ is widespread
and old in IE. In Germanic the word for ‘auger’ derives from
a special technical term for the tool employed in boring the
nave, i.e., ON nafarr , OE nafo-gar , OHG naba-ger{< Gmc
*naba-gaizaz) ‘(nave-) auger’; cf. NE auger < *a nauger by
false analysis.
See also Auger; Axle; Wagon; Wheel. [D.Q.A. ]
Further Reading
Meid, W. (1994) Die Termmologie von Pferd und Wagen im
Indogermanischen, in Die Indogermanen und das Pferd , eds. B.
Hansel and S. Zimmer, Budapest, Archaeolingua, 53-65.
NAVEL
*hjnobh- navel, nave’. [/EW314-315 ( *nebh -); Wat 45
( *nobh-)\ GI 716 ( Buck 4.431. Olr imbliu ~ imbliu
‘navel’, Lat umbilicus' navel’, umbo' boss on shield’, ON nafh
‘navel’, npf ‘nave of wheel’, OE nafela ‘navel’ (> NE navel),
nafu ‘nave’ (> NE nave), OHG nabalo ‘navel’, naba ‘nave’,
amban ‘belly’, OPrus nabis ‘navel, nave’, Latv naba ‘navel’,
Grk ogipaXog' navel’, OInd nabhi- ‘navel’, nabhya- ‘nave’. The
‘nave’ is named after its resemblance to the ‘navel’, though
often ‘navel’ (the original meaning) is in form a morphological
derivative (similarly with ^e/cs- ‘shoulder[-joint]’ and ‘axle’).
Clearly the PIE word for this meaning.
See a Iso Anatomy; Nave. {D.Q.A.]
NEAR
*hjepi ~ *hiopi ‘near, on’. [IEW 323 ( *epi ~ *opi ); Wat
17 ( *epi )]. Olr iar(D!L iar) ‘after’, Lat ob ‘towards’, OPrus
ep- ‘about’, Lith ap- ‘about’, Latv ap- ‘about’, OCS ob ‘on’,
Alb epere(< *hiopi-reh 2 ) ‘upper’, eper ‘upper, superior’, epert
(adj.) ‘top’, Myc o-pi ‘on, near’, Grk eni ‘on, upon, up to',
okigOev ‘behind’, Arm ev‘and, also’, Av aipi' upon’, OInd api
‘also, in addition’, TochAB p- (verbal prefix). Old in IE.
See also Adpreps. 1D.Q.A ]
NECK
*monis~ *moneh a - neck’ [ IEW 747-748 ( *mono-)\ Wat
43 ( *mon-): GI 715 (*mono-)[. Olr muin ‘neck’, Weis m\vn
‘neck’, ON mpn ‘mane’, OE manu ‘mane’ (> NE mane), OHG
mana ‘mane’, Av manaoOri ‘neck’, OInd manya ‘nape’. Though
not extraordinarily well-attested, this word is the most likely
to be the PIE word for ‘neck’. Cf. also the extensions of this
root that indicate ‘necklace’: Lat monile ‘necklace’, OCS
monisto ‘necklace’, Av minu- ‘necklace’, OPers bara-man- ‘one
who wears a necklace’, Mitanni mani-(nnt) ‘necklace’.
*g w rih x y-eh a - ‘neck’. [IEW 474-475 ( *g v ri-ua)\ BK 361
( *q’ w ur-/*q w or-)[ . Latv griva ‘nver mouth’, OCS griva ‘mane’,
Rus griva ‘mane’, Av griva ‘neck (of demonic being)’, OInd
griva' neck’. Related is Grk 8epri(< *g w erueh ir ) ‘neck’. Related
in some way to *g w er(h j)- ‘swallow’. At least a word of the
— 391 —
NECK
center and east of the IE world.
*kdlsos ‘neck’, [cf. IEW 639-640 (*k lJ ol-so-)[. Mir coll
‘head, chief, Lat collus ‘neck’, ON hals ‘neck’, OE heals ‘neck’,
OHG hals ‘neck’, Goth hals ‘neck’. From *kel- ‘raise’ [IEW
544 (*kel-)]. A “westernism” in late IE.
*h a engh(u)£n- neck’. [IEW 43 (*angh-)\. Goth hals-agga
‘nape of neck’, Rus vjazl ‘nape’, Grk (Aeolic) aficprjv ‘nape’,
(Attic) ax )%riv ‘nape’ (< *ankhwen-1 ), Arm awjik‘(p\.) ‘neck’.
From *h a engh- ‘narrow’. A late PIE word.
See also Anatomy; Narrow; Necklace. [D.Q.A.J
NECKLACE
?*mono/i- ‘neck ornament’. [IEW 747-748 ( *mono-)\ cf.
Wat 43 (*mon-)[. OWels minci ‘collar, necklet’ (borrowed >
OIr muince ‘collar, necklet’), Gaul (in Greek) gaviaicqq ‘Celtic
necklace’, Lat monlle ‘necklace, collar’, ON men ‘necklace’,
OE mene ‘necklace, collar’, OHG menni ‘neck ornament’, OCS
monisto ‘necklace’, Av zamnu-maini- ‘(bird) with golden neck
ornament’, OPers ba-ra-man-nu-is ‘(horse) bearing a collar’,
OInd mani-griva - ‘carrying a neck ornament’. From *mono-
‘neck’. A metaphorical extension or a derivative of a word for
‘neck, mane’, probably of at least late PIE date.
Necklaces are well known in the archaeological record since
the Upper Palaeolithic, i.e., since the appearance of anatomic-
ally modern humans, and self-adornment has been regarded
as one of the characteristic behavioral shifts from earlier forms
of human (Neanderthal) society, to those of modern popu-
lations. Necklaces are encountered widely in all subsequent
periods and it would be nearly impossible to imagine that
the speakers of the proto-language did not know and employ
them. For the Neolithic period, the evidence for necklaces is
varied. There is widespread evidence of necklaces composed
of bone, animal teeth such as deer incisors, claws, shell, and
stone, some of which may have been acquired through
extensive exchange systems. By the Bronze Age we find the
use of bronze beads as well as precious metals (gold, silver)
in the manufacture of beads. At this time there was also an
extensive exchange system in both amber beads and,
occasionally, in beads made of faience, a primitive form of
glass.
See also Neck. [D.Q.A.J. PM]
Further Reading
Mayrhofer, M. (1974) Ein neuer Beleg zu der indogermanischen
Sippe fur “Halsschmuck”, in Antiquitates Indogermanicae, eds.
M. Mayrhofer, W Meid, B. Schlerath, R. Schmitt, Innsbruck, 19-
21 .
NEEDLE (OF A TREE) see BRANCH
NEPHEW
*n6p0ts (gen. *n6potos) ‘grandson; ?nephew’. [IEW 764
( *nepot-); Wat 44 ( *nepdt-)\ GI 669 ( *nep h ot h -)\ Buck 2.48;
Szem 9; Wordick 155-65; BK 573 (*n y ip[ tl ]-/*n y ep[ h ]-)]. In
the meaning ‘± nephew’: OIr nia ~ niae ‘sister’s son’, Weis nai
‘nephew’. Corn noy ‘nephew’ (glossed by Lat nepos ,
presumably in the latter’s medieval meaning ‘nephew’ rather
than its classical meaning ‘grandson’; there is no warrant for
‘sister’s son’), MBret ni ‘nephew’, Lat nepos ‘grandson;
granddaughter; descendant’ (in later Imperial and Medieval
Latin also ‘nephew’), ON nefi ‘descendant’, OE nefa ‘grandson,
sister’s son’, OHG neb ‘sister’s son; (patemal/maternal) cousin',
Alb nip ‘grandson, nephew’. Derivatives: OCS netiji ‘nephew’
< *nept-iio- and Grk dveynog ‘cousin’ (< *siji-neptuo- ‘co-
grandson’), Weis cefnder ‘male cousin’, cyfnither ‘female
cousin’ (< *kom-nepot- and *kom-neptih a - ‘co-grandson/
daughter’ respectively). This word also may mean ‘grandson,
descendant’. In the meaning ‘nephew’, the word is confined
to the west and center of the IE world.
*syesrds~ *s\fesriids ‘pertaining to a sister, sisterly; sister’s
son’. [IEW 1051 (*syesor-y, cf. Wat 68 ( *swesor-)\ GI 666
( *s°esor-); Szem 6; Wordick 144-145] . OSwed swin ‘mother’s
sister’s son’,OE swor~ (ge)sweor ‘mother’s sister’s son’, geswirga
‘sister’s son; mother’s brother’s/sister’s son, father’s sister’s son’,
Arm k‘eri ‘mother’s brother’, Sanglechi Mr ‘sister’s son’, Munji
xuri ‘sister’s son’, Shughni xir ‘nephew, niece’, Yazgulyami
xwer ‘nephew, niece’ (< Proto-Iranian *hwahrya/a-) y Ashkun
past ‘sister’s daughter’, Olnd svasrtya- ‘sister’s son’, svasriya-
‘sister’s daughter’, Gawar-Bati pesT( a man’s) sister’s son, sister’s
daughter’ (Nuristani and Indie < *svasriya/a-). Assuming
‘sister’s son’ as the oldest meaning allows us to explain Arm
‘mother’s brother’ as an example of reciprocal naming (cf. OIr
aue ‘grandson’ from *h 2 euh 20 s ‘grandfather’ or OHG enikl
‘grandson’ from ano ‘grandfather’). In Germanic we find the
further derivative *ga-swerjan- ‘co-sister’s son’ (much as in
Lat consobrln us ‘mother’s brother’s/sister’s son, father’s sister’s
son" < *‘co-sister’s son’), though there has been considerable
confusion and overlapping of the earlier and later meanings.
Widespread and old in IE
?*syesrihxnos ‘sister’s son’. [IEW 105 1 ( *sijesr-inos)\ Wat
68 ( *swesr-Ino-)] . Lat sobrin us ‘second cousin’, consobrlnus
‘mother’s sister’s son; (any) cousin’, Lith seserenas ‘sister’s son’,
OCS sestrinQ ‘of the sister’. The Latin and Old Church Slavonic
words agree in form, but it is probably the Old Church
Slavonic word that preserves the original adjectival meaning
of which Latin is a nominalization. The Lithuanian word given
here is, in any case, morphologically distant, though showing
the same kind of semantic development seen in Latin. The
meaning ‘sister’s son’ for *suesrih x nos is probably not of PIE
age, though ‘sister's son’ as the nominalization of another
adjective meaning ‘pertaining to a sister’ is seen in the evidence
of the preceding word.
?*bhreh a truios ‘brother’s son’. [Szem 13-14], Late Lat
fratruelis ‘brother’s son’, Av bratuirya- ‘brother’s son’, OInd
bhratpya -‘brother’s son’. Cf. also Lith brolenas ‘(first) cousin’.
Independent creations in Latin and Indo-Iranian from an
adjective meaning ‘pertaining to the father’.
The first term, *nepots , exhibits a semantic range that with-
in attested IE languages embraces both ‘grandson’ and ‘sister’s
son, nephew’ and the antiquity of this semantic complex is
— 392
NIECE
one of the major issues with regard to reconstructing the
nature of the PIE kinship system. Those who argue that the
original meaning of this word was confined to the ‘grandson’
suggest that the meaning ‘nephew’ was secondary in all the
(north)western languages in which it occurs and was a
semantic innovation of the various individual IE stocks. The
fact that we can see the change of Lat nepos from ‘grandson’
to ‘grandson, sister’s son’ taking place within the history of
Latin may suggest that ‘sister’s son’ (or, more generally,
‘nephew’) is everywhere a late development. Those who
support the assignment of both ‘grandson’ and ‘sister’s son’ to
PIE see this word as primary evidence for the ascription of
PIE kinship to the Omaha system where the generations would
be skewed. Clearly there is a tendency to make an’ Omaha-
like equation of ‘grandson’ and ‘sister’s son’ but whether that
tendency is PIE in date or post-PIE is not easy to see. The
equation of ‘grandson’ and ‘sister’s son’ is a sort of mirror
image of the equation of ‘grandfather’ and ‘mother’s brother’
though only Middle Welsh actually shows both such equations
at the same time. The other terms are late and are built from
the words for ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ as seen above or from ‘son’,
e.g., SC sinovac ~ sindvac ‘brother’s son’ (< * ‘little son’).
See also Grandson; Kinship; Son. [M.E.H.]
Further Reading
Beekes, R. S. P (1976) Uncle and nephew. J/ES4, 43-63.
NEST
*nisdos nest’, (literally) ‘sit-down (place)’. [IEW 887 ( *ni -
zd-os); Wat 45 ( *nizdo-)\ GI 101 ( *ni-st’-os)\ . Mir net ‘nest’,
Weis nyth ‘nest’, Lat nidus ‘nest’, OE nest ‘nest’ (> NE nest),
OHG nest ‘nest’, Lith lizdas ‘nest’, Latv ligzda ‘nest’, OCS
gnezdo ‘nest’, Arm nist ‘site’, OInd nlda- ‘resting place, abode,
nest’. Clearly PIE in status and derived from *ni - ‘down’ or
‘alone’ + *sed- ‘sit’, hence a ‘sit-down place’.
See also Birds; Sit. [J.A.C.G.]
NET
*hjdct-‘net’. Myc de-ku-tu-wo-ko(= /dektu-worgo-/) ‘net-
makers’, Grk Shcrvov ‘(hunting/fishing) net’ (with the vowel
perhaps influenced by Snceiv ‘throw’), Hit ekt- ‘net’, Luv
aggati - ‘catch-net’, OInd aksu- ‘net’. The Greek forms represent
neuter nouns with (prefixed?) *d- as in the word for ‘tear’.
The Greek-Anatolian-Indic correspondence makes it likely
that we are dealing with a PIE word here.
Nets are preserved in the archaeological record only under
extraordinary conditions (waterlogging, extreme aridity)
although net weights of stone or clay are frequently enough
encountered; occasionally, impressions of nets in clay have
also been recovered. Traces of nets are known since at least
the Mesolithic and are also attested in Swiss lakeside
settlements of the Neolithic period along with floats and
weights. The Swiss evidence reveals nets of various mesh sizes
appropriate to the size of the fish being sought. The use of
the net is not confined to fishing (or hunting) but may also
have been employed in carrying things as is still attested in
many parts of Europe today.
See also Fish; Knot 1 ; Tool. (D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Poetto, M. (1992(94]). ‘Net’ in Anatolian, Vedic, and Greek MSS
53, 159-174.
NETTLE
*ned- nettle’. [/EW758-759 ( *ned-)\ Wat 44 ( *ned-)\ GI
224 ( *not ’-)] . Mir nenaid ‘nettle’, MWels dynat ‘nettle’ (Celtic
< *ninati- with dissimilation in Welsh), OE netele ‘nettle’ (>
NE nettle), OHG nezzila ‘nettle’, Grk dSiKp ‘nettle’.
Presumably related in some fashion are: OPrus noatis ‘nettle’,
Lith notere ‘nettle’, Latv natre ‘nettle’, Slov nat ‘nettle’, though
the -t- (rather than *-d~) is not explained. Though showing
some uncertainties of form that may reflect inter-group
borrowing, this would appear to be a word of the west and
center of the IE world. The nettle has a wide variety of uses.
It has been employed as a textile (nettle fibres have been
recovered from a Bronze Age burial in Denmark) and it can
be spun into coarse sheets like hemp. Medicinal uses derive
from the high iron and vitamin C content and beer and soups
are prepared from nettles. From *ned- ‘knot’.
See also Knot 1 ; Plants; Thorn. ID.Q.A.]
NEW
*n6uos ‘new’. [7EW769 (*neyos); Wat 45 ( *newo-)\ GI
685 ( *newo-)-. Buck 14. 13; BK 561 ( *naw-/*naw-)\ . Lat novus
‘new’, OPrus neuwenen ‘new’, Lith naujas ‘new’, OCS nora
‘new’, Grk ve(f)oq ‘new’, Hit newas ‘new’, Av nava - ‘new’,
OInd nava- ‘new’, TochA nu ‘new’, TochB nuwe ‘new’; and
with extension: *neuios in OIr nua ~ nuae ‘new’, Weis newydd
‘new’, ON nyr ‘new’, OE nlwe ~ neowe ‘new’ (> NE new),
Goth niujis ‘new’, Lith naujas ‘new’, Grk (Ionic) veiog ‘new’,
OInd navya- ‘new’. Both forms are pan-IE in distribution and
are of certain antiquity; the root is related to *nu now’, a
thematic with a new, accented, full-grade vowel inserted in
the first possible place, i.e., *nu > *nu-o- > *neu-o-.
See also Now; Old. [PB ]
NIECE
There are no terms reconst ructible to PIE that specifically
denote ‘brother’s daughter’. For a male speaker, the ‘brother’s
daughter’ may have been simply termed a *dhug(h a )ter
‘daughter’, resulting in later specialized forms like Irish ingen
‘begotten’ to refer to the biological daughter as opposed to
the sociological ‘daughter’ who may have remained as der
‘girl, daughter’. Female speakers might refer to her as ‘sister’,
a use preserved in a single passage of Old Irish where siur(<
*sijes6r) was employed to render ‘woman’s brother’s daughter’
and possibly reflected in the Greek confusion of the two terms
recorded in Hesychius’ gloss eop dvydrrjp, dvey/ioq ‘daughter,
(male) cousin’ (perhaps intended as Ovydrrfp avexf/iov
‘cousin’s daughter’). Otherwise, most words for the ‘niece’ are
— 393 —
NIECE
associated with the word for ‘granddaughter’.
*n6ptih a - ‘granddaughter; ?niece’. \IEW7 64 ( *nepti-)\ Wat
44 ( *neptl-)\ GI 670 ( *nep h ot h isi ); Buck 2.49; Szem 10;
Wordick 166-167; BK 573(*n y ip[ b ]-/*n y ep[ h }-)\. Where the
meaning is ‘± niece’: Olr necht ‘granddaughter; (?niece)’, Weis
nith ‘niece’, Com nyth ‘niece’, Bret niz ‘nephew; niece’, Lat
neptis ‘granddaughter’ (in later Imperial Latin also ‘niece’),
ON nipt ‘sister’s daughter’, OE nift ‘granddaughter, sister’s
daughter’, OHG nift ‘niece, granddaughter, sister’s daughter’,
Lith nepte ‘granddaughter, niece’, ORus nestera ‘niece’, Alb
mbese(< *nep6tieh a -) ‘granddaughter, niece’. Derivatives: Grk
(Hesychius) veonxpai . vicov 9vyat£p£g‘ sons’ daughters’. The
form of the word is more widely found but in the meaning of
‘granddaughter’. Although derived from the masculine form
of this word ( *nepdts ), the distribution indicates that the word
is of PIE status in terms of morphology although confined to
the west and center of the IE world according to meaning.
The arguments concerning whether both the meaning
‘granddaughter’ and ‘sister’s daughter’ can be attributed to
the same PIE word are rehearsed in the discussions of
‘grandson’ and are one of the critical pieces of evidence for
determining the kinship system of Proto-Indo-European since
the identity of ‘sister’s daughter’ and ‘daughter’s daughter’ is a
feature of the Omaha kinship system.
See also Daughter; Granddaughter; Grandson;
Kinship, Nephew. [M.E.H.J
NIGHT
*nek w t~ ~ *nok w t- ‘night’. [IEW 762-763 (*ne/c y -(r-»;
Wat 44 ( *nek w -t-)\ GI 693 ( *ne/ok ho t h -)\ Buck 14.42]. Olr
innocht ‘tonight’, Weis peunoeth ‘every night’, Lat nox 1 night’,
ON nott ‘night’, OE neaht ‘night’ (> NE night)', OHG naht
‘night’, Goth nahts ‘night’, OPrus (acc.) naktin ‘night’, Lith
naktis ‘night’, Latv nakts ‘night’, OCS nostl ‘night’, Alb nate
‘night’, Grk ‘night’, Hit nekuz (gen. sg.) ‘at night’, OInd
nakt- ‘night’, TochA nokte ‘at night’, noktim ‘last night’, nakcu
‘last night, at night’, TochB nekclye ‘last night, at night’ (the
last two < *nok w ieuios) . Pan Indo-European, and clearly
reconstructible for the proto-language.
*pk w tus ‘end of the night’. [IEW 7 63 ( *nek v -(t-)-)', cf. Wat
44 ( *nek w -t-)\ Del 195]. ON otta ‘early morning’, OE uhte
‘early morning’, OHG uhta ‘early morning’, Goth uhtwo‘e arly
morning’, Grk oncxig (problematic in that one might expect
*a7tTvg ) ‘ray of sunlight’, OInd aktu- ‘night, end of the night’.
The word is quite possibly a suffixed zero-grade form of
*nek w t- ‘night’; as such it is of PIE date.
*k w sep- ‘night’. [IEW 649 ( *k v sep-)\ Buck 14.42]. Grk
y/£(pag ‘dark’, Hit ispant- ‘night’, Av xsap- ‘darkness’, OInd
ksap- ‘night’. Though somewhat limited geographically, the
unanalyzable nature of the root suggests PIE status.
See also Evening. [P.B.]
Further Reading
Markey, T. L. (1987) Morning, evening, and the twilight between,
in Proto-Indo-European: The Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem,
eds. S. N. Skomal and E. Polome, Washington, Institute for the
Study of Man, 299-32 1 .
NIPPLE see BREAST
NIT see LOUSE
NOD
*neu- ‘nod’. [IEW 767 (*neu-); Wat 44 (*neu-)[. Lat ad-
nud ‘agree by nodding’, Grk vevco ‘nod’, OInd navate ‘goes,
moves’. It is uncertain whether the Old Indie form belongs
here. The correspondence between Latin and Greek is suffi-
cient to postulate at least a word of the western and central
region of the IE world.
[M.N.]
NOISE
Gathered here are a number of onomatopoeic formations
whose exact meaning in PIE, if they are of PIE antiquity, is
generally unclear.
*mug- ‘± make a (low) noise, low, mutter, grumble’. [IEW
751-752 (*mG-)]. Lat mugio ‘low, bellow’, OHG muckazen
‘grumble’, Grk pv^co ‘mutter, moan, growl’, Hit muga(i)-
‘entreat’, OInd munjati ‘makes a noise’. The distribution of
attestations strongly suggests PIE status for this word. An en-
largement of *mu- (cf. [IEW 751 (*mQ-): Wat 43 (*mti-)|):
Lat mu facere ‘make a mmm sound’, OHG mawen ‘cry’, Latv
maunu ‘growl’, Czech myjati ‘low (of cows)’, Grk pv ‘a cry’.
?*(s)prhxg- ‘crackle, sputter’. [IEW 996-997
( *(s)p(h)ereg-)\ cf. Wat 64 ( *spreg-)\ GI 101 (*sp h erG-)\ Buck
18.21], ON spraka ‘crackle, rattle’, Lith spragefi ‘crackle’, Grk
ocpocpayeopcci ‘crackle, sputter, hiss’, OInd sphorjati
‘thunders, rumbles’. While it is fairly certain that the Old Norse
and Lithuanian words belong together and, likewise the Greek
and Old Indie words, it is phonologically difficult to reconcile
the two pairs. Perhaps independent onomatopoeic forma-
tions. Possibly related to *spreg- ‘speak’.
?*iu- ‘± shout (for joy)’. [/EW514 (*jd); Wat 79 ( *yu-)[.
Mir ilach ‘victory cry’, Lat iubild ‘shout’, ON yla yell’, ME
yulen ‘yowl’ (> NE yowl), MHG holn ~ holen ‘yell’, Grk iv^co
‘shout’. Probably onomatopoeic and only possibly of PIE
age.
?*sner- ‘± rattle, growl’. [IEW 975 ( *s)ner - ~ *(s)nur-)\
Wat 62 ( *sner-)]. ME snoren ‘snore’ (> NE snore), NE snarl,
MHG snarren ‘rattle, rasp’, Lith niumiu ‘growl, grumble’, Latv
purat ‘growl’, Grk (Hesychius) £vvpev l ± cried out’. Probably
onomatopoeic and only possibly of late PIE age.
?*mehi(i)- ‘± mumble, speak indistinctly (?)’. [IEW 71 1
(*mei-)[. OCS mumati ‘stammer’, Grk (Hesychius) pipiypog
‘neigh of horses’, Arm mayem ‘bleat’, Hit memma- (< *me-
mhp-) ‘speak’, OInd mimati ‘bellows, roars, bleats’. The
differences in meaning invite caution. The apparent possibility
of reconstructing a reduplicated present and the fact that this
possible verb is also attested in Hittite suggests that this
collection may reflect something of PIE age.
— 394 —
NOVODANILOVKA GROUP
?*ger- ‘± hiss, howl’. [JEW 383 (*ger-): BK 276 (*k’ar-/
*k'ar -)] . ON kaera ‘complain’, OE ceorran ‘creak’, OHG karron
‘hiss, whizz’, Lith giirti ‘yell’, Alb nguron ‘howls (of the wind)’.
Possibly a late PIE word of the west and center
?*dhren- ‘± rumble, drone’. [7EW255-256 ( *dhren-)\ Wat
14 ( *dher-)] . Mir dresacht ‘creaking noise’, Lat drenso ‘cry
(of a swan)’ (possibly a loanword from Gaulish), Nice drynjan
‘rumble’, OE (with unexplained vowel) dran ‘a drone’ (> NE
drone), OHG treno 1 a drone’, Goth drunj us ‘sound, ring’, Lith
tranas (with unexplained initial) ‘a drone’, Slov drok ‘pestle’,
Grk Oprjvoq ‘funeral lamentation’, Oprjveo) 'lament', Qpcovcd;
‘a drone’, Arm drnd'im ‘toot, resound’, OInd dhranati
‘resounds’, and perhaps TochA trank- ‘speak’, TochB trenk-
‘speak’. If all these words belong together, theh we have
evidence for something of PIE age.
?*b(o)mb- ‘± muffled noise’. [ 77: W 9 3-94 ( *ba x mb-)-, Wat
4 ( *bamb-)\ . ON bumba ‘drum’, Lith bambeti ‘roar’, Rus
buben ‘drum’. Alb bumbullit ‘it thunders’, Grk poppoq
‘muffled noise’. Cf. related terms for insects:. Lith bambalas
‘beetle’, Grk poppvXi] ‘type of bee’, OInd bambhara- ‘bee’.
Obviously onomatopoeic; probably not of PIE date.
See also Animal Cry; Bird Cry; Sound. [D.Q.A.l
NOSE
*h x n£ss ~ *h x nas (gen. *h x nasos ) ‘nose’. [7£W 755
( *nas-)\ Wat 43 ( *nas-)\ G1 713-714 ( *nas-)\ Buck 4.23; BK
165 ( *nasy-/*n9sy~)] . Lat niris ‘nostril’ (pi. ‘nose’), nasus ~
nassus ‘nose’, ON nps riose’, OE nosu ‘nose’ (> NE nose),
OHG nasa ‘nose’, OPrus nozy ‘nose’, Lith ndsis ‘nose’, Latv
nass ‘nostril’, OCS nosQ ‘nose’, Av nab- ‘nose’, OPers (acc.)
nahan ‘nose’, OInd nasa (dual) ‘nostrils’ (cf. urunasa - ‘wide-
nosed’ and jjunas- ‘straight-nosed’). The PIE word for ‘nose’.
Cf. OPrus po-nasse ‘upper lip’ and possibly Grk i)7tf\ vtj
‘moustache’, Shughni biin ‘moustache’ (< *h^up-h x ps-neh a -
‘[thatl below the nose’).
See also Anatomy, Face. [D.Q.A.l
NOT
*me ‘not’. [7EW703 (*me-)l. Alb mos ‘not’, Grk pr\ ‘not’.
Arm mi ‘not’, Av ma ‘not’, OInd ma ‘not’, TochA mar ‘not’,
TochB ma ‘not’. Widespread and old in IE.
*ne ‘not’. [ 7£W757-758 ( *ne)\ Wat 43-44 ( *ne)\ GI 22 1-
222 (*ne); BK 562 ( *na/*na, *ni/*ne, *nu/*no )]. Lat non (<
*n’oin[omJ) ‘not’, ne-fas ‘what is contrary to divine command’,
ne-scio ‘not know, am ignorant of’, Osc ne ‘not’, ON ne ‘not’,
OE ne ‘not’, OHG ne ‘not’ (nein ‘not’ < *n’oinom), Goth ni
‘not’ (ON nei ‘no’, OE na ‘no’ [> NE no] ; OE na+ wiht ‘not at
all’ [> NE not], OHG nio ‘never’, all < Proto-Gmc ne + aiw
‘not + ever’), OPrus ni ‘not’, Lith ne ‘not’, OCS ne ‘not’, Hit
natta ‘not’, Av na ‘not’, OInd na ‘not’. From *ne: OIr ni ‘not’,
Goth ne ‘not’; from *nei\ OLat nei ‘(that) not; if not’, Lat ni
‘(that) not; if not’, Osc ni ‘not’, ON ni ‘no’, OHG nV not at all’,
Goth nei ‘not’. From *p- ‘un-’: Olr in- ~ e- ~ an- ‘uri, Weis
an- ‘un-’, Lat in- ‘un-’, Osc an- ‘un-’, ON 6- ~ u- ‘un-’, OE un-
‘un’ (> NE un-), OHG un- ‘un-’, Grk a(v)- ‘un-’, Hit a- ‘un-’,
Av a(n)~ ‘un-’, OInd a(n)- ‘un-’, TochA a(n)- ‘un-’, TochB e(n)~
‘un-’. Widespread and old in IE. Where there is a distinction,
this negative is the “ordinary” negative, while *me is used
with prohibitions and the like.
[D.Q.A.l
NOVODANILOVKA GROUP
The Novodanilovka group is a Copper Age culture (c 4400-
3800 BC) of the Ukraine situated along the lower Dnieper
and the steppe adjacent to the northeast. It is primarily defined
by a series of small cemeteries or individual burials. These
parallel the rites of the neighboring Sredny Stog culture, i.e.,
flexed supine burial, ocher, orientation to east or northeast,
but the burials are more elaborate with stone coverings or
chambers. Moreover, the burials are distinguished by relatively
rich grave goods comprising flint, stone and copper weapons
and copper bracelets. Some have argued that these may reflect
an aristocratic component of the Sredny Stog culture rather
than represent a separate cultural group. In the Kurgan theory,
these burials are often presented as evidence of the archetypal
patriarchal warlike society of the early Indo-Europeans.
See also Sredny Stog Culture. [J.P.M.]
Novodanilovka a. Distribution of the Novodanilovka group.
— 395 —
N OVOT1TOROVKA CULTURE
NOVOTITOROVKA CULTURE
Near the Maykop culture of the north Caucasus and the
Yamna culture of the steppelands was the newly defined early
Bronze Age Novotitorovka culture (c 3300-2700 BC). The
culture, specifically situated immediately east of the Sea of
Azov and north of the Kuban river, is known from over five-
hundred burials. These are found flexed on their sides in pits,
the floors of which may have been covered with rushes and
roofed with timber. Early period grave goods consisted of
pottery, bronze knives, awls, axes, the astragali (knucklebones)
of sheep, querns, and flint tools; later burials also had rings
of bronze and silver. Animal remains are frequently
encountered in graves and, in descending frequency, include
sheep/goat, cattle, horse, boar, canine (dog or wolf), red deer
and birds. Querns may provide evidence for agriculture. What
marks the Novotitorovka culture out in particular is the
presence of wheeled vehicles which would be placed in the
burial pit. Some ninety have been found among the five-
hundred graves and they may be presumed to reflect people
of high status; they may be found with both adult males and
females. The Novotitorovka culture has been included within
the Yamna cultural-historical area but distinguishes itself from
the Yamna culture by its polished ceramics. It is presumed to
be the culture of semi-nomadic pastoralists occupying the
transition zone between the agricultural and metallurgically
more advanced Maykop and other north Caucasian cultures
and the steppe cultures to its north.
See also Maykop Culture; Yamna Culture. [j.PM.]
Novotitorovka a. Distribution of the Novotitorovka culture
— 396 —
NUMERALS
Further Reading
Gey, A. N. (1991) Novotitorovskaya kul’tura. Sovetskaya
Arkheologiya 1991, 1, 54-71
NOW
*nu ‘now’. \IEW 770 (*na-); Wat 45 ( *nu-)\ BK 561
( *naw-/*naw-)\ . Lat num ‘now’, ON nti ‘now’, OE nu ‘now’
(> NE now), OHG nu ‘now’, Goth nu ‘now’, OPras -nu ‘now’,
Lith nil ‘now’, Latv nu ‘now’, OCS nQ ‘now’, Grk vv(v) ‘now’.
Hit nu ‘now’, Av nu ‘now’, Olnd nu ‘now’, TochA nu ‘now’,
TochB no ‘now’. Pan-IE and clearly of PIE date. It is related to
*neuos, *neu)os ‘new’.
*ih a m ‘now, already’. [IEW 285 ( *iam )]. Lat iam ‘now,
already’, OE ju ‘already’, OHG ju ‘already’, Goth ju ‘already’,
Lith jau ‘already’, Latv jau ‘already’, OCS ju ‘already’. This
word is apparently built on a pronominal stem, of which Latin
represents an accusative case (cf. Lat tam ‘so much’ and quam
‘how much’), and the Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic words are
constructed from a locative case (cf. Goth nu ‘now’). Dialectal
IE, confined to the northwest of the IE world.
See also New; Time. [P.B .]
‘numbers’, ON rim ‘reckoning, calculation; calendar’, OE rim
‘number, calculation’ (> NE rhyme - rime), OHG nm ‘number,
series’. It is possible that the Germanic words are ultimately
borrowed from Celtic but, even so, the agreement of Celtic
and Greek would appear to assure the PIE age of this word.
An enlargement of *h a er- ‘put together, arrange’. From the
same *h a rei-dh- that lies behind Grk dpiOpoq ‘number’ is a
Germanic set represented by OE raedan ‘advise’, OHG reda
‘speech, word, account’, Goth garaidon ‘arrange’. Other
enlargements with similar meanings include Lat ratio
‘calculation, reckoning’, Goth rapjo ‘account, explanation’,
OE -red in hundred ‘± hundred-count’, or Lith rmda ‘row,
line’, Latv rida ~ ridams ‘in rows’.
*del- ‘aim, compute’. \1EW 193 ( *del : ); Wat 11 ( *del~),
Buck 13.12], ON tal ~ ( ala ‘talk, tale’, OE tael ‘tale, number,
Series’, talu ‘talk, tale’, tellan ‘(re)count, tell’ (cf. NE talk), MHG
zal ‘number’, OHG zalon ‘(re)count, tell’, Goth talzjands
‘teacher’, Grk 8oXoq ‘guile, bait’, Arm toF row’. At least a word
of the west and center of the IE world.
See also Numerals. [C.FJ., D.Q.A.]
NUMBER
*h a rei(hx)- ‘ number, count (out)’. [/£W60 (*(a)ri-)\ Wat
3 ( *ar-)\ Buck 13.12; BK 383 (*har-/*har-)\. From *h a rei-:
OIr aram ( DIL airem) (< *ad-ri-ma-) ‘number’, Grk vqpizoq
(< *Q-h a ri-to-) ‘countless, unnumbered’, (Arcadian) endpnoi
‘the chosen ones’, dpiOpoq ‘number, quantity’; from
*h a reih x -\ OIr rim ‘number, computation’, rimid ‘counts’,
bdraime (bo + rime ‘cattle-count’) ‘cattle-tribute’, Weis rhif
number’, cyf-rif ‘count, recount, narrate’. Corn (pi.) ryvow
NUMERALS
Similarities in the form of IE number words along with
similarities in words for kinship, body parts, and morpho-
logical patterning served initially as a major argument for the
hypothesis that there was once a people who spoke an IE
parent language that no longer exists. Similarities among the
number words attested in older and more recent IE languages
suggested that the Indo-Europeans of an early period had
similar words for the digits 1-10. The internal evidence
suggests that this system evolved over time, traces of the
397 —
NUMERALS
development still evident in the comparison of the cognate
terms among the various stocks. There was actually no abstract
number ‘one’ but rather two different roots which were
required to indicate “singleness”. Proper counting only began
later with ‘two’, and the numerals from ‘two’ to ‘four’ are
usually inflected for gender and are etymologized as archaic
adjectives, i.e., ‘two’ (< *‘further away’), ‘three’ (< ‘still further’).
That a later stage of Indo-Europeans counted on their hands
is suggested by the deep etymology of ‘five’ which appears to
derive from a word for ‘hand’. It is from ‘five’ to ‘ten’ that we
find possible loanwords from other language families. These
larger units also behave like nouns rather than adjectives and
their more recent origins are suggested by the possibility that
‘eight’ is a dual form and that the underlying meaning of ‘nine’
is ‘new’, i.e., the new number.
The IE languages also reveal similar words for the tens
and decades, and for ‘hundred’. Belief that the Proto-Indo-
Europeans had the decimal system is based on: (a) linguistic
forms for the lower numerals in the daughter languages that
show reflexes of inherited forms, (b) the assumption that forms
underlying modern ‘ten’ and ‘hundred’ were the inherited
numeral bases for building the higher numerals, and (c) that
both the lower numerals (digits) and the bases ‘ten’ and
‘hundred’ are, for the most part, semantically unmotivated,
at least as far as we can tell.
Examination of both the number words and the cognitive
strategies by which IE numeral systems build their higher
numbers, however, shows that the facts are not nearly so
straightforward. While Neogrammarian sound correspond-
ences do argue for inherited forms, a form often changes
meaning over time. Irregularities in the systems of teen and
decade formations also raise doubts about the inheritance of
a system based on ten, as such irregularities, are likely to
preserve relics of earlier systems (cf. ‘sing, sang, sung’ which
preserves the old verbal system that has been regularized in
verbs like ‘jump, jumped; walk, walked’). But our modem
thinking about numeral systems is, with few exceptions, so
influenced by the decimal system that it is difficult to imagine
a system that has words for ‘ten’ and ‘hundred’ in which higher
numbers are not formed by successive multiplication by ten.
The relative chronology of the IE numerals is now in the
process of being reappraised in the context of what we know
from early economic documents written on clay tablets in
the fourth millennium BC in the valleys of the Tigris-Euphrates
and Indus rivers. Before c 3400-3100 BC calculation was
not yet based on a unified system of ‘ten’ or any other single
base unit. Clay token forms standing for different commodities
were initially impressed into clay, once for each unit of
commodity suggesting a system based on one-to-one corres-
pondence between the unit of goods and a token. So five
undifferentiated impressions of a jug-shaped token would
represent five jugs of wine, a fusion between concepts for
quantity and commodity. By the late fourth millennium BC
substitution of five neutrally-shaped marks plus one jug-
shaped token impression came to differentiate the quantity
from the commodity, thus separating number as an abstract
concept from the commodity quantified. This break in
notation strategy represents a cognitive shift in thinking about
the quantification of goods.
Early Near Eastern base units included ‘2’, ‘6’, and ‘10’,
among others, depending on the commodity counted. (As
late as the twentieth century we still have not regularized
factors 12 and 60 for measuring time and 12 and 30 that,
irregularly, divide the year.) Sumerian and Elamite systems
that evolved along with early agriculture were based on factors
6 and 10 but did not exponentiate on either, as the decimal
system does with ten. If our best records for the rise of
numeracy show abstract counting only in the third millennium
BC, it would be surprising to find Proto-Indo-Europeans
before the late fourth millennium using a decimal system
based on exponentiation by ten.
Among number forms, base units or multiples have
elsewhere been reinterpreted when a system changed the value
of its base. The most pervasive IE base unit form, *k rptom, is
widely attested in the meaning TOO’, yet disturbing uses of it
occur where one would expect a form of ‘ten’, perhaps even
‘five’, instead. Did it once mean ‘base unit’ with a different
numerical value in a pre-decimal system? Despite clear
evidence for IE numeral forms, there remain tantalizing
mysteries about their interpretation.
In the following data the units are given first with cardinal,
ordinal, and (in the case of the ‘two’ and ‘three’) the
multiplicative. Oldest deictic forms underlying the digits ‘one’
to ‘three’ may reflect concrete counting, while ‘four’ and ‘five’,
to the extent that they reflect a system based on hand counting,
may show an early stage of abstract counting. If ‘eight’ is
derived from ‘four’, it reflects a stage when ‘four’ was a base
number. ‘Six’ and ‘seven’ may be borrowed, while ‘nine’ and
‘ten’, with the borrowing of ‘seven’, take on roles in the new
decimal series based on atoms ‘one’ to ‘ten’.
Units
One
The number ‘one’ was represented in the proto-language
by two roots. The current hypothesis is that *o/-no referred
to an individual object alone while *sem- referred to the group
as a whole: a ‘unity’ formed from a ‘joined together’
multiplicity. The fact that no one form stood for the cardinal
number ‘one’ suggests that at the earliest stage of PIE the
concept of ‘one’ as an abstraction of umtness or cardinality
had not yet evolved, but that it arose independently by two
separate, semantically motivated paths of development. The
absence of a single word for ‘one’ has also been recorded for
other language families, e.g., Semitic, Kartvelian, Sumerian,
and is explained by the observation that single objects do not
require a numeral and that actual counting begins with the
number ‘two’.
*oi-no-s ~ *oi-\io-s ~ *oi-ko-s (or *hioi-no-s ~
*hioi-\}0-s~ *hioi-ko-s ?) ‘one’. [IEW28 1-286 (*oi-nos), GI
741 (*oi-no-/*oi-wo-/*oi-k h -);W^i^5 ( *oi-no-)\ Buck 1 3. 32 ]
— 398 —
NUMERALS
< *e-/*o- deictic pronoun [IEW 281-286 (*e~, *ei-, */-)];
*o-, locative *oi- ‘with the one, in the one, on its own’ (1)
*oi- + particle -no-: OIr oln ‘only one, single’, oena ‘units’
(not adj. nor numeral in early Irish), Weis un ‘one; a, an (indef.
art.)’, Lat unus ‘one, alone’, ON einn ‘one’, OE an ‘one’ (> NE
one, a, an), OHG ein ‘one, an, a’, Goth ains ‘one’, OPrus ains
‘one’, Lith vfenas ‘one’, Latv Wens ‘one’, OCS ino- ‘one’ in
ino-rogu ‘unicorn’, (j)ed-in - ‘one’, Rus odin- ‘one’ (< *(j)ed-
inu), perhaps Alb (Gheg) nji, (Tosk) nje ‘one’ (< stressed *nia-
< *eni-oino- ‘deictic + numeral’ or < *smieh a -)\ (2) *oi- +
particle *-y o-\ Av aeva- ‘one’, OPers aiva- ‘one, alone’; (3)
*oi- + particle *-ko-: Mitanni aika-wartanna ‘one turning, one
lap (in horse race)’, Olnd eka- ‘one’ (with pronominal
inflection)(< Indo-lran *aika-< *oi-ko-)\ (4) *e-/*o-: perhaps
Alb (Gheg) nji , (Tosk) nje ‘one’ (< *eni-oino- ‘deictic *e- +
numeral *oi-no~), Hit *a- pronoun: Hit stem *a- ‘one’. The
roots also have the meaning ‘one alone, one single one’; it is
deictic in origin, i.e., *oi-, *ei-, *i- < *e-/o- ‘that one’: Oir e,
he ‘that one’, Lat is ‘that one’, ON es ‘which, that one’, OHG
er, it ‘he’, Goth is ‘he’, CrimGoth ita ‘one’, Lith jis ‘he’, Grk
(HomericXfem.) m ‘she, the one, the same’, iog ‘that one’,
Olnd ayam, iyam , idam ‘he, she, it’. The deictic form *o-and
its derivatives *oi -, *oi-no- referring to singularity are old
PIE forms. Use of this root with variant suffixes in *oi-uo -
*oi-ko- for the cardinal numbers ‘one’ represents independent
dialectal innovations.
*sem-s ~ *sem ~ *sm-ih a - ‘united as one, one together’.
[IEW 902 ( *sem-); Wat 57 ( *sem-)\ Buck 13.32; BK 184
( *sam-/*sam-)\ . Perhaps Alb (Gheg) nji , (Tosk) nje{< *smieh a -
or stressed *ni- < PIE *eni-oino- ‘deictic + numeral’) ‘one’,
Grk eig, pfct, ev (masc., fern., neut.) ‘one’, Myc e-me ‘one’,
Arm mi (< *sm~ih a ) ‘one’, TochA sas (masc.), sam (fern.) ‘one’,
TochB se (< Proto-Toch *sems) ‘one’. Clearly widespread and
old in IE.
*per- ~ *pro- (in derivatives) ‘first’. |/EW 811-815
(*per-); GI 741 ( *ph(e)f-EI-)\ Wat 49 ( *per-)\ Buck 13.34;
BK 41 ( *p[ b }ar-/*pl b )9r-)] . From *p[h x uos: OE forwost
‘captain, chief, OCS prlvu ‘first’, Alb pare (< *pfh x -yo- or
*p^h x o-uo-l) ‘first’, Av paurva- ‘prior’, paourvya- ‘prior, first’,
OPers paruviya - ‘prior, first’, Olnd ptirva- ‘first; to the fore,
eastern’, purvya- ‘prior, first’, TochA parwat ‘first’, TochB parwe
‘earlier’, parwesse ‘first’ (cf. ON Freyr Iname of godl), Goth
frauja ‘lord’ as if < PIE *prouio-\ OE frea ‘lord’, OHG fro ‘lord’
(as if < PIE *pro\jon-)\ formations with the suffix *-mo-: Lat
primus ‘first’ (< superlative *pri-is- + -mo-), Umb promom ~
prumum ‘at first’, ON frum-burdr ‘first-born’, OE frum
‘primal, original, first’, fruma ‘origin’, Goth fruma ~ frumists
‘first’, OPrus pirmas ‘first’, Lith pirmas ‘first’, Latv pirmais
‘first’ (Baltic, and perhaps Gmc, < *pfh x -mo-)\ formations
with a *-t- suffix: Grk np&xog ‘first, foremost’ (< old
instrumental *prohi- ‘by the front side’), npoxepog ‘in front;
earlier; superior’, Av fratara- ‘prior’, fratama- ‘first’, OPers
fratama- ‘first’, Olnd (adv.) prataram ‘further, future’,
prathama- ‘first’ (the Indo-lranian forms with *-ta-ma- show
the influence of the general Indo-lranian superlative suffix *-
tama-)\ other formations: ON fyrstr ‘first’, OE fyresl ~ fyrst
‘first’ (> NE first ) (< PIE *pfh x -isto -), Ann arajcin (with difficult
- jc -) ‘first’. Other roots used for ‘first’ in IE languages include
*ken- ‘young’ as in Oir cetnae (< *ken-t-on-io- ) ‘first’, Gaul
cintu-gnatos ‘first-born’ (cf. Lat re-cens ‘young, fresh, new’)
and *h2ent- ‘front’ in Luv hantel(i)- first’. Hit hantezzi- ‘first,
anterior’, Lycian xntawa- ‘rule, kingship; ruler’, and again in
Rom Intli ‘first’ (< *antaneus, derived from Lat ante ‘before’).
By far the majority of IE words for ‘first’ come from variants
of an old IE spatial root (*per-/*pro-) in its meaning of
anteriority. Nevertheless, other roots are responsible for Celtic
and Anatolian forms. The fact that there is so much hesitation
in the exact derivations from * per-/* pro- that give the majority
of IE words for ‘first’ suggests that PIE had not yet developed
an abstract ordinal of ‘firstness’ nor the related cardinality for
which *oi-no- ‘one alone’ and *sem- ‘united as one, one
together’ compete.
See also Alone, Once; Same; Some.
Two
Forms relating to ‘two’ and ‘twoness’ are of old IE origin,
possibly from an older demonstrative meaning ‘that one
farther away’, with the abstract cardinality of “twoness”
developing later. Cardinal ‘two’ from dual forms *duehj(u)-
- *duuehj(u) is inflected as a pronoun or adjective in
languages with case, number and gender inflection. Singular
*d(u)uoi- ‘two’, with collective meaning, suggests that IE
‘twoness’ was first collective then cardinal.
*du£h3(u) ~ *duu£h3(u) two’ (dual). [IEW 228-229
( *duo(uj)\ GI 742-743 (*tVo-); Wat 15-16 (*dwo-)}.
*dueh3(u): Oir dau ~ dou ‘two’, OWels dou ‘two’, Lat duo
‘two’, ON (masc.) tveir , (neut.) tva ‘two’, OE (masc.) tu ‘two’,
(fern.) twa ‘two’ (> NE two), OHG (fern.) zwa, zwo, (neut.)
zwe ‘two’, Goth (pi.) twai ‘two’, CrimGoth tua ‘two’, OPrus
(pi.) dwai ‘two’, Lith (masc.) du, (dual) dv 1 ‘two’, Latv (pi.)
divi ‘two’, OCS (masc.) duva ‘two’, Rus dva, (fern.) dve' two’,
Alb dy ‘two’, Myc dwo ‘two’, Grk 8vo) ‘two’, Arm erku ‘two’,
Av dva ‘two’, Olnd (masc.) dva (fem. /neut.) dve ‘two’, TochA
(masc.) wu, (fem.) we ‘two’, TochB wi ‘two’; *duueh3(u): ?Hit
tuwa ‘distant’.
*duHos- *dui-tos ‘belonging to two, second’. 1/EW230
( *dy/-) 1 . From *d\ii-io- ‘that one farther away’: Hit lv duyanalli-
‘officer of the second rank’, Lycian khijehi ‘foreign, other’;
also with *-io-: NPers dowom, doyyom ‘second’, Pashto
dwayam ‘second’; *doios, variant of *duoi-io- ‘two, twofold’:
Hit (loc.) t/dan ‘for the second time, again, secondly’; from
*dui-to-: Alb dyte ‘second’, Khot sat a- ‘second’, Olnd dvita
‘doubly so’, TochA wat ‘second’, TochB wate ‘second’; on
analogy with *-tio in ‘third’: Umb *du-tio- as duti ‘a second
time’, Av daibitya ~ bitya ‘second’, Parth byd (< OIran *duitiia-
‘second’ on the model of *tftfya- ‘third’), Olnd dvitfya-
‘second’. Cf. also *ui-teros: OCS vUtoru ‘second’, Olnd xitava-
‘the next, later’. Clearly separate semantic innovations include:
Oir tanaise (< *do-anat ‘expects’) ‘second’, Lat secundus
‘second’ (< *sek w - ‘follow’), Grk Ssmepog (< *8ev here’ +
— 399 —
NUMERALS
*-r epo-) ‘second, on this side’. Variation in source and original
senses of ‘second’ suggests that PIE had no single form.
*c/y oi- ~ *d(u)voiios ‘two, group of two’ (cardinal
collective). [IEW 229 ( *duoi -), 231], OIr dias ‘unity of two
peoples, couple’, Khot dvi- ‘two’. Phonological variant *doios:
Hit *t/da- ‘two’ (cf. da-iuga ‘two years old, two-fold, double
year’) usually written 2 + phonetic complements; *t/dan (adv.)
‘second time, secondly’, Luv tuwanza, tuwinza (formerly read
tu-wa-i ) ‘two’.
‘bi-’ (prefix). [IEW 229 ( *dui -)]. Lat bi- ‘two-’ as in
bi-pes ‘two-footed’, OE twi- as in twi- fete ‘two-footed’, Grk
8(f)i- ‘two-’ as in 81-novg ‘two-footed’, Av bi- ‘two-’ as in bi-
zangra ‘two-footed’, OInd dvi- ‘two-’ as in dvi-pad- ‘two-
footed’.
*d\}is ‘twice’ (multiplicative). [IEW 230 ( *duis)\ GI 743
(*t’wis)]. OIr fo di ‘twice’, OLat duis ‘twice’, Lat bis ‘twice’,
MHG zwir ‘twice’, Grk 8(f)ig\vAce\ Arm erkir ‘twice, second’,
Av bis ‘twice’, OInd dvi- ‘twice’. Also *dui-t- ‘twice, double’:
Olnd d vita -twice, double’, dvitlya- ‘secondly’. Cf. *duis-uo-
‘other, twice’ in Milyan tbisu , Lycian kbihu ‘other, twice’. The
widespread coincidence of form and meaning among reflexes
of this old multiplicative form for ‘two’, beside the fact that
other words such as ‘apart, twin, between, doubt’ are derived
from it, suggests that it is inherited.
*dyoios ‘double(d), twofold’. [IEW 231], OCS dQvoji
‘twofold, two’, dQvoje' a set of two things’, Grk Soioq ‘doubled’,
Hit dan-ki (< *dijoiom + ki ) ‘twice, to a double level’ (written
2-an-ki i), OInd dvaya- ‘duplicity’. Widespread and probably
old in IE. The Germanic genitives of ‘two’ are sometimes put
here, e.g., ON tveggja ‘of two’, OE twegen ‘of two’ (> NE
twain), OHG zwei(i)o ‘of two’, Goth twaddje ‘of two’, but
they mean something different and are better taken as remains
of a morphological dual in Germanic than as a derivative
formation.
*du(e)i-plos double, twofold’. [IEW 802 (*duei-plo-)] Gl
682 ^t’wei-p^lo-)]. OIr dlabul ‘double’, Lat duplus ‘double’,
duplex ‘two-fold’, Grk 8inX6q ~ 8inXdq ‘twice’, Milyan tbi-
ple ‘two-fold, double’, possibly also Av bifra- ‘comparison,
similarity’. This multiplicative of ‘two’, formed with the verb
*pel- ‘fold’, undoubtedly belongs to late IE conceptual struc-
tures as multiplicatives; the more pervasive suffixes, -ko-,
-no- are older, and *duis ‘twice’ is older still.
*bhdu ‘both’. [IEW 34-35 ( *ambhd(u ))■ GI 59; Wat 2
( *ambho)\ . Av uba- ‘both’, OPers uba- ‘both’, OInd u-bhau
‘both’; Gmc *bai: Goth (pi.) bai ‘both’, cf. Lith ablem ‘both’,
Latv abiem ‘both’, OCS abema ‘both’; with pronominal
suffixes: ON badir 1 both’, OE begen ‘both’, NHG beide'both’,
Goth bajops\ with emphatic prefix *am-\ Lat ambo ‘both’,
Lith abu ‘both’, OCS oba ‘both’, Rus oba ‘both’, Grk apqxo
‘both’; and *am-bhi , *rp-bhi ‘on both sides, around’ [/EW34
(*ambhi) ]. OIr imb ~ imm ‘about’, Gaul amb- ‘about’, Lat
ambi- ‘about’, OHG umbi ‘about’, Grk dptpi ‘around’, OInd
a-bhl ‘about’, TochA ampi ‘both’, TochB ant-api ‘both’. The
form for the collective numeral root is clearly old as seen
from its widespread presence from one end of the IE dialect
expanse to the other, and the semantic development of a
concept ‘both’ is probably a shared phenomenon, albeit one
that proceeded independently by more than one path in the
individual dialects with the addition of a suffix in Germanic,
the prefix *am- elsewhere.
See also Dmde; Follow; Other.
Three
*tr6ies (pi.) ‘three’; perhaps older *ter-~ *tr-‘even further’;
cf. *tr-i- ‘upper, above (two); last number of a pre-manual
count system’. [IEW 1090-1091 (rirei-); GI 743 ( *t h rei-),
Wat 71-72 ( *trei-)\ Buck 13.41-52]. OIr (masc.) tri ~ tri
‘three’, Weis tri ‘three’, Lat tres ‘three’, ON prir ‘three’, OE
(masc.) pne ‘three’ (> NE three), OHG dn ‘three’, Goth (masc.)
preis ‘three’, (neut.) prija ‘three’, OPrus tris ‘three’, Lith trys
‘three’, Latv tris ‘three’, OCS (masc.) trije, (fern.) tri ‘three’,
Alb (masc.) tre ‘three’, Myc *tri- in ti-ri-po ‘tripod’, Grk r peig
three’, Arm erek“ three’, Hit ten- ‘three’, Lycian tri- ‘three’, Av
(masc.) Qrayo ‘three’, OInd (masc.) trayas, (neut.) tri ‘three’,
TochA (masc.) tre ‘three’, TochB (masc.) trai, (fern.) tarya
‘three’. In languages with inflected lower numerals, the
cardinal numeral ‘three’ is inflected for gender. Widespread
agreement in form and meaning suggests that this is an old
IE root, probably originally ‘upper, above’ with derivatives
meaning ‘group of three, three’. Tocharian forms reflect a blend
of *treies and *troios ‘trio, triad’, clear recent innovations on
the older root. An old late PIE dialectal feminine *tisres
(< *tri-sr-/*tri-sor- or *tris-r-/ *tris-or- [IEW 1091]) is
preserved, with r...r dissimilation, in OIr tedir, MWels teir,
Av tisrd, OInd tisras (< Indo-Iran *tisr-), competing with
feminine-neuter (collectives) *tri-i(i)h a . Lat tria, Goth prija,
Grk t pia, OCS (masc. -fern.) trije.
*ter-ios~ *tri}-os> *tri~ios ‘third’, (late PIE) *tri-tos, with
remodeled *tri-t-iios (cf. Lat it-in-er-is ‘journey’ (gen.) for
*itinis of older heteroclitic *iter, *itinis). [IEW 1091 ( *trei-)\
Wat 7 1-72 ( *trei-)] . OIr triu ‘three’, Arm eri-r, eri-rord ‘thrice,
third’, Hit teriyan ‘third’, teriyanna (+ *-ono-) ‘for the third
time’, teriyalla- ‘third ranked’, Luv tarriyanalli- ‘third rank’;
with *-to-\ Alb trete third’, Grk zpizoq ‘third’, (Homeric)
Tphcctog ‘third’, OInd trita- ‘third’, TochA trit ‘third’, TochB
trite ‘third’. From *tritiios, *tptiios : Weis trydydd ‘third’, Lat
tertius ‘third’, Umb tertiu, terti (< *tf-), ON pridi ‘third’, OE
pridda ‘third’ (> NE third), OHG dritt(i)o ‘third’, Goth pridja
‘third’ (< Proto-Gmc *pridjan), OPrus tirts, tirts ‘third’, Lith
trecias ‘third’, Latv tresais ‘third’, OCS tretiji, treti' third’, Rus
tretij ‘third’, Av dritya- ‘third’, OInd tftiya- ‘third’. *-tuo- quite
likely reflects a later development in which abstract ordinal
*io- renews an older ordinal in *-t-. It would not be surprising
to find shared words for the abstract ordinal ‘third’ of late PIE
date if abstract counting was also late and cardinal ‘three’ itself
was from an original root meaning *tr-i- ‘above, upper’ that
was adapted for use as an abstract numeral when the numeral
system developed. Clearly outside the numeral system proper
and perhaps of PIE date are forms reflecting *tristis, *tfstos
with meanings relating to ‘third’ and the role of a third person
— 400
NUMERALS
in a transaction: OIr tress, triss ‘third’, Lat testis ‘witness’, Osc
trstus ‘third standing by’, or *teriio- : Hit teriyalla- ‘mediator’.
*tris ‘thrice’. {/EW1091 (*fris); G1 743 (*t h ris)]. OLat terr
‘three’, Lat fer(< *t/s< *fris) ‘thrice’, trlni(< *tris-no-) ‘three
each’, Grk rptg ‘thrice’, Av Oris ‘thrice’, OInd trz's- trih ‘thrice’.
Despite the similarity of appearance, NE thrice is an innovation
of ME thries and similarly MHG dries ‘thrice’. Though typically
replaced by newer formations in the various IE groups, the
remaining attestations of *tris would seem to guarantee it
PIE status.
See also Three-headed Monster.
Four
*k w et\}or-~ *k w etur-~ *k w e tqor- ~ *k w e tur- ‘four’. [IEW
642-643 (*k u etuer-)\ Gl 743 (* k ho et h we/or-) ; Wat 34
( *k w etwer-)] . Olr cethair ~ cithir ~ cethri ‘four’, Lat quattuor
‘four’, Lith keturi ‘four’, Latv cetri ‘four’, OCS cetyre ‘four’,
Alb kater ‘four’, Myc (inst.) qe-to-ro-pi ‘with four feet’, Grk
(Homeric) recaapeq ‘four’, (Attic) rerzapeq ‘four’, (Doric)
zetopeq ‘four’, Arm c‘ork‘ ‘four’, Av CaOwaro ‘four’, Olnd
catvara- ~ catura- ‘four’, TochA stwar‘ four’, TochB s'twer ‘four’.
From *petuor- (< *k w etuor- under the influence of *penk w e
‘five’): OWels petguar ‘four’, Weis pedwar ‘four’, Osc petora
‘four’, ON fjorir ‘four’, OE feower ‘four’ (> NE four), OHG
fior ‘four’, Goth fidwor ‘four’, CrimGoth fyder ‘four’, Grk
(Lesbian) neavpeq ‘four’, (Boeotian) Jtezzapeq ‘four’. From
this root are various derivatives, e.g., *k w etuer-: Lith ketveri
‘quartet’, OCS cetveri ‘quartet’, OInd catvara- ‘four-cornered
(place)’. In compounds we have *k w etur- : OInd catus-pad-
‘four-footed’ and various derivatives: Lat quadru-ped- ‘four
footed’, Myc qe-to-ro-po-pi ‘four-footed (animals)’. Dialectal
innovations on the form and irregularities in correspondences,
e.g., the oddity of Lat quattuor and Germanic and Celtic
innovations, leave open the possibility of borrowing. Proposals
for analysis range from Finno-Ugric *kwet- ‘pair’ (variants
*k w etuer~, *k w etesor- plus suffixes *uer- ‘man’, *sor-
‘woman’) to *k w e-tur , formally ‘indefinite particle’ + ‘grasp
(with the hand), whatever grasped, four’ with false sandhi
split in a counting series *tri~, *kwetur ‘three-indefinite, four’;
cf. ordinal forms without *kwe-: Grk (personal name)
Tvpraioq similar to Lat Quintus ‘Fifth’, Av tuirya , OInd turiya-
‘fourth’.
As with the feminine of ‘three’, by late PIE, dialectal
feminine ablaut variants in *-s(o)r - compete with feminine
(abstract collective) forms in *-i(j)h a (Lat tria , OCS [fem -
neut.] cetyri, Grk terra pa). These competitors, *k w eto-sr - ,
*k w ete-sor -, are preserved as *k w etesore- in OIr cethoir,
cetheoir , Weis pedair, and *k w etosr- in Av catarno, OInd
catasras , with dissimilations of -w- and r...r before the much
discussed ablauting suffix, *-s(o)r~. The concrete meaning of
*-s(o)r- of Hit hassussara- ‘queen’ ( hassu - ‘king’), isha-ssara-
‘lady’ ( isha - ‘lord’, perhaps also PIE *sue-sor ‘sister’ (< ?‘own
woman’) argues that *-s(o)r- was established as a separate
feminine marker before the separation of Anatolian from the
rest of Indo-European. Only later, after that separation, did
*s(o)r- become an agreement marker for these numerical
adjectives.
? *mei-u os (adj.) ‘belonging to the little hand?’ or ‘increased
above “3”?’. [IEW 711 ( *mei-)\ cf. GI 743; Wat 40 (*mei-)\.
Myc me-wi-jo ‘smaller, younger’ (if not also ‘four’), Luv mawa
‘four’, mawati ‘with four sides’, mawaninta ‘harnessed in fours
(?)’, Hit meyu -, miyu -, miu- (u-stem noun) ‘member of a group
of four; four’, miuwaniyant- ‘harnessed in fours’. Comparison
of the Mycenaean form with Lat minor' less’, Goth mms ‘less’,
Greek pe(f)(cov ‘smaller’ has suggested relations with PIE
*mei- ‘be little, small’, i.e., the ‘smaller (hand)’ in a system
based on hand counting, as a semantic proto-type of ‘four’.
Forms for the number ‘four’ pose problems that point to IE
innovation and borrowing. Reflexes of a *mei-uos in Luvian
and Hittite argue for an old IE alternative to the usually
accepted *k w etuor- and related forms.
*k w et\for-tos~ *k w etur-tos~ *petur-tos ‘fourth’ (ordinal).
[IEW 643 ( *k u etur -); GI 743 ( *(k ho )t h ur-yo-)\ . Lat quartus
‘fourth’, ON fjordi ‘fourth’, OE feorpa ‘fourth’ (> NE fourth ),
OHG fiordo ‘fourth’ (< Proto-Gmc *fiSurpa-), OPrus kettwirts
‘fourth’, Lith ketvirtas ‘fourth’, Latv c?turtais ‘fourth’, OCS
cetvritu ‘fourth’, Rus cetvertyj ‘fourth’, Alb katert ‘fourth’, Grk
rerparoq ‘fourth’, (Attic-Ionic) reraproq ‘fourth’, OInd
caturtha- ‘fourth’, TochA start ‘fourth’, TochB starte ‘fourth’;
with *-io-\ Av tuirya- ‘fourth’, OInd turiya- ‘fourth’. Arm c‘or-
ir ‘fourth’ is an innovation on the analogy of erk-ir ‘second’,
er-ir ‘third’. Other derivatives include Lat quadru- ‘fourth’,
Av caOru- ‘fourth’, and possibly non-numeral Hit kutruwan
(< *k w e tur-id-m ) ‘witness (< *‘the fourth party to a trans-
action’). Cf. OIr tress ‘third’ but Lat testis ‘witness’, the third
party. Ordinal forms for ‘fourth’ derived from *k w etqor~ and
its variants are of late PIE or post-PIE origin.
See also Grow; Less; Numerals (Eight).
Five
*p6nk w e ‘five’. [/EW808 ( *penWe)\ Gl 743, 746-747
( *p h enk ho e)\ Wat 49 ( *penk w e )]. Grk nevre ‘five’. Arm hing
‘five’, probably Luv 5-w(a) (< *pa n ku) ‘five’, Av panca ‘five’,
OInd panca ‘five’, TochA pan ‘five’, TochB pis ‘five’. Suffixed
forms are also found: Lith penki ‘five’, OCS p$tl ‘five’, Rus
pjati ‘five’. Alb pese (Gheg pese) ‘five’, Mitanni panza-wartanna
‘five-laps (of a horse around a track)’, OInd paiikti- ‘group of
five’ (cf. also pra-panca- ‘diversity’, prapanca-na- ‘detailed
exposition’; *k w enk w e with assimilation of *p- to *k w -\ Olr
coic ‘five’, Lat quinque ‘five’, *pempe with assimilation of
*-k w - to -p-: OWels pimp ‘five’, ON fimm ‘five’, OE fit' 1 five’
(> NE five), OHG /i'mf ‘five’, Goth fimf' five’, CrimGoth fyuf~
*fynf ~ *fiff ‘five’ (< Proto-Gmc *fimf), Grk (Aeolic) nepne
‘five’ (cf. also Grk KEgTta^a) ‘count’). The form for ‘five’ is
clearly PIE in origin although comparisons with *penk w -, an
IE word for ‘hand’, and Grk nepK(o ‘send’ < *‘escort, lead by
hand’, for example, may suggest that ‘five’ is secondary, derived
from the original meaning ‘hand’.
*pi}k w -tds~ *p£nk w -tos~ *p6nk w -e-tos fifth [IEW 808
( *penk v tos)\ GI 743 ( *p h enk ho -t h o-)\ . *pnk w tos: Av puxSa-
— 401 —
NUMERALS
‘fifth’, OInd paktha- ‘fifth’; *penk w -tos\ OPrus piencts ‘fifth’,
Lith penktas ‘fifth’, Latv piektais ‘fifth’, OCS p?tu ‘fifth’, Rus
pjatyj ‘fifth’. Alb peste ‘fifth’, TochA pant ‘fifth’, TochB pinkte
‘fifth’ (cf. also perhaps epinkte ~ epinte ‘between’ if < *‘in the
fifth place’ [i.e., after the four cardinal directionsl). With
assimilation of *-k w - to *-p- ( *pemp-tos ): ON fimti ‘fifth’,
OE fifta ‘fifth’ (> NE fifth), OHG fifto ~ fimto ‘fifth’, Goth
fimfta- fifth’ (< Proto-Gmc *fimfta-), Grk nepnxog' fifth’; with
assimilation of *p- to *k w - ( *k w enk w -tos ): Lat qulntus ‘fifth’;
*penk w -e-tos with assimilation of *p to *k w - ( *k w enk w -e-
tos ): Olr coiced ‘fifth’, and assimilation of *k w - to -p- ( *pemp-
e-tos): OWels pimphet ‘fifth’. Arm hing-er-ord ‘fifth’ is an
innovation of a different sort.
See also Abundance; Hand.
Six
*(s)ueks ~ *(k)seks ~ *ksijeks six’. [IEW 1044 (*sueks)\
G1 743 (*s°ek b -s): Wat 68 ( *s(w)eks ); BK 193 ( *s w ak[ h Js w -/
*s w dkl h ]s w -)]. From *sueks~ *ueks: Olr se ‘six’, seisser ‘six
men’, Weis chwech ‘six’, Myc we-pe-za ‘(table with) six feet’,
Grk (f)e^ ~ e? ‘six’, Arm vec“ six’; from *seks: Lat sex ‘six’,
ON sex ‘six’, OE siex ‘six’ (> NE six), OHG sehs ‘six’, Goth
saihs ‘six’, TochA sak ‘six’, TochB skas ‘six’; from *(k)seks:
Lith sesi ‘six’, Latv sesi ‘six’, OCS sesti ‘six’, Alb gjashte ‘six’;
from *ksueks: Av xsvas ‘six’, OInd sas ‘six’. The range of the
IE forms may suggest independent borrowings rather than
an inherited numeral. One might recall here words for ‘six’ in
East Semitic Akkadian ( sessum , sesset), if not Egyptian s’rs’w
beside s’i’s’w.
*sijeRs-os ~ *syek(s)-tos ~ *sek(s)-tos ~ *qeks-tos ~
*ksuKs-tos ‘sixth’. [ IEW 1 044 ( *sueks)\ GI 743 ( *sPek b -t b o-)\
BK 193 (*s w ak[ b ]s w -/*s w ok[ h ]s w -)]. From *(k)s(u)eks-os:
Gaul suexos ‘sixth’, Av xstva- ‘sixth’; from *(s)(u)ek(s)-tos:
Lat sextus ‘sixth’, Umb sest- ‘sixth’ (in compounds), ON setti
‘sixth’, OE siexta ‘sixth’ (> NE sixth), OHG seh(s)to ‘sixth’,
Goth salhsta ‘sixth’, OPrus usts ~ uschts (< *uRtos) ‘sixth’,
Lith sestas ‘sixth’, Latv s^stais ‘sixth’, Bulg sesti ‘sixth’. Alb
gjashte (dialectally gjashte t) ‘sixth’, Grk (f)eKiog ~ eictog
‘sixth’. Arm vec'erord ‘sixth’, OInd sastha- ‘sixth’, TochA skast
‘sixth’, TochB skaste ‘sixth’; from *s(u)eRs-eto-: Olr seissed
‘sixth’, Weis chweched ‘sixth’. Ordinal formations reflect layers
of development from those with only the theme vowel
(Gaulish, Avestan), to later ordinal suffixes in *-to~, remodeled
in Old Irish and Welsh with still later *-eto-.
Seven
*septifi ‘seven’. [IEW 909 ( *septiji)\ Gl 743-744
{*sep^t b rp)\ Wat 58 ( *septrp)\ BK 188 (* sab-/* sob-)]. Olr
secht n- ‘seven’, MWels seith (< *heith with Latin influence)
‘seven’, Lat septem ‘seven’, ON sjau ~ sjo ‘seven’, OE seofon
‘seven’ (> NE seven), OHG sibun ‘seven’, Goth sibun ‘seven’,
Lith septyni ‘seven’, OCS sedmi ‘seven’, Rus semi ‘seven’, Alb
shtate (dial, shetate) ‘seven’, Grk enxd ‘seven’, Arm ewt‘n
‘seven’, Hit sipta- ‘seven’, perhaps sipta- in sipta-miya kind of
drink (with seven ingredients?, cf. NE punch ‘drink with five
ingredients’), Av hapta ‘seven’, Mitanni satta-wartanna ‘seven
laps (of a horse around a track)’, OInd sapta ‘seven’, TochA
spat ‘seven’, TochB sukt ‘seven’. The IE form for ‘seven’ may
be a PIE borrowing from Semitic feminine *s-b-’-tu (in the
role of an abstract noun, *sib'att ‘a seven, the number seven’)
with the IE suffix *-m- on analogy with - m - in ‘nine’ and ‘ten’
ordering it into the new series ‘one’ to ‘ten’ (or alternatively
from Proto-Semitic *sab-at-u-m [stem + fern, abstract marker
+ nom. + definite marker]). It has also been suggested that
Kartvelian *swid- ‘seven’ is related while Hurrian sittanna
‘seven laps’, translating Mitanni satta-wartanna ‘seven laps’,
suggests a shared fourteenth century BC Anatolian and upper
Mesopotamian culture word. All of this seems to argue for
the widespread dissemination of a (presumably Proto-Semitic)
word for ‘seven’ among a series of language families but not
Sumerian where we find imin ‘seven’ (literally ‘six + one’).
*septiji-mds, later *septifi-tos ~ *septiji-(e)tos seventh’.
[IEW909 ( *sept( e )mos ); GI 743-744 (*sep h t h -mo-)\ BK 188
{* sab-/* sob-)]. From *septiji-mos : Lat septimus ‘seventh’,
OPrus sepmas ‘seventh’, Lith sekmas ‘seventh’, OCS sedmu
‘seventh’, Grk efidopoq ‘seventh’, Hit 7-an-na ‘but for the
seventh time’, sapta- in the Cappadocian place-name sapta-
nigra ‘Seventh sister’ (with nasal assimilation), MPers haftom
‘seventh’, OInd saptama- ‘seventh’; from *septrji-tos , *septrp-
etos: Olr sechtmad ‘seventh’, Weis seithfed ‘seventh’, OE siofpa
- siofoda ‘seventh’ (> NE seventh ), OHG sibunto ‘seventh’,
Lith septintas ‘seventh’, Latv septitais ‘seventh’, Alb shtate
‘seventh’, Grk (Homeric) sfiSopotToq ‘seventh’ (cf. r puctrog
‘third’), Av haptada- ‘seventh’, OInd saptatha- ‘seventh’, TochA
saptant ‘seventh’, TochB suktante ‘seventh’; *septip-tis: ON
sjdndi(< Proto-Gmc *sijundi-) ‘seventh’, sjaund 1 set of seven,
seventh day after a death, wake’. Productive IE ordinal
( *-to -, *-eto-) and abstract ( *-ti -) suffixes are innovating
formations that replace older ordinal derivations with only
the theme vowel.
Eight
*oktd ~ *oktdu (or *hxOkt6 ~ *hxoktdu) (dual) ‘eight’ (<
*‘two fours’?). [IEW 775 ( *okto(u))\ GI 744 ( *ok b t b o(u ));
Wat 45 ( *okto(u))\ . Olr ocht n- ‘eight’, Weis wyth ‘eight’, Lat
octo ‘eight’, ON atta ‘eight’, OE eahta ‘eight’ (> NE eight),
OHG ahto ‘eight’, Goth ahtau ‘eight’, CrimGoth ohte ‘eight’,
Lith astuoni ‘eight’, Latv astudpi L e ight’, OCS osmi ‘eight’, Rus
vosem ‘eight’, Alb fete ‘eight’, Grk oktco ‘eight’, Arm ut‘ (<
*-pt-, influence of *septifi) ‘eight’, Av asta ‘eight’, asti- length
measure, breadth of four fingers, palm’, OInd (dual) asta ~
astau ‘eight’, TochA okat ‘eight’, TochB okt ‘eight’. Dual forms
for ‘eight’ suggest that the root form was related to ‘four’, a
suggestion reinforced by Av asti- ‘breadth of four fingers, palm’
beside Av asta ‘eight’. Alternatively, *oRtdu ‘eight’ may be
derived from full-grade roots: *ek w etu-, *ok w etu- or
*ek w et\i6(s), *ok w etuo(s) from which PIE *k w etuor- ‘four’
may be a zero-grade. With addition of a numeral determinative
*-r, this zero-grade form, *k w etuo-r- ‘four’, would have
become ordered into the new numeral system. A dual of such
— 402 —
NUMERALS
an early IE form for ‘four’ would thus be the prototype for the
dual *oktdu ‘eight’. Instances in which older numeral systems
formed higher numbers by duplicating forms for lower
numbers are well known. For example, an Old Sumerian
system formed ‘six’ pes-pes from pes ‘three’, and Finno-Ugric
*kwet ‘two’ is the basis for *kwet-kwet ‘four’. It is thus not
unreasonable that IE would use the dual of the lower number
for double its value.
*oEt-\)6s ~ *oktd\fos ‘eighth’. [IEW 775 ( *okto(u))) . Lat
octavus ‘eighth’, Grk oySo(f)og ‘eighth’, OPhryg oxvfoi fexei
‘in the eighth year’, Luv 8-wa-a-i ‘eighth’. With early ^in-
formations on analogy with *septiji-o- re-analyzed as *septiji-
mo-\ OPrus asman ‘eighth’, Lith asmas ‘eighth’, perhaps Latv
asmite ‘measure of land’, OCS osmu ‘eighth’, Rus vosimoj
‘eighth’, Av astama- ‘eighth’, OInd astama- ‘eighth’; with later
abstract and ordinal suffixes: *-t~, *-ti -, *-to~, *-eto-: OIr
ochtmad ‘eighth’, Weis wythfed ‘eighth’, ON atti ‘eighth’, aett
‘group of eight runes’, OE eahtoda ~ eahteda ‘eighth’ (> NE
eighth ), OHG ahtodo ‘eighth’, Lith astuntas ‘eighth’, Latv
astotais ‘eighth’. Alb fete (dialectally tetet) ‘eighth’, Grk
(Homeric) oySoatoq ‘eighth’, HierLuv 8-wa-a-i - 8-wa n za/i
( *hak?taunanzil ) ‘eighth’, TochA oktant ‘eighth’, TochB
oktante ‘eighth’. The lack of consistency in the formation of
the ordinal ‘eight’ suggests that its creation was of post-PIE
date.
See also Numerals (Four).
Nine
*(e)n£up (or hjn^yfl?) ‘nine’. [IEW 3 18-3 19 (*e-neyen);
GI 744 ( *neu(e)n-)\ Wat 45 ( *newp)\ . OIr nol n- ‘nine’, MWels
naw ‘nine’, Lat novem ‘nine’ (ending influenced by septem
‘seven’), (inscription) nove ‘nine’, ON niu ‘nine’, OE nigon
(on analogy with seofon ‘seven’) ‘nine’ (> NE nine), OHG
niun ‘nine’, Goth niun ‘nine’, CrimGoth nyne ‘nine’, Lith
devyni l nine\ Latv devipi ‘nine’, OCS devpff'nine’, Rus devjati
‘nine’ (initials of Balto-Slavic forms on analogy with ‘ten’, i.e.,
*d-), Alb nende ~ nente (Gheg nande- name) ‘nine’, Thracian
evea ‘nine’, Myc e-ne-wo pe-za ‘nine-footed (table)’, Grk
evvEa ‘nine’, Arm inn ‘nine’, Lycian nun- in nunt-ata (< *nin-
ant) ‘derivative of nine’, Hit 9-an-ti happesni ‘to the nine
limbs’, Av nava ‘nine’, Mitanni na-wartana (< *nawa-wartanna)
‘nine laps (of a horse around a track)’, OInd nava ‘nine’,
TochAB nu ‘nine’. A common IE form, perhaps from ‘new,
the new number’, with innovations under the influence of
neighboring numbers.
*nepp-nos ~ *nepp-mos (nasal dissimilation or influence
of ‘seventh’ and ‘tenth’) ‘ninth’. [7EW319 ( *e-neueno -); GI
744 (*neu(e)n-)\ . Lat nonus ‘ninth’, ON niundi ‘ninth’, Hit
9-na ‘but the ninth’, 9-an-ki ‘nine times’, Av naoma- ‘ninth’,
OInd navama- ‘ninth’; later *neun-(e)tos: OIr nomad ‘ninth’,
MWels nawuet ‘ninth’, Gaul namet[ ] ‘ninth’, ON niunde
‘ninth’, niund ‘set of nine’, OE nigoda ‘ninth’ (> NE ninth
with influence from cardinal number), OHG niunte ~ niunto
‘ninth’, Goth niunda ‘ninth’, OPrus newints ‘ninth’, Lith
devintas ‘ninth’, Latv devitais ‘ninth’, OCS devptu ‘ninth’, Rus
devjatyj ‘ninth’, Alb nende ~ nente ‘ninth’, Grk eva(f)xoq
‘ninth’, Luv 9-un-za ‘ninth’, HierLuv 9-i, nu-i - 9-za/i or
nu n za/i ‘ninth’, 9-wa-a-I = 9-wa n za/i or nuwan n za/i ‘ninth’,
TochB nunte ‘ninth’.
Ten
*dikip ~ *d6fop-t- ~ *deku- ‘group of ten, ten’. [7£W 191
( *dekip)\ GI 744 ( *t’ek h rp)\ Wat 11 ( *dekrp ); BK 132
(*tak[ h ]-/*t’9k[ h ]-)]. From *deku , *deken: OIr deich n- ‘ten’,
Weis deg ‘ten’, Lat decuna ‘group of ten’; from *dekrp : Lat
decern ‘ten’, ON tiu ‘ten’, OE tien ‘ten’ (> NE ten), OHG zehan
‘ten’, Goth taihun ‘ten’, CrimGoth thiine ‘ten’, Grk <5eVa‘ten’,
Arm tasn ‘ten’, Av dasa ‘ten’, OInd dasa ‘ten’, TochA sak ‘ten’,
TochB sak ‘ten’; from *dekiji-t(i)- ‘group of ten, ten’: OPrus
dessimpts ‘ten’, Lith desimts- desimtis' ten’, Latv desimt' ten’,
OCS deseti ‘ten’, Rus desjat ‘ten’, Alb dhjete ‘ten’. PIE *dekryi
may be from *de-kont -, *de-krpt- ‘two units, two hands; unit
of ten’ (< *krjitom ‘unit, large unit; hundred’). At least as
plausible is a relation to *dek- ‘take’ from which *deks-, an
old word for ‘hand’ or ‘right hand’ (cf. Lat dexter ‘right hand’,
etc.), if IE hand counting started with the left hand and ended
with the tenth finger on the right hand.
*dekm-os ~ *dekip-mos ~ *deIoji-tos~ *deIdp-(e)tos last
member in a set of ten, tenth’. [IEW 192 (*dek e mo-s); GI
744 ( *t’ek h iji-t h -)\ BK 132 (*t’ak[ h )-/*t , 9kl h ]-)}. *dekm-os,
dekiji-mos: Corn degves ‘tenth’, Lat decimus ‘tenth’, Av
das9ma- ‘tenth’, OInd dasama- ‘tenth’; from *dekqi-mo- =
*dekip-to-: OIr dechmad ‘tenth’, MWels decuet ‘tenth’, Gaul
decametos ‘tenth’; from *dekip-tos: ON tiunda, tiuna ‘tenth’,
OE teoda , tegeda ‘tenth’, OHG zehanto ‘tenth’, Goth taihunda
‘tenth’, OPrus dessimts ‘tenth’, Lith desimtas ‘tenth’, Latv
desmitais (with metathesis, cf. dial, desimtais) ‘tenth’, OCS
deseti ‘tenth’, Rus desjatyj ‘tenth’, Alb dhjete (dialectally
dhjetet) ‘tenth’, Grk SeKarog tenth’, Luv 10-ta ‘ten-fold’,
TochA skant ‘tenth’, TochB skante ‘tenth’.
Teen Formations
Most linguistic expressions of the teens combine the digit
word with a ‘ten’ form using the mathematical function of
addition. The syntactic order may be ‘digit + ten’ (cf. Lat duo-
decim ‘twelve’, lit. ‘two-ten’, and similarly Greek, Armenian,
Avestan, Old Indie) or, less commonly, ‘ten + digit’ (Crimean
Gothic, Tocharian, e.g., TochB sak-wi ‘twelve’, lit. ‘ten-two’).
While these two examples show the addition function by
simple juxtaposition, there may also in some languages be a
connecting word such as ‘and’, eg., Lat decern et duo ‘twelve’
or decern tris-que ‘thirteen’. Non-additiVe formations include
the Germanic and Lithuanian type exemplified by Goth twa-
lif ‘twelve’, lit. ‘two left (after ten)’ or the subtractive type
exemplified by Lat duo de viginti ‘eighteen’, lit. ‘two from
twenty’. As can be seen even from these examples a particular
language may simultaneously use more than one system side
by side. Regularities result from creation at a period when
the internal numeral system had already attained its inner
decimal coherency. Irregularities, by contrast, represent
— 403 —
NUMERALS
valuable relics of the older system(s) now lost to us. The
tantalizing relic pieces may be IE or the result of IE contact
with non-IE systems. They may even reflect the generalization
of a system that was used to quantify a specific kind of
commodity (e.g., a ‘dozen’ for eggs, ‘sixty’ for time
measurement) for more general uses in a particular language.
Examples are given for ‘twelve’ and ‘fifteen’.
Twelve
*d\}6 defop ~ *dekip-dijo ~ *dpo-deku twelve’ < ‘two
(and) ten, ten (and) two’. [IEW228]. OWels deuSeg ‘twelve’,
Weis deuddeg ‘twelve’, Lat duo-decim ‘twelve’, decern et duo
‘twelve’, CrimGoth thunetua (< *thiine-tua ‘ten-two’) ‘twelve’,
Grk ScoSekcc ‘twelve, two-ten’, dvo-Kai-dexa ‘twelve, two and
ten’, Arm erko-tasan ‘twelve’, Av dva-dasa ‘twelve’, OInd
d(u)va-dasa ‘twelve’, TochA sak-wepi ‘twelve’ (lit. ‘ten-two-
and’), TochB sak-wi ‘twelve’. Alternative derivations with ‘two
left (after ten)’: ON tolf ‘twelve’, OE twaelf ‘twelve’ (> NE
twelve), Goth twalib-wintrus ‘twelve (lit. ‘two-left’) winters,
twelve years old’, Lith dvylika ‘twelve’, Latv divipadsmit
‘twelve’ (< ‘two after ten’); with ‘two on ten’: OCS duva na
desp ‘twelve’ (< ‘two on ten’), Rus dvenadcatl ‘twelve’.
Fifteen
*penk w e dekip. ‘fifteen’. [IEW 808], OWels pymtheg (<
*penk w e-deku ) ‘fifteen’, Lat qulndecim ‘fifteen’, ON fimtan
‘fifteen’, OE flftene ‘fifteen’ (> NE fifteen), OHG finfzehan
‘fifteen’, Grk xEVTEKcdSeKa ‘fifteen’, Arm hingetasan ‘fifteen’,
Av pancadasa ‘fifteen’, OInd pancadasa- ‘fifteen’. Other
formations are seen in TochA sak-panpi ‘fifteen’, TochB sak-
pis ‘fifteen’ (‘ten’ + digit); Lith penkiolika ‘fifteen’ (digit + ‘left’
[after ten]); Latv piecpadsmit ‘fifteen’ (digit + ‘after’ + ‘ten’).
Decade Formation
Most IE languages show more or less extensive reflexes of
an old decade formation that is a variant of PIE *Rijitdm,
either *-komt(p a ) in ‘thirty’ through ‘ninety’ or *Rrpt- in
‘twenty’ ( *ui-kiptihi). These formations are found in Latin,
Greek, Armenian, and Tocharian, and to ‘fifty’ in Avestan and
Old Indie. For its lower decades (to ‘sixty’) Germanic has
substituted Proto-Gmc *-tigu, which may reflect a PIE *deku-
‘decade’ (cf. Lat decuria ‘decade, group of ten’) or a
contamination of this word, or something similar, with a
Germanic word for ‘score’ (cf. CrimGoth stega ‘score’).
Germanic clearly went its own way with the upper decades.
Without abandoning (Proto-Gmc) *tigu of the lower decades,
the Germanic languages added a *kijitom, arguably from
*(d)komt-, to the upper decades, all the way to ‘120’. Thus
we have OE h undseofontig ‘seventy’, hundeahtatig ‘eighty’,
hundnigon tig ‘ninety’, hundteontig 1 hundred’, hundsendlseftig
‘110’, huntwelftig ~ hundred ‘120’. From ‘sixty’ to ‘ninety’
Avestan and Old Indie show a different formation, one made
by the suffixation of *-ti-.
Besides multiplication (e g., ‘fifty’ as ‘5’ X TO’) there are
occasional cases of division, e.g. , Celtic and Slavic where ‘fifty’
is ‘half-hundred’, or of multiplication using ‘20’ rather than
TO’ as the multiplier. Thus Albanian made use of a ‘twenty’
unit (-zet, formally reflecting PIE *ui-krptih a ‘twenty’) in
‘twenty’, ‘forty’, ‘sixty’, and ‘eighty’, but digit + ‘ten’ for the
uneven decades.
Given the wide variation in the use of otherwise old base
unit forms and the comparative asymmetries among decade
systems in the daughter languages, one may conclude that
the decades, like the teens, arose independently from a PIE
system in which decimal decades were unlikely to be the only
system. East Semitic Akkadian texts, for example, predating
our earliest IE texts, show competing decimal and sexagesimal
systems. The asymmetries in fact are valuable relics of
successive remakings of numeral systems that stand to tell us
more about how numeral systems evolved from an IE that
post-dated the late fourth millennium BC technologies of the
Ancient Near Eastern towns.
Examples are given for ‘twenty’, ‘thirty’, ‘fifty’ and ‘sixty’.
Twenty
*Ulkijitihi (< *]}i-(d)kiptihi) (dual) ‘twenty’ (< *‘two
decades, a double set of decades’). [IEW 1177 ( *ui-krpt-i)\
GI 744-745 (*wi-k h rpt b -(iH)-)] . Olr fiche ‘twenty’, OWels
uceint ‘twenty’, MWels figgit ‘twenty’, Lat vigintV twenty’, ON
tottogo ‘twenty’, OE twegentig (< *-tigu) ~ twentig ‘twenty’
(> NE twenty), OHG zweinzug ‘twenty’. Alb njezet ‘twenty’
(where nje is ‘one’ and -zet < *uikrptr, cf. dyzet ‘forty’ from
dy ‘two’ + -zet), Grk eikooi (Homeric eeikooi, Doric (f)iican)
‘twenty’, Arm k l san ‘twenty’, Av visaiti ‘twenty’, OInd vimsati
‘twenty’, TochA wiki ‘twenty’, TochB ikam ‘twenty’. Baltic and
Slavic show clearly innovating strategies where *dui- serves
as the basis for compound formations of ‘two’ plus ‘ten’, e.g.,
Lith dvi desimti ~ dvidesimt(s) ‘twenty’.
See also Cut.
Thirty
*tfI-komtQ}a) (< *tri-(d)komt(p a )) ‘thirty’. [IEW 192; Gl
745 ( *thn-k h omt h -)]. Olr tricho (DIL tricha) ‘thirty’, OWels
trimuceint ‘thirty’, Lat tnginta ‘thirty’, Grk rpiSKovta ‘thirty’.
Arm eresun ‘thirty’, Av 0risa(n)t - ‘thirty’, OInd trimsat ‘thirty’
(Old Indie has transferred the nasal from the second to the
first syllable), TochA taryak ‘thirty’, TochB taryaka ‘thirty’ (at
some point in the history of Tocharian the *-oml of the
decades fell together phonologically with the common neuter
singular ending *-om, prompting its replacement by *-a, the
common neuter plural ending). Other formations in
Germanic: ON prid tiger ‘thirty’, OE prittig ‘thirty’ (> NE
thirty), OHG drlzzug ‘thirty’, Goth prins tiguns (acc.) ‘thirty’;
in Baltic and Slavic: Lith trisdesimt ~ *trys desimtys, Latv
tnsdesmit (with *-dekipti- ‘group of ten, ten’).
Fifty
*penk w e-komt(p a ) (< *penk w e-(d)Komt(fy a )) fifty’. [IEW
808 ( *penk u e-konta)\ GI 745 ( *p h enk ho e-k h omt h -)]. Olr
— 404 —
colca ‘fifty’, Lat qulnquaginta ‘fifty’, Grk nevTqKOVTOtq ‘fifty’,
Arm yisun ‘fifty’, Av pancasatam ‘fifty’, OInd pancasat ‘fifty’,
TochA pnak ‘fifty’, TochB pisaka ‘fifty’. Other formations, in
Germanic: ON fimm tiger ‘fifty’, OE flftig ‘fifty’ (> NE fifty),
OHG funfzug ‘fifty’, Goth fimf tiguns (acc.) ‘fifty’; in Baltic
and Slavic: Lith penkios desimtys ‘fifty’, Latv piecdesmit ‘fifty’,
Bulg pedesce(t) ‘fifty’ (with *-dekrpti- ‘group of ten, ten’); in
Alb pesedhjete ‘fifty’ (lit. ‘five-ten’).
Sixty
*(k)s(u)eks-Komt(b a ) sixty’. [GI 745 ( *s°ek h s-k h omt b -)] ■
OIr sesca ‘sixty’, Lat sexaginta ‘sixty’, Grk e^qKovra ‘sixty’,
Arm vat'sun ‘sixty’, TochA saksak ‘sixty’, TochB skaska ‘sixty’;
other formations in Indo-Iranian: Av xsasti ‘sixty’, Olnd sasti-
‘sixty’ (digit + abstract forming suffix -fi-); in Germanic: ON
sex tiger ‘sixty’, OE sextig ‘sixty’ (> NE sixty), OHG seh(s)zug
‘sixty’, Goth saihs tigum ‘sixty’; Balto-Slavic: Lith sesiasdesimt
~ sisios desimtys ‘sixty’, Latv sesdesmit ‘sixty’, Ukr sist-desjat
‘sixty’.
See also Heap.
The Higher Numbers
The well-known common IE form *RrjU6m, we have seen,
has not always been unambiguously used to mean ‘100’. In
historic times the base unit in Gmc *hunda- means ‘120’ in
the long hundreds but ‘100’ in the system of decimal
calculation. It is not unlikely that this form has undergone
reinterpretation many times over as different groups of IE-
speakers needed a word to express the canonical base unit in
their current number system. Opinions have been divided as
to whether early Indo-Europeans had a word for the numeral
‘1000’. In the eastern languages we have *ghes-lo~, apparently
related to *ghesf ‘hand’. In the northwest of the IE world we
find *tuh a s-krptids, literally ‘swollen hundred’ or ‘large
hundred’, used for ‘1000’.
Hundred
*lajit6m ‘unit, large unit, hundred’. [IEW 192 ( *krjit6m)-,
GI 744 ( *k h rpt h om), Wat 11 (*dkrp-tom)\. OIr cet n-
‘hundred’, Weis cant ‘hundred’, Lat centum ‘hundred’, OE
hund ‘hundred’, OHG hunt ‘hundred’, Goth hunda TOO, 120’
(Germanic also *hunda- + *rada- ‘number’ in ON hundrad
TOO, 120’, OE hundred ‘hundred’ [> NE hundred], OSax
hunderod ‘(long) hundred’), Lith simtas ‘hundred’, Latv simts
‘hundred’, OCS suto ‘hundred’ (sometimes considered a
borrowing from Iranian), Bulg sto ‘hundred’, Grk ekcitov (<
*sem + *kijitom) ‘hundred’, Lycian snta ‘unit of 10 or 100’,.
Av satam ‘hundred’, OInd satam ‘hundred’, TochA kant
‘hundred’, TochB kante ‘hundred’. Formally widespread and
clearly old in IE. Perhaps *krptom was originally ‘(numerical)
unit’, i.e., ‘five’ and related to Gmc *handu- ‘hand’, and thus
*de-krpt ‘two units’, i.e., ‘ten’, and *(d)kiptom ‘tenth decade’,
i.e., ‘hundred’.
See also Number.
Thousand
*tuhaS-Iajiti6s ‘thousand (< ^‘swollen hundred’)’. [IEW
1083 (*teu-)', GI 746 ( *t h us-k h rpt h yom)\ Wat 71 (*teua-)].
ON pus(h)und ‘host, large number, thousand’, OE pusend
‘thousand’ (> NE thousand), OHG dusunt ‘thousand’, Goth
pusundi ‘thousand’, OPrus (acc. pi.) tusimtons ‘thousands’,
Lith tukstantis (dial, tukstantis) ‘thousand’, Latv tukstudt(i)s
‘thousand’, OCS tyspsti ‘thousand’, Rus tysjacnyj ‘thousand’.
A word of the northwest of the IE world.
*ghesl(ij)os ‘thousand’. [IEW 446 ( *gheslo-)\ Wat 22
( *gheslo~) ] . Grk^rAioi (pi.) (dial. £&IAioi) ‘thousand’,
Av hazarna- ‘thousand’, OInd sahasram ‘thousand’ (lndo-
Iranian < *srp- ‘one’ + *gheslo- ‘thousand’). A word of the
eastern part of the IE world.
See also Number. [ C . EJ . 1
Further Readings
Gvozdanivic, Jadranka, ed. (1992) Indo-European Numerals (=
Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 57.) Berlin and
New York, Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoyrup, J. (1994) In Measure, Number, and Weight: Studies in
Mathematics and Culture. Albany, SUNY Press.
Justus, C. (1996) Numeracy and the Germanic upper decades JIES
24, 45-98.
Markey, T. L. (1984) The grammaticalization and institutionalization
of Indo-European ‘hand’. JIES 12, 261-292.
Schwartz, M. (1992) On Proto-Indo-European *penk w - ‘hand’. Word
43, 421-427.
Shields, K. (1994) Comments about IE *oi-‘l\ JIES 22, 177-186.
NUT
*kneu- ‘nut’ (more particularly ‘hazelnut’?). [ IEW 558-
559 ( *kneu-)\ Wat 2 ( *ken-)\ GI 547 ( *k h neu-)\ Fried 77-
80], OIr cnu ‘nut’, Weis cneuen ‘nut’, Lat nux (< *knuk-)
‘nut’, ON hnot ‘nut’, OE hnutu‘ nut’ (> NE nut), OHG (h)nuz
‘nut’ (Gmc < *knut-). Northwestern dialectal term.
*h 2 er- ‘nut’. [IEW 61 (*ar-); GI 547 ( *q h ar- ); Fried 77-
80]. Lith ruosutys ‘nut’, OCS orechu ‘nut’, Rus orekh ‘nut’,
Alb arre (< *h 2 emeh a ~) ‘walnut, nut tree’, Grk (Hesychius)
apva ‘nut’. Hit Gls harau- ‘poplar’ is phonetically a regular
correspondent of the Slavic, Albanian, and Greek words, but
the semantic distance is very great. A term at least of the central
region of the IE world.
There are two terms for the nut and/or nut trees. The first
of them, *kneu-, although only attested in the genenc meaning
as ‘nut’, may have been limited to the ‘hazelnut’ because that
tree flourished in western Europe during the Atlantic period
and later, and the term for hazel, *kosVlo-, is reflected in the
same three western stocks.
The second term, *h 2 er-, on the other hand, may have
been used only for the walnut or the chestnut, in the respective
zones where they flourished: southeastern Europe, the
Ukraine, the Caucasus, and the circum-Mediterranean. The
minimal shape of this second term has been inferred from
the many forms in Slavic, several Baltic forms, the admittedly
— 405 —
NUT
problematic Greek form from Hesychius and even Albanian
arre — variously denoting ‘nut’, ‘nut tree’ or ‘walnut’.
Whatever the linguistic evidence, pre-PlE peoples and PIE
peoples were surely aware of the major and minor nut trees
as valuable sources of food and almost as surely had various
terms (or terms with qualifying adjectives), some of which
may have been in complementary distribution over the area
of the homeland and later migrations. The linguistic evidence,
however, is not particularly consonant with a course of
migrations. The dialectally most restricted form, *kneu-, if
denoting the nut of the hazel, is inexplicably confined given
the distribution of the hazel and hazel nuts all over Europe
and much of Asia which were heavily exploited at least since
the Mesolithic period onwards. The prehistoric distribution
of the walnut, on the other hand, was quite limited. At dates
prior to 3000 BC in Europe it would appear to have been
largely confined to north Italy and the northwest Balkans,
the Alps and possibly south-central Europe and it only extends
into the south Balkans and Greece in the first millennium
BC. It is also reported as having survived the last glaciation in
a refuge in the north Pontic area. Its major expansion has
sometimes been credited to human introduction from north-
east Turkey, the Caucasus and north Iran but this expansion
did not occur until well into the Bronze Age, i.e., well after
the initial expansion and divergence of the IE languages.
See also Hazel; Oak; Trees. [PEJ.RM.J
— 406 —
OAK
*p€rk w us ‘oak ( Quercus spp.)’. [IEW 822-823
( *perk v u-s)\ Wat 50 ( *perk w u-)\ Gl 526-528 ( *p h erk ho u-)\
Buck 8.61; Fried 133-140]. Gaul epxog ‘oak-forest’, Lat
quercus (with assimilation of *p...k w to *k w ...k w ) ‘oak’, ON
fjpr ‘tree’, OHG fereh-eih ‘oak’. From a derivative *perk w u-
h x n- we have Gaul Hercynia silva, the Celtic and then Roman
name for the forested mountains of central Germany (OE
firgen- ‘mountain’, OHG Fergunna ‘Erzgebirge’, Goth fairguni
‘mountain(-chain)’ may be native cognates or early borrowings
from Celtic), ON Fjprgyn (the mother of For r), OPrus percunis
‘thunder’, Lith perkunas ‘thunder’, perkomas ‘thunder-storm’,
Latv pgrkuons ‘thunder’. The Baltic forms particularly, but
the Old Norse to an extent, seem to show a semantic crossing
of *perk w u-h x n- ‘± the oaken one’ with *peruh x no - ‘± he of
the thunder-stone’, e.g., ORus Perunu ‘thunder god’, Hit
peruna- ‘cliff’, all from *per- ‘strike’. Olnd parjanya- ‘rain,
raincloud; god of rain’ would be a similar but independent
formation from *per-g- ‘strike’. Olnd parkati- ‘holy fig-tree’
is sometimes placed here but is only attested in classical
Sanskrit and, because of its very late attestation and its mean-
ing, is a doubtful reflex of *perk w us ‘oak’; tempting, but
altogether isolated in Indie, is Panjabi pargai ‘holly oak
( Quercus ilex)’. Without the Indie cognates, the word would
be restricted to the northwest group of stocks. The role of the
oak tree in (early) Germanic psychology and religion would
seem strongly to support including a set of metaphorical
extensions meaning ‘life’ and the like, i.e., ON fjpr , OE feorh ,
or ‘man’ and ‘world’, i.e., Goth fairtvus.
In Germanic we also find ON Jura ‘pine’, OE furh-wudu
‘pinewood’ (> NE fir), OHG for(a)ha ‘pine’, Italian (dialect
of the Trentino) porca ‘fir’ (borrowed from Raetic?) which
would seem to derive from a dialectal PIE *pfk^eh a - or
*purk^eh a ~. If the former, it might be a substantivized
adjective. A century of unanimity says that, despite the
categorical semantic incompatibility between ‘oak’ and ‘pine’,
*pfk w eh a - belongs to the oak set (and missing links may be
found — for example, the occasional cross-over between these
genera in other languages).
*h a eig- ‘oak’. [IEW 13 (*aig-); GI 531 (*ai/c -); Buck 8.61;
Fried 132-133]. ON eik 1 oak’, OE ac‘oak, ship’ (> NE oak),
OHG eih ‘oak’, Grk aiyiXcoy/ ‘oak’. Possibly Lat aesculus
‘mountain oak’. Late dialectal status for the west and center
of the IE world
*g w elh a - ‘acorn’. [IEW 472-473 (*g y e/-); Wat 25
( *g w el9-)\ GI 530 ( *k v elH-)\ Fried 131-132], Lat glans ‘acorn’,
OPrus gile ‘acorn, oak’, Lith. gile ‘acorn’, Latv zile ‘acorn’,
OCSzelpdu ‘acorn’, Rus zeludi ‘acorn’, Grk /3aAavog‘acorn’,
Arm kalin ‘acorn’, Olnd gula- ‘acorn, penis, clitoris’. Distri-
bution assures PIE status.
The Lat quercus ‘oak’ is, by regular phonological rules,
clearly a good cognate of many Germanic forms meaning ‘oak’
of also ‘mountain(chain)’ as in Gothic (perhaps earlier denot-
ing ‘oak forest’) which is perhaps cognate with Celtic phrases
for ‘oak forest’, e.g, Hercynia silva. There is, incidentally,
natural typological evidence for semantic shifts between these
various ‘oaken’ meanings. Some of the strongest linguistic
evidence is from Baltic and Slavic with links, especially, to
‘thunder’, ‘thunder-god’, or ‘high god’ and credible corres-
pondences in sound, e.g., ORus Perunu and Lith Perkunas.
The various Baltic and Slavic forms, to continue, are surely
cognate with Olnd (Vedic) Parjanya- ‘god of storm’, who
impregnates the earth with rain, and a related set of Indie
forms for ‘tree’, ‘mountain’ and ‘cliff’. The final and perhaps
most problematic link in the chain leads us to include forms
in Hittite for ‘cliff’ and ‘strike’ which fall into a mythological
OAK
equation that is almost isomorphic to one in Old Norse: in
Hittite, a great cliff, Perunas, gave birth to a lithic monster
who was obliged to kill the enemy of his father, whereas in
Old Norse Fjprgyn (< *perk w -) gives birth to Torr who is
called upon to slay his fathers enemies with a stone hammer.
Pulling together the many strands in seven stocks, we may
conclude that *perk w - meant ‘oak’ but by diverse routes
became associated with or even applied to a syndrome of
meanings including ‘stone’, ‘storm’, ‘mountain’, ‘cliff’ and a
god. The motives for the associations are various, e.g., the
tree is connected with thunderstorms because it attracts light-
ning and tends to be a source of names for mountains, e.g.,
Das Eich in German. While most strongly attested in five
“central” stocks, *perk w - has enough other outliers and
buttresses in Indie to make this etymon PIE. The ‘oak’ as a
‘thunder-deity’, incidentally, was borrowed into various llralic
languages, e.g., Finnish perkele ‘devil, Satan’, Estonian pergel
‘devil’.
The second oak name, *h a eig-, is mainly supported by
two stocks, Germanic and Greek, in which there is a meto-
nymic extension to artifacts for which oak wood is singularly
suited, e.g., ship, spear, shield. Probably cognate was the first
element in Lat aesculus ‘mountain oak’. In sum, *h a eig- is
dialectally limited and probably a late form, possibly used
for a particular species of oak.
Finally, the word for ‘acorn’ is widely reflected and almost
universally accepted as very early IE; it is often cited in support
of the phoneme *g w . The meaning is at least once extended
metonymically to the tree itself and this was probably the
basic connotation of the term in PIE. The meaning is also
extended metaphorically, as in classical Latin to ‘an acom-
shaped bullet’ and ‘ glans penis' as was also the case in Old
Indie and it seems likely that ‘head of the penis’ was another
secondary connotation of this term. The fact that acorns and
acorn mast were important in ancient times as food for both
humans and pigs is correlated with the solid archaeological
and philological evidence for hog- raising in early times. The
acorn was integral to the oak complex in the early religion of
the Celts, Germanic peoples and Greeks and probably others;
the consumption of acorns by the Celtic druids was believed
to provide them with their powers of divination. Consistent
with this, the root *g w elh a - is of the animate gender, unlike
the names of other edible fruits.
That the oak was central in PIE myth and religious ritual
is shown by the presence, in half the IE stocks, of sacred oak
groves, sacred oak wood fires, and rites involving, concretely,
the ingestion of acorns (by druids) and the cultivation of
mistletoe and, more generally, by the interwoven symbolic
complexes of priest/shaman and, on the other hand, the asso-
ciation of the oak with such things as thunder and the high
god. The oak was the main nexus between a set of ideas about
the supernatural and a set of ideas about the arboreal habitat.
Pollen evidence indicates that the oak, which is represented
in Europe by no less than twenty-two species, began spreading
northwards from its refuge areas in the Mediterranean across
Europe by at least 9000 BC. By c 6000 BC it had covered
northwest Europe although it would never penetrate further
north than the southern portion of Scandinavia. The oak is
also well attested in Anatolia, the Caucasus and in the Near
East and is, consequently, without value as a diagnostic marker
of the location of the early Indo-Europeans (although some
facts of semantic nuance and rates of distribution may be
suggestive). Charred remains of acorns are widely known
across Eurasia through prehistory and attest its use as fodder
or, with appropriate roasting, boiling, or grinding with
leaching, as food for human consumption. Oak was also
widely employed in archaeological contexts, especially as a
structural material in houses, trackways, etc., as well as in
the manufacture of a variety of implements
See also Grove; Mistletoe; Thunder God; Tree; Trees. [PF.]
Further Readings
Brozovic, D. (1986) Denomination of ‘oak’ in European dialects.
Filologija 14, 61-67.
Gimbutas, M. (1973) Perkunas/Perun, the Thunder god ot the Balts
and Slavs. JIES 1, 466-478.
Hamp, E. P (1989) Semantic divergence in terms for ‘oak’. QSem
10, 3-4.
Maher, J. P (1978) A linguistic-botanical problem. The oak and the
hr. JIES 6, 225-229.
OAR
?*hierhitrom ‘oar, paddle’. [/EW338 ( *era-ter-)\ Wat 17
(*em-); G1 582 ( *erH-)\ Buck 10.85J. Lith irklas ‘oar’, OInd
antra- ‘oar’. Though confined to only two stocks, this word
may be of late PIE antiquity. It is regularly formed by the
addition of the instrumental suffix to the verb *h ierhi- ‘row’.
Different in formation but identical in meaning are OIr ram(a)e
(DIL rama ) ‘oar’, Lat remus ‘oar’, ON rodr ‘steering oar’, OE
rodor ‘steering oar’ (> NE rudder ), OHG modar ‘oar’, Grk
ipETjuov'oaf, epETTjq ‘rower’.
Oars and paddles (of birch and ash) are known from the
Mesolithic period onwards and with the reconstruction of a
PIE ‘boat’, their ascription to the proto-language is certain,
even if the lexical evidence is minimal.
See also Boat; Row; Tool. [D.Q.A ]
OATH
*hiditos ‘a going; oath’. \IEW 295 ( *oi-to -); Wat 45
( *oito-)\ . OIr oeth ‘oath’, OWels an-utonou ‘perjury’, ON eidr
‘oath’, OE ap ‘oath’ (> NE oath), OHG eid ‘oath’, Goth aips
‘oath’, Grk oiroq ‘course, fate’, TochB aittanka ‘directed
toward’. Specialized in Celtic and Germanic to ‘oath’ because
swearing practices indicate that oath-takers would walk (PIE
*hiei- ‘go’) between pieces of slaughtered animal to give force
to the oath. Although lacking cognate terms, this practice
was also known among the Hittites and is recorded as late as
the fourteenth century in Lithuania where one walked
between the two halves of an ox slaughtered as a sacrifice. In
the case of the Celtic and Germanic lexical correspondence,
— 408 —
both < *hioitos, there is no need to assume Celtic priority in
this matter and it rather suggests a set of common institutional
patterns. A late word of the IE west in this meaning although
related to the Greek word for ‘course, fate’, where *hjoitos l a
going’ shows a different semantic specialization.
One recurrent theme concerning the taking of oaths in the
traditions of various IE stocks is swearing by a sacred water,
the Old Indie Ganges, the Greek Styx and the Old Norse
Leiptr providing the best examples. Although it has been
suggested that these are all rivers of the underworld (hence,
one swore by the waters of the realm of the dead), there is
some evidence to suggest that one should look elsewhere for
the underlying meaning of this belief. In Old Indie tradition
the source of the Ganges has been seen to be the heavens
(. Mahabharata 3.107; Ramayana 1.41-43) and it has been
visualized as a waterfall from the sky while early Greek sources
identify the Styx with a small river in Arcadia which has its
origin at the base of a two-hundred meter waterfall. The name
of the Old Norse river by which one swears, Leiptr, means
‘lightning’. Hartmut Scharfe has suggested a common semantic
core whereby one swore, not by underground rivers, but by
the ‘water-o E-lightning’, i.e., the downpour (cf. the waterfall
imagery) of a thunderstorm, the lightning guaranteeing the
force of the oath.
See also Blame; Pray; Sacrifice, Swear; Underworld. [E.C.P,
D.Q.A., J.RM.l
Further Reading
Scharfe, H. (1972) The sacred water of the Ganges and the Styx-
water. KZ 86, 116-120.
OATS
*h^e\i is ‘oats’. [IEW 88 ( *auig-)\ GI 568; Buck 8.46; Bailey
497] . Lat a vena ‘(wild) oats’, OPrus wyse ‘oats’ (the lack of an
initial vowel, i.e. , *awyse , is either a hearing or scribal error),
Lith (pi.) avizos ‘oats’, Latv (pi.) auzas ‘oats’, OCS ovfsu ‘oats’,
Rus oves ‘oats’, Khot hau ‘± oats’ (the exact referent of the
Khotanese word is not certain, in the contexts where it occurs
it is clearly opposed to ‘barley’ and as there are other, well-
identified, words for ‘wheat’ and ‘millet’ it is unlikely to be
either of those). The exact PIE form of this word is difficult to
reconstruct. Lat avena would appear to reflect a PIE
*h a euisineh a - while Khot hau would reflect Proto-Iranian
*avisa- , PIE *h a euiso-. The Baltic words appear to reflect a
PIE *h a euiks , gen. *h a euigos , or the Slavic might reflect PIE
*h a euiso- and the failure of the *-s- to retract to *-s- as
expected after *-i- (and *-u-, *-r~, and *-k-) might be the
result of the influence of some other variety of IE speech (as
with the case of *trus- ‘reed’ and *tris- ‘vine’). Possible support
for PIE -g- comes from Grk aiyiXcoy (if < *h a euigi-l-dk w s
‘that which looks like oats’) ‘wild oats’, though it is usually
assumed that the Greek should be discounted (and taken
rather as containing *h a eigi- ‘goat’), cf. OHG hafer ‘(< PIE
*kapros ‘goat’) ‘oats’. Just possibly PIE *h a eui- is *h 2 eui-
‘sheep’ and we have different derivatives meaning ‘± sheep-
fodder’.
Certainly oats were not highly considered as a grain in
ancient times and they enter Greek and Roman history as
horse fodder. However, Pliny the Elder reports that oats were
used both for bread and in the form of porridge in the central
Europe of his time. The semantic and phonological equations
existing among Latin, Baltic, Slavic, and Iranian strongly
suggest that this word was a widespread one in the PIE speech
community.
In its wild form, oats (Avena) were widely distnbuted across
the Mediterranean and eastwards to the Zagros Mountains. It
appears infrequently on archaeological sites from the Meso-
lithic period onwards and its occurrence in Neolithic contexts
is generally explained in terms of weeds infesting cultivated
crops of wheat and barley As farming moved north into poorer
soils and colder climates, the hardier ‘weed’ (= oat) component
of the crop became more important. The earliest appearance
of domestic oats is set to Europe and not until about the second
millennium BC, i.e., the Bronze Age. In Italy, as the linguistic
evidence suggests, oats were generally wild and remains of
oats recovered from both pre-urban Rome and Pompeii have
been classified as wild/weeds although a single impression in
daub from an Iron Age site has been identified as domestic.
Oats are also known from Bronze Age contexts in Afghanistan.
The popularity of oats in the north is largely due to their
ability to thrive in moist temperate climates where they were
able to replace wheat.
See also Agriculture; Grain, Plants; Rye [D.Q.A., J.PM.l
OBVIOUS see VISIBLE
OLD
*s6nos ‘old’. [IEW 907-908 ( *sen(o)-)\ Wat 57 ( *sen-)\
GI 685 ( *sen-)\ Buck 14.15; BK 167 ( VWyv'enL-)]. Olr
sen ‘old’, Weis hen ‘old man’, Lat senex ‘old’, senatus ‘senate’
(= a group of old men, like Grk yepovoia ‘council of elders’ <
yepcov ‘old’), Goth sinista ‘eldest’, Lith senas ‘old’, Grk evog
‘last year’s’, Arm bin ‘old’, Av hana- ‘old’, OInd sana- old’. A
suffixed form *senehjie/o~. 1 IEW 907] occurs in: Lat sened
‘age, become old’, Lith seneju age, become old’, and OInd
sanayant- ‘growing old’. Possible here also is Hit zana- ‘decline,
decrease, wane (of the moon)’. With representation in at least
three regional groups, this seems a good candidate for PIF.
status.
See also Old Man; Young. [P B. ]
OLDMAN
*gerh a -ont- ‘old man’. [IEW 390-391 ( *ger-ont -); Wat 20
( *gero-ont-)\ GI 151 ( *R'erH-)\ Buck 14.15; BK 284 ( *k'ir y - /
*k’er y -)\. Grk yepcov 1 old man’, Oss zaerond' old’, OInd jarant-
‘old man’; possibly TochB sran- (< *gerh a -on-l ) ‘old man’. A
word of the eastern part of the IE world.
*gerh a -o-s ‘old man’. [IEW 390-391 ( *ger-)\ cf. Wat 20
( *gero-)\ BK 284 (*k’ir y -/*k’er y -)\. Arm cer ‘old man’, NPers
zar‘old man’. Since the formation is productive in both stocks
OLDMAN
where the word is attested, it may be an independent creation
in both. At best we have evidence for a word of the IE
southeast.
Both terms referring to ‘old man’ are from a verbal root
*gerh a - ‘age’ used as a verb only in Indo-lranian. ON karl
‘old man’, OE ceorl ‘freeman of lowest class’ (> NE churl),
OHG karal ‘old man’ (Gmc < *gerh a -lo-), while Alb grua
‘woman’ and Grk ypavq ‘old woman’ (< *greh a -u-) are from
the same root. The suffix is a common one, but the verb root
‘to be old’ is rather restricted, assuring that the formation is
an old one. From this word are built terms such as Grk
yepovoiG (< *gerh a ont-ih a -) ‘assembly’. The observation that
older men were the community leaders is hardly surprising
in light of parallels in primitive societies and the unique Greek
term does not entitle us to imagine an Indo-European “senate”.
See also Age Set; Death. [M.E.H.]
ONCE
*sem- ~ *semlo-m ~ *srp- ‘at one time, once; multiplicative
of “one”’. [IEW 902-903 (*sem-)\ GI 740 (*se/om-)\ BK 184
( *sam-/*sam -)]. [1] *sem-\ Grk ekcltov ‘one-hundred’; [2]
with *-l- suffix: OIr samlith ‘like, as’, OLat (adv.) semul ~
semol ‘at once’, Lat simul ‘at once’, Umb sumel ‘at once’, Lat
semel ‘once, at one time’, simul ‘at the same time’, OE
simbel ~ simble(s) ‘always’, OHG simble(s), simblum ‘always’,
Goth simle ‘once, formerly’; [3] *srp- : Grk ocpcc ‘together, at
once’, ana £ ‘one time’, Av ha-karat ‘once’, OInd. sa-kft ‘once’;
*sem -, srp- with other derivations often denoting ‘always’:
Lat sem-per ‘always’, sim-plex, sim-plus ‘single’, OE sin-nihte
‘eternal night’, sin-hlwan ‘spouse’, Grk anXovq ‘singly, in one
way’, TochB sek ‘always’; possibly Hit a-as-ma (< PIE *o-smo-
with both ‘one’ roots) ‘firstly’, 1-an-ki, a-an-ki ‘once’.
See also Numerals (One). [C.EJ.]
OPINION
*me/oinor ‘opinion’. [7EW7 14 ( *mei-no-)\ Wat 40 ( *mei-
no-)). Olr mlan ‘wish, desire’, Weis mwyn ‘enjoyment’ (Celt
< *meino -), OE man ‘meaning, mention, call’, mzenan ‘mean,
say’ (> NE mean), OHG meina ‘sense, meaning’, meinan
‘mean, say’, OCS menjp ‘mention’, TochB onmim (< *hjopi-
meinom) ‘remorse’. Possibly late PIE.
See also Think. [D.Q.A.]
OR
*-y£ ‘or’. [IEW 75 ( *ui-)\ BK 476 ( *aw -, *wa/*d), 477
( *wa/*wa )]. OIr no ‘or’, OBret nou ‘or’, Lat -ve ‘or’, Grk p-
(f)e' or’, Av va ‘or’, OInd va ‘or’, TochB wat ‘or’. Widespread
and old in IE.
See also And. [D.Q.A.]
ORACLE see PRAY
ORDER
*h a 6rtus (gen *haftdus) ‘fitting, order’. [IEW 56-57 (*ft-);
Wat 3 (*ar-); BK 383 (*har-/*har-)[. Lat artus ‘joint’ (< *‘fit
tight together’), ON ein-ardr ‘simple, correct’, OE eard
‘country, land; condition, fate’, MHG art ‘innate feature, nature,
fashion’, MDutch aert ‘way, situation’, Grk (Hesychius) dpxvq
‘fit together’, dprvco ‘arrange, prepare’, Arm ard (gen. ardu)
‘ornament, shape’, Av arata- ‘order’, OInd ftu- ‘right time,
order, rule’, TochA art- ‘praise, love’, TochB artt- ‘praise, love,
be agreeable to’ (< Proto-Toch *artw-, a denominative of [PIE)
*h a ertu~). From *h a er- ‘fit’. Cf. Lat ntus ‘rite’, Av asa (deity),
OInd [tarn ‘(cosmic) order’. The underlying meaning would
appear to be ‘fitting’ which had already developed meta-
physical connotations in Indo-lranian ‘cosmic order, fitting
in time and space’, i.e. , the cosmos must be kept in harmony
by rituals and sacrifices which adjust the relationships between
the microcosm and the macrocosm. Such an underlying
concept may have already existed within PIE.
*ie]f(e)s- ‘order or normality required by the rules of ritual’.
[IEW 512 (*ieug-)\ Wat 79 {*yewes-)\ GI 706 (*yewo-)\. Olr
uisse ‘just’, OLat ious, Lat ius ‘law’, Av yaoz-da- ‘purification
ritual’, OInd yds- ‘prosperity’. While the Old Irish connection
with these other forms has been challenged, there is still
sufficient material between Latin and Indo-lranian to suggest
a PIE form. The Avestan term has been shown by Emil
Benveniste to be the counterpart of spanta in the Iranian dicho-
tomy of the sacred, referring essentially to ritual purity The
Latin concept of legality expressed by ius means ‘conformity
with the prescribed normality’ while the related iurare ‘swear
an oath’ actually means ‘promise in the face of the gods to
comply with definite rules’. The Latin is accordingly connected
with the ethical and religious foundations of law. In a
penetrating study of the Latin and Indo-lranian terms, Georges
Dumezil has also stressed the differences between the Avestan
and Vedic usage of their cognate terms. For example, Vedic
sam yoh ‘well-being, salvation’ is almost exclusively a gift of
the gods, but its content is less “religious” than that of Avestan
yaos which stresses the connection between healing and
fertility (i.e., progeny); Vedic sam yoh always favors human
beings, whereas Av yaos applies to ritual objects or mythical
concepts; Vedic sam yoh relates to prosperity in general while
Av yaoz-da- is conditioned by its object: the same formula is
not used for the liquid or the wood offering as for “cleaning”
with cow urine or water a man defiled by touching a corpse.
For Dumezil, Indo-lranian *yaos may be polarized in two
ways: a) magically where a situation is achieved ritually,
mystically or corporally, and b) normally where a normal
situation is restored after defilement or illness. Thus, the
underlying Indo-lranian phrase *yaosdha- describes the
progress toward an optimal situation or the correction of a
defect (illness or defilement).
Lat ius, however, developed in a totally different stage of
social relations. Basically, it delimits the maximal area of
judicial action or claim determined by the nature or
conventional juridical position of a group or individual. When
a client claimed a right (ius petit), the Jurisconsultus indicated
to him what he could claim under the circumstances. Thus,
ius indicated relations and everyone’s ius corresponded to
410 —
OUT
the ius of someone else. As Dumezil stressed, Rome was a
legally oriented society where each iUs was explicitly stated.
The Roman iudex indicated which ius applies, e.g., before he
inflicted punishment, he investigated whether there was a
reason to punish. In contrast, the Av yaosdatar =- ‘the one who
dispenses yaoS was a purificator who provided a person or
object “automatically” with yaos by means of rites. If is obvious
that the Latin reflexes of the IE noun *ieu(e)s differ sub-
stantially in their meaning. But this does not exclude that a
careful perusal of their sphere of use and socio-culturally
determined semantic evolution should indicate that it belongs
originally to the sacral domain, and should be listed among
the legal terms of religious origin.
See also Law; Put; Put In Order.' [E.C.P1
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami Press, 389-398.
Dumezil, G. (1969) Idees romaines. Paris, NRF-Gallimard.
Polome, E. C. (1987) Der indogermanische Wortschatz auf dem
Gebiete der religion, in Studien zum indogermanischen Wort-
schatz, ed. W Meid, Innsbruck, 201-217.
ORPHAN
*h2/3orbhos orphan, heir’. [7EW 78 1-782 (*orbho-)\ Wat
46 ( *orbh-o-)\ GI 651 ( *orb h o-)\ Buck 2.75; BK 597 ( *ur -
ub-/*or-ub-)] . Olr orb(b) ‘heir, inheritance’, orb(b)a
‘inheritance of land, patrimony’, Lat orbus ‘bereft, deprived;
parentless, childless, orphan’, OCS rabU ‘servant’, Arm orb
‘orphan’, OInd arbha- ‘child’. Derivatives: Olr orbe
‘patrimony’, ON erfi ‘heir’, OE ierfa ‘heir’, ierfe ‘heritage,
bequest’, OHG arbi ‘heir’, Goth arbi ‘heir’ (Gmc < *arbijaz),
Grk optpavog ‘orphan, bereft’ ( > Late Lat orphanus > Alb
varfer' poor’, Gheg vorfen “poor’), ?Arm arb-an-eak- ‘servant,
fellow- worker’. The underlying verb is preserved in Hit
har(ap)p- change status, sides’. Distribution assures PIE status.
Clear cognates meaning ‘orphan’ are found in Italic and
Armenian. In Slavic and Indie the term has shifted to ‘child’
(and further in Slavic to ‘servant’), indicating either a concern
for the underaged survivors and their usual fate, a fact also
revealed by many fairy-tales of the Cinderella type, or possibly
that the underlying semantics was ‘separated, put asunder,
bereft (not only of one’s parents but also of free status)’. Celtic
and Germanic use a ja-stem derivative, perhaps originally an
adjective, for the word also means ‘inheritance’, while Greek
employs an original no-adjective which was later borrowed
into Late Latin and thence into Albanian, where the native
term had been lost.
See also Widow. [M.E.H.]
OTHER
*h a 6 lios l other’. [IEW 25 ( *alios ); Wat 2 ( *alyo-)\ BK 464
( *hal-/*hal-)\ . Olr aile ‘other’, Weis ad ‘other’, Lat alius ‘other’,
ON ellar ‘otherwise’, OE elles ‘otherwise’ (> NE else), ellicor
~ elcor ‘otherwise’, OHG elles ‘other’, ellihor ~ ellichor
‘further’, Goth aljis ‘other’, Grk okXoc, ‘other’, Arm ayl ‘other’,
TochA alak ‘other’, TochB alyek ‘other’. Perhaps here belong
also OInd an- ‘stranger’ (< *‘the other’), arya- ‘hospitable lord’
(< *‘he of the other’). Cf. Lat alter ‘second’. Widespread and
old in PIE.
*h]6nteros ‘other’. [IEW 37 ( *anteros)\ Wat 2
( *an-tero-)\ . ON annarr ‘other, second’, OE Oder ‘other’ (>
NE other), OHG andar ‘other’, Goth anpar ‘other, second’,
OPrus anters ‘other, second’, Lith antras ‘other, second’, Latv
uotrs ‘other’, OCS vUtorU ‘second’, Czech utery ‘Tuesday’ (<
‘second day’), OSorb wutory ‘other’. From *hien- - *h\on-
‘that’ (cf. Grk evp ‘the day after tomorrow’, OInd ana- ‘this,
that’, etc.) + *-tero- ‘± of two’. Related are Av anya- ‘other’,
OInd anya- ‘other’. The parallelism of the doublets *h\on-
tero- ~ *hjon-io- on the one hand and *h a el-tero- ~ *h a el-io-
on the other suggests that we might have relatively late,
‘perhaps even post-PIE, creations on the basis of productive
derivational processes. Alternatively, given the relative rarity
of *h a el-tero- and *hjon-io-, these two may have been post-
PIE creations in the stocks that show them, created through
the crossing of the PIE “competitors”, *h a el-io- and *h\on-
tero-.
See also Numerals (Two). ID.Q.A.]
OTTER
*udr6s ‘otter ( Lutra lutra)'. [IEW 79-80 ( *ayec7-); Wat 73
( *ud-ro-)\ Gl 447 (*wof’or-); BK 483 ( *wat’-/*WDt’-)} . Lat
lutra ‘otter’, ON of r ‘otter’, OE otor ‘otter’ (> NE otter), OHG
of far ‘otter’, OPrus udro ‘otter’, Lith udra ‘otter’, Latv udris
‘otter’, Rus vydra ‘otter’, Grk evvSpig ‘otter’, vSpog ~v5pa
‘water-snake’, Av udra- ‘otter’, Oss wyrd - urdae ‘otter’, OInd
udra- a kind of aquatic animal. The Old Indie form only occurs
in lists of the names of animals to be sacrificed in an asva-
medha and is identified in one commentary as a ‘water-cat’,
cf. Olr coin fodome ‘otter’ (< * ‘water-dog’), Nlr dobharchu
‘water-dog’, Weis dwrgi ‘water dog’. A rather banal derivative
of *uodf ‘water’, meaning ‘pertaining to water’ that had been
largely specialized in meaning to ‘otter’ even in late PIE times.
The otter is ubiquitous over Eurasia (Atlantic to the Pacific)
although it is not recorded for large areas of Kazakhstan and
lowland Central Asia. It is known, however, in Iran, India,
and Chinese Turkestan. Such a distribution suggests that it
would have certainly been known to the earliest Indo-
Europeans. Archaeologically, it is variably attested according
to region. In northern Europe it is well represented on both
Mesolithic and Neolithic sites and the numbers on some Baltic
sites suggests specific hunting of the animal.
See also Mammals. [D.Q.A., J.RM.]
OUT
*hieghs' out (of)’. ( IEW 292-293 (*eghs), Wat 16(*eghs);
GI 104; BK 374 {*ifV*e^-)\. Olr ess- ‘out’, Weis eh- ‘out’,
Lat ex ‘out (of)’, OPrus esse ‘out’, Lith is ‘out of, from; by’,
Latv iz out’, OCS zz'out’, Grk e^’from, out of’. At least old in
the west and center of the IE world.
See also Adpreps. [ D . Q . A . ]
— 411 —
OVER
OVER
*h 4 up 6 r(i) ‘over’, f IEW 1 105 ( *uper ); Wat 72 ( *uper): GI
104] . OIr for- over’, Weis gor- ‘over’, Lat s-uper ‘on’, ON yfir
‘over’, OE ofer ‘over’ (> NE over), OHG ubir ‘over’, Goth ufar
‘over’, Grk uttep ‘over; beyond’, Arm i ver ‘onto’, Av upairi
‘over’, OInd upari ‘over’. Old in IE.
See also Adpreps; Up. [D.Q.A.]
OWL
?*k&u- ‘howl; owl’. [IEW 536 (*kau-)\ cf. Wat 27
( *kau -)]. MWels cuan ‘owl’, Gaul (via Latin) cavannus ‘owl’,
OHG huwo ‘owl’. This clearly onomatopoeic root is also
distributed in verbal form in Baltic, Greek and Indie as the
word for ‘shriek’. This same root also provides terms for
‘jackdaw’ and ‘gull’.
?*b(e)u - ‘owl’. [7£W 97 (*b(e)u- ~ *bh(e)u-)\ Wat 5
( *beu-)[ . Lat bubo ‘owl’, Bulg buh ‘owl’, Grk (ivccq ‘owl’, Arm
bu ~ buec ‘owl’, NPers bum ‘owl’. Clearly onomatopoeic and
carried further in Semitic languages such as Arabic bumm,
Syrian bava or the Caucasus where we find Georgian bu, buvi,
Chechen buha, and Agul buhu-j.
?*ulu- ‘owl’. [IEW 1105 (*ul-)\ Wat 72 (*ul-)\. Late Lat
ulucus ‘owl’, OInd uluka- ‘owl’.
All the terms are expectedly onomatopoeic and do not
require a direct derivation from a PIE form.
See also Bird Cry; Birds. [J A.C.G.]
OWN
*seyos ‘own’. [IEW 882 (*seye-); Wat 67-68 {*s(w)e-)\
GI 292], Lat suus ‘own’, Osc suvels (gen. sg.) ‘of one’s own’,
OPrus swais ‘own’, Lith savas ‘self’, OCS svojl'ovm’, Alb ve-
fe ‘self’, Grk (f)o ‘his’, Av x v a- ‘ownself’, OPers huva- ‘ownself,
OInd sva- ‘self. This reflexive possessive pronoun is widely
recorded. The word apparently could be applied to all persons
in early IE but today that practice is limited to Balto-Slavic
and Albanian whereas in the other stocks one can only employ
it with reference to the third person. It has been suggested,
on the basis of Latin and Vedic texts, that the original meaning
was not ‘one’s own’ but rather ‘all that pertaining to the (joint/
extended/communal) family’, i.e., what was held in common
among the family members in contrast to what was personal
property. Hence a noun *su- ‘joint family’ has been proposed
and an adjective *sue~. Attempts have been made to
etymologize a number of kinship terms that begin with a
similar initial *sue-, for example, Szemerenyi explains *sviesdr
‘sister’ as *su- ‘pertaining to the joint family’ + *esor ‘woman’,
i.e., ‘woman of the joint (one’s own) family’. This explanation
might be defended on the grounds that one’s sister was an
agnate, a member of one’s own lineage, but it becomes more
problematic when one attempts to derive *suekuro- ‘father-
in-law’ from *sue- and *kdru ‘head, i.e., head of the joint
family’ since he would be an affine and most certainly not a
members of ego’s own lineage. Szemerenyi has attempted to
avoid this problem by arguing that the word was created and
employed from the perspective of the wife but there are sound
reasons to doubt that this was the situation in PIE.
See also Father-in-law; Pronouns. [M.E.H.]
Further Reading
Szemerenyi, O. (1977) Studies in the kinship terminology of the
Indo-European languages, with special reference to Indian,
Iranian, Greek and Latin. Acta Iranica (Varia 1977) 7, 1-240.
— 412 —
p
PAIN
*seh 4 i- ‘± be angry at, afflict’. [IEW 877 ( *sai-)\ Wat 55
(*saT); Buck 16.31]. OIr saeth ‘pain, sickness’, Weis hoed
‘pain’, Lat saevus ‘fierce’, ON sarr ‘wounded’, OE sar ‘bodily
pain, wound, sore’ (> NE sore), OHG sar ‘sore’, Goth sair
‘pain’, Latv si vs (< *saiwo-) ‘sharp, biting’, Grk crificodicc ‘kind
of tooth-ache’, Hit sa(i)- ‘be angry at, resent’, sawar ‘anger, ill-
will’, TochB saiwe ‘itch’. This would appear to be a word of
high antiquity in IE. Only in certain parts of the IE world,
however, has it taken on meanings related to health.
*h a ighleh a - ‘affliction’. [IEW 8 ( *agh-(lo-))\ Wat 1 (*ag-
es-); BK 302 ( *hag y -/*hdg y -)[ . OE eg(e)le ‘disagreeable’, Goth
agio ‘affliction’, Av ayra ‘type of a disease’, Olnd aghra
‘affliction’. Attested only at the extremities of the IE world,
with its original underlying verb nowhere to be found, this
word is likely to be old in IE.
*h a inghes- ‘± suffering, grief, fear’. [IEW 42-43
( *anghos-)\ Wat 2 ( *angh-)} . Lat angor ‘fear’, ON angr ‘grief,
anger’ (borrowed > NE anger), OHG angust ‘fear’, Av pzah-
‘oppression’, Olnd amhas- ‘fear’. From *h a engh- ‘narrow,
constrict’. Fairly widely attested, almost certainly a late PIE
word.
*hiid]}ol (gen. *hiedunds ) ‘pain; evil’. ]cf. IEW 287-289
(*ed-); BK 418 (*at’V*3t’~)]. From the stem in Luv
adduwal- ‘evil’ (noun), adduwali- ‘evil’ (adj.), Hit idalu- ‘evil’
(adj.), TochB yolo(< *hieduoI-dn-) ‘evil’ (noun or adj.). From
the stem in *-n-: OIr idu ‘pains, birthpangs’, Grk oSvvr] ‘pain,
suffering’, Arm erkn ‘birthpangs, great pain’. Usually taken
as being from *h\ed- ‘eat’, as that which eats at one although
it has also been suggested that it may derive from a separate
root ‘to bite’, i.e., a ‘biting’ pain. There is some evidence in
the Celtic and Armenian forms that even in the late PIE period,
the plural of this form specifically indicated ‘birthpangs’.
Although largely eastern in its distribution, it is surely old in
IE.
*k w ent(h)~ suffer’. [IEW 641 ( *k«enth -); Wat 34
( *k w ent(h)-)\ Buck 16.31], OIr cesaid (< *k w (e)nt-s-eh a -)
‘suffers’, Lith kenciii ‘suffer’, Latv ciesu (< *k w ent-ie/o-) ‘suffer’,
Grk 7td<Jxco (< *k w nth-ske/o ) ‘suffer’, jzevQoq ‘grief, sorrow,
mourning for the dead’. Sparsely attested but the attestations
are geographically widespread. A word at least of the west
and center of the IE world.
*p£himQ ‘misfortune, suffering’. [IEW 792-793 (*pe-
mp)]. Grk Ttrjga ‘misfortune, suffering, misery’, Av paman-
‘dryness, scab’, Olnd paman- ‘skin disease’, probably papman-
‘misfortune, suffering’ (if crossed with papa- ‘bad, evil’). Not
strongly attested, but probably moderately old as the
underlying verb is nowhere attested. A word of the IE
southeast.
•V w) leiK- ‘suffer’. [Mayrhofer 1:419], Lith klises ‘crab-claw’,
Rus klestltl ‘press’, Parthian Sogdian nxrys- ‘blame, reproach’
(< *ni-xraisa-), Olnd klisyate ‘suffers, is tormented’, klesa-
‘suffering, pain, torment’, TochA kleps- ‘± languish, shrivel,
wither’, TochB klaiks- ‘± languish, shrivel, wither’. A word of
the IE east.
^aemChxI-l-ueha- ‘suffering’. [IEW 778 {*om9-)\. Grk
avis (< *a nlwa, dissimilated from *amiwa) ‘grief, sorrow,
trouble’, Olnd amlva 1 suffering, sickness’. Cf. ON ama ‘bother,
pester, molest’, Nice ami ‘anguish, torment, vexation’, Olnd
amiti ‘torments, presses’, TochB amiskanne ‘unpleasant’,
amiske ‘bad-tempered, despondent’. The specific form is only
attested as an “easternism” in IE. The underlying verb,
however, is also to be found in Germanic and another
derivative in Tocharian. At least late PIE in date.
?*(p)K6rmos ‘± grief, shame’ (and perhaps *(p)Rormds
‘causing grief, shame’). [IEW 615 ( *kormo-)\ Wat 32
— 413 —
PAIN
(* kormo-y, Buck 11.28; BK 206 ( *tH h ]ar-/*Hl h ]3r-)\ . ON
harmr ‘sorrow’, OE hearm ‘harm, grief; insult’ (> NE harm),
OHG har(a)m ‘sorrow’, OCS sramO ‘shame’, Rus sorom
‘shame’, Av fSarama- ‘shame’. Cf. the underlying verb only in
Iranian, e.g. , Khot ksar- (< *fsar-) ‘be ashamed’. It is not certain
that all these forms belong together. However, the exact
semantic equation between Iranian and Slavic and the
apparently exact phonological relationship between Slavic and
Germanic seem persuasive. If related, surely of at least late
PIE status.
See also Eat and Drink; Medicine; Narrow; Sick. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Schindler, J. (1975) Armenian erkn, Greek odune , Irish idu. Indo-
European Studies II, ed. C. Watkins, Cambridge, Mass, Harvard
University, 252-274.
PAINT
*peik- ‘paint, mark’. [ ZEW 794-79 5 (*peig-~ *peik-)\ Wat
47 ( *peig- ~ *peik-)\ GI 543 ( *p h ik h -)\. Lat pingo ‘paint,
color’, ON fa ‘colored’, fa runar ‘carve runes’, OE fah ~ fag
‘colored’, OHG feh ‘colored’, OPrus peisai ‘write’, Lith piiSas
‘freckle’, piZSti ‘draw, write’, OCS plstru ‘variegated’, plsu ‘dog’
(< *‘spotted’), pisati ‘paint, color’, Grk noiKiXoq ‘colored’, Av
paesa- ‘color’, fra-pixSta- ‘painted’, OInd pesa- ‘form, color’,
pisanga- ‘reddish’, pirnSati ‘colors, paints’, TochAB pik- ‘write,
paint’. This root, which is clearly PIE in distribution, has been
held to be separate from its homophonous twin: *peik- ‘be
hostile; be dead’ seen in OE fege ‘fated’, Lith paikas ‘silent’
(< ?*‘dead’), OInd plsuna- ‘evil-intentioned’. It is possible,
however, that the two semantic sets were related through the
painting of either warriors or the dead. The paint in this case
would have been ocher, widely attested in burials and
employed as the red material for writing and coloring runes.
See also Color; Textile Preparation. [M.E.H.]
PAINTED GREY WARE CULTURE
The Painted Grey Ware culture of India has been regarded
by some as the archaeological reflection of early Indo-Aryan
culture in the north of the subcontinent. The culture is
distributed from the eastern Punjab to the Ganges and
flourished within the period c 1200-400 BC. This is the period
that marks the transition from a primarily copper-using to
iron-using culture. It takes its name from its fine painted gray
pottery which is decorated in black or red. Settlements tend
to be small villages consisting of relatively insubstantial wattle
and daub or mud-brick structures which stand in contrast to
the baked-brick urbanism of the preceding Harappan culture.
The domestic horse and iron implements (arrowheads,
spearheads, sickles, axes, nails) are also known from Painted
Grey Ware sites. The economy included domestic pig, cattle
(which were consumed at this period), sheep, and buffalo,
and rice was one of the main cereals. Deer were hunted and
the ivory of elephants was exploited.
The association of the Painted Grey Ware culture with the
Painted Grey Wane a. Distribution of the Painted GreyWare culture.
— 414 —
PEA
Indo-Aryans was primarily suggested because the location of
its sites appeared to correlate with place names mentioned in
the Indian epic Mahabharata. Further evidence was adduced
from layers of flooding which were tied to the descriptions of
a flood in early Indie tradition. The thesis that the Painted
Grey Ware reflects an Indo-Aryan invasion. has generally
floundered, however, because no one has been able to derive
it from outside of India to meet the requirements of an external
invasion (attempts to link it with ceramics from the Swat Valley
have been dismissed as the shapes of the vessels between the
two cultures show no specific resemblances). Consequently,
the Painted Grey Ware culture is now generally seen as an
indigenous culture of India whose origins lay within its own
area of dispersal. The assumption that the culture was
indigenous in origin does not mean that Indo-Aryans were
not the ethno-linguistic group behind this culture but their
linguistic identity cannot be confirmed.
See also Harappan Culture; Indo-Iranian Languages. [J.PM.]
Further Reading
Tripathi, V (1976) The Painted Grey Ware : An Iron Age Culture
of Northern India. Delhi, Concept.
PALE see WHITE
PALM OF HAND see HAND
PANTHER
??*perd-‘ panther, lion’. [GI 4251 . Grk TidpSahig ‘panther,
leopard’, NPers palang ‘panther, leopard’, Pashto prang
‘panther, leopard’, Sogd pwrdnk ‘panther, leopard’, OInd
pfdaku- ‘panther, leopard’ (this last word is only attested in
medieval lexica and is almost surely a borrowing from some
Iranian source). Since the panther is not native to Greece, it
is overwhelmingly likely that the Greek word is a borrowing,
either from some Iranian source or from some source that
was also the source of the Iranian and, ultimately, Indian
words. Almost surely not PIE.
??*per-E/s - ‘panther, leopard’, [cf. IEW 820-821
( *perk -), 823 ( *pers-)\ GI 4251. Hit pars(a)na - ‘panther,
leopard’, NPers pars ~ bars ‘panther, leopard’, Sarikoli pis
‘panther, leopard’. Apparently two different and independent
creations from *per- ‘spot ~ spotted’. Alternatively, the Hittite
form may be related to Hattie ha-prassun ‘of the leopard’.
Either way there are no grounds for assuming PIE date for
this word.
See also Cat; Leopard; Lion, Mammals. ID.Q.A.]
PASTORAL GOD
*p6h a usdn (gen. *puh a snds ) ‘pastoral god’. [IEW 790
( *pauson ); BK 52 ( *pnah-/*p[ h ]9h-)} .Grk flsv (gen. Flotvog)
(Greek divinity who is protector of flocks), OInd Pus3- (Vedic
divinity who is protector of flocks). The general Greek word
is originally only Arcadian, hence the unexpected -a- in Attic;
Arcadian also shows an uncontracted form in the dative
flaovi. Also belonging here perhaps are the Gaulish or Venetic
personal name Puso and the Messapic proper name Pauso.
The Greek-Old Indie equation has been doubted by some, as
it requires the assumption of a metathesis of *-h a u- to
*-uh a -, a phonological change accepted by many but not all
lndo-Europeanists. By those who accept the equation it has
been plausibly suggested that we reconstruct *peh 2 Uson and
connect this word with *peh 2 - ‘protect, feed (cattle)’. A word
of the IE southeast.
At home in Arcadia, Pan is half goatish in shape , his main
function is to make the (caprine) flocks fertile and he is wor-
shipped in that capacity. The Old Indie Pusan, irrespective of
lexical identity, shows remarkable correspondences with Pan:
his chariot is pulled by goats, the sacred animal of Pan; he is
also a pastoral god, but he differs from Pan by his affinities
with the sun (e g., Surya, the daughter of the sun, is supposed
to be his wife, and as the best charioteer, he is claimed to
have driven down the golden wheel of the sun); in addition,
like Mercury, he presides over the ways and leads the souls of
the dead to the otherworld. Offerings are made to him to
find lost objects.
See also Death. [E.C.P]
Further Readings
Bader, F. (1989) Pan. Revue de Philology 63, 7-46.
Rodriguez, M. S. (1995) IlQv = Pusa reexamined JIES 23, 209-211.
PASTURE see FIELD
PAW see HAND
PEA
?*hiereg w o- ‘pea ( Pisum sativum)' [IEW 335
( *ereg fJ (h)o-)\ Buck 5.67], Lat er\mm ‘pulse, vetch’, OHG
araweiz ‘pea’, Grk opofiog ‘pea’. The Lat -v- matches Grk -j3-
(< *~g w ~) or Gmc -w- but not both. Probably a borrowing in
all three stocks from a Near Eastern or Mediterranean source.
The pea ( Pisum sativum ), today ranked as the world’s
second most important pulse, is an important source of protein
and it has been prominent in botanical remains from the early
Neolithic onwards. In wild form it was found confined to the
Near East and Mediterranean where it was known in Turkey,
Greece and southern Italy. The pea was known in Near Eastern
sites regularly mixed with wheat and barley from about 7500
BC onwards. Initially, it was probably there still in a wild
form although evidence of domestic peas, seen in their smooth
seed-coats, is already apparent in Anatolian sites from the
sixth millennium BC onwards and they are similarly found
among the carbonized botanical remains from early Neolithic
Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia. They seem to have been part of
the basic “package” of Neolithic domesticated plants carried
into the rest of Europe and appear in the Linear Ware culture
of the fifth millennium BC and later. Evidence for the pea is
known in Moldova and the Ukraine from the beginnings of
the Neolithic onwards, including the Bug-Dniester, Tnpolye
— 415 —
PEA
and Sredny Stog cultures and it is also known from Neolithic
sites of the Caucasus. The pea is recorded from Turkmenistan
by the fourth millennium BC and India from about the third
millennium BC. In general, it is difficult to imagine that the
Proto-Indo-Europeans, no matter where situated, did not
know the domestic pea at an early date which makes our
inability to reconstruct in a solid way any PIE word for it all
the more striking.
See also Agriculture; Chick-pea; Food; Plants;
Vegetables. [D.Q.A., J.P.M.]
PEAK
*yers- ‘peak’. [IEW 1 151-1152 ( *yers-); Wat 76 ( *wer-)\
GI 110; Buck 12.331 . OIr /err ‘better’ (< ‘higher’), Lat verru-
ca (< *varsu-ca ) ‘varus, pimple’, OE wearr ‘sill’, OHG wema
‘sty’, werra ‘varicose vein’, OPrus warsus ‘lip’, Lith virSus
‘highest point’, Latv virsus ‘higher’, OCS vrlcho ‘peak’, Rus
verkh ‘peak’, Grk epjua (< *fepopa < *yers-m$) ‘point, top’,
Olnd varsman- ‘height, peak’. Widespread distribution
indicates PIE status.
See also High, Hill; Skin Disease [A.D.V]
PEG see WEDGE
PEN see FENCE
PENKOV CULTURE
Part of the Prague-Penkov-Kolochin complex of the fifth-
seventh centuries AD. The Penkov culture, occupying the area
from the lower Danube to the northern Donets, has yielded
some three-hundred sites in the Ukraine. These consist of
small settlements of five to seven small semi-subterranean
houses, distributed about 3 to 5 km from one another; burials
were generally cremation, occasionally inhumation. The
culture also incorporated mobile steppe elements from north
of the Black Sea and some have argued that the Penkov culture
possessed an Iranian-speaking substrate which was assimilated
to Slavic. The Penkov culture has been associated with the
southern movement of the early Slavs, particularly the tribe
identified in historical sources as the Antes.
See also Kolochin Culture; Prague Culture;
Slavic Languages. [J.P.M.]
PEOPLE
*d6h a mos ‘(segment of) people’. [IEW 176 (*da-mo-s),
Wat 10 (*da-mo-)\ Buck 19.21; BK 130 (*t’ah-/*t”9h-)\. Olr
dam ‘troop, company, retinue’, OWels dauu ‘client’, Grk Sfjpog
‘people’. The only term here to indicate ‘people’ is the Greek
word which originally designated a portion of a territory but
even by the time of the Iliad , it was employed to designate
the population of a territory and that topographical meaning
was preserved in Athenian administrative terminology where
8t] pog indicates a tribal division. Otherwise in Greek it was
used to distinguish between rural populations and the power
elites, i.e., Svvaroi 'the powerful (ones)’ or evdaipoveg ‘the
prosperous (ones)’. The underlying meaning would appear
to indicate a ‘part’ and it is presumed to be built on *deh a -
‘cut, divide’ (cf. Grk Socwpcci ‘divide’, Olnd dati ‘cuts’, dlti-
‘reparatiori, dayati ‘shares out’) with a -mo- derivational suffix.
At least a word of the west and center of the Indo-European
world.
*hileudheros ‘people, freemen’. [IEW 684-685
( *leudhero-)\ Wat 37 ( *leudh-ero-)\ GI 398 ( *leudf } ero - );
Buck 19.44], OE leod ‘people, nation’, OHG liut ‘people,
nation’, MLat (< Burgundian) leudis ‘freeman’, Lith liAudis
‘people’, Latv faudis ‘people’, OCS (pi.) ljudlje (< *hileudheies)
‘people’, ljudinu ‘freeman’, Khowar roi ‘people, man, person’.
Germanic and Slavic also show *hileudhos ‘man; freeman’
in OE leod ‘man; wergeld for a man’, geleod ‘fellow
countryman, compatriot’, OHG liut ‘human being’, Rus ljud
‘people’. Another derivative *hil6udheros ‘free’ is found in
Lat liber ‘free’ and Grk iXevOepog ‘free’. The notion of ‘free’
derives from ‘belonging to one’s own people’ as opposed to
slaves who are captured from other groups. It is significant
that *hileudheros is formed with the suffix *-ero- which is
used to contrast two things or concepts (eg., inner vs. outer).
In this case we have those with membership in the “in group”
contrasted with those outside of the group. Finally, we should
note that it has been both affirmed and denied that Alb vella
‘brother’ derives from *(s)ue-hiloudho- ‘± one’s own person’.
— 416 —
PERCEIVE
From *hjleudh- ‘grow, increase’.
The semantic development envisaged here begins with the
notion of growth, of increase in size, which seems to have
been a fertile source of words for ‘people’ in PIE (compare
the next two entries). In this case we perhaps can see a
specialization in meaning to indicate the progeny of the
ancestral founders of the tribe, endowed by birth with the
full rights inherent in the community (e.g., that that person
is ‘free’). In a slightly different semantic vein, the notion of
growth, i.e., of the increasing stature of plants or of human
beings, appears in a different set of derivatives in Latin and
Tocharian: Lat llben ‘children’ (i.e., the rising generation),
Liber ‘deity presiding over agriculture’, Liberalia ‘festival of
Liber (March 17th), at which youths received the toga virilis ’,
Venetic Louzera deity of vegetation growth and viticulture,
TochA lyutar(< *hileudhdr ) ‘more’ (adverbial use of a noun
meaning ‘± increase’), lyutari (pi.) ‘± overseers’.
*plehidh\}6his (gen. *plehidhuhids ) (the mass of)
people’. [IEW 799 ( *ple-to-)\ Wat 48 ( *ple-dhw-)\ Buck
19.21], Lat plebes (~ plebis ~ plebs ) ‘plebeians (as opposed
to the patricians, etc.), the common people’, Grk nXpQvq
‘throng, crowd; (common) people’. The term derives from
*plehi~ ‘fill’ (cf. Lat plenus ‘full’, Grk nipnXrfpi ‘fills’, Olnd
pgnati ‘fills, satiates’) and like the Germanic forms ON folk
‘people’, OE folc ‘people’ (> NE folk), etc., is derived from
the same root (< *plh}-go-) and has the connotation of ‘heap,
mass’. Distribution suggests late IE status.
*teutih a - ‘the people (?under arms)’. [IEW 1084-1085
( *teuta)\ Wat 71 ( *teuta-)\ G1 652 ( *t h eu-t h -)\ Buckl9.22].
OIr tuath ‘a people, nation; (common) people as opposed to
king or clergy’, Weis tud ‘country’, Osc touto ‘community’,
Umb (acc.) totam ‘citizenry’, ON pjod ‘folk’, pyda ‘explain,
translate’, OE peod ‘folk’, piedan ‘explain, translate’, peodisc
‘belonging to the people, vernacular speech’, OHG diot
‘people, heathen’, diuten ‘explain, translate’, diutisc ‘belonging
to the people’ (> NHG deutsch ), Goth piuda ‘folk’, piudisko
‘like the heathen’ (in Germanic we also have a *teut-ono -)
‘leader of the *teuteh a - in ON pjodann ‘prince, king’, OE
peoden ‘king, lord; God’, Goth piudans ‘king’), OPrus tauto
‘country’, Lith tauta ‘people’, Latv tauta ‘people’, Illyrian Teuta
(tribal name), Messapic Geotoria (personal name), Thracian
Tautomedes (personal name), Grk (gen.) Tevxapidao
(personal name of a Pelasgian on the side of the Trojans [Iliad
2.843]) and more certainly TevrianXoq (personal name).
NPers toda ‘heap; stack, rick; hill, tumulus’ has also been
included here but the semantic divergence (?‘mass of people’
> ‘lump, mound’) seems very large. Lat totus ‘all, whole’ may
preserve the underlying adjective from which *teuteh a - is
derived but the form ( * lotus rather than the expected *tutus)
is not well explained. Finally, it has been affirmed and denied
in about equal measure that Flit tuzzi- ‘army’ is related as the
descendant of a parallel derivative *teutih a - ‘± that related to
the people’ (‘the people’s army’ so to speak). It is generally
supposed that *teuteh a - is a derivative of *teu(h a )- ‘swell, be
strong’, either as the ‘strength of the community’ (or even
‘people under arms’ if we take the Hittite word to be related)
or the ‘mass (of the people)’. The presence of the laryngeal,
however, renders this derivation suspect and it has also been
proposed that *teuteh a - derives from *teu- ‘look on with favor’
which frequently includes the concept of ‘serve’ or ‘protect’
(e:g., Lat tueor ‘observe, protect’, tutus ‘secure’), hence a
collective indicating the ‘service’ of a king. By itself, *teuteh a -
is a word of the west and center of the IE world and at least in
Germanic the word and its derivatives have taken on clearly
ethnic, and even linguistic, dimensions. If Hit tuzzi- is related,
then we have evidence for something of PIE date.
In early Ireland, the tuath is inextricably associated with
the concept of the ‘king’ ( niba tuath tuath . . . cen rig' a tuath
is not a tuath without a king’) and this concept may extend
back at least into Proto-Celtic, cf. Weis Tudur(< *Teuto-riks
‘teuto-king’), Gaul Toutio-nx “‘Tribal”-king’. Although Ger-
manic lacks a reflex of *hjregs ‘king’, it reveals a similar
construction in ON pjod-konungr and OE peod-cyning
‘people-king’, and it is suspected that the extended form built
on *teuteh a - (Gmc *peudanaz\ ON pjodann ‘prince, king’,
OE peoden ‘king, lord; God’, Goth piudans ‘king’) had
replaced *h 3 regs. Kim McCone suggests that the *teuteh a -
was a PIE institution, ruled by a king ( *h 3 regs), and composed
of the adults (both those fit for military duty and the older
members of society) but not the *konos, the war-band of the
younger age set.
See also Age Set; Army; Companion; Freeman; Friend;
Leader; Social Organization; Swell. [E.C.R, J.PM ]
Further Reading
McCone, K. (1987) Hund, Wolf und Kneger bei den Indogermanen,
in Studien zum indogermanischen Wortschatz , ed. W Meid,
Innsbruck, 101-154.
PERCEIVE
*yer- ‘perceive, give attention to’. [IEW 1 164 ( *uer~), Wat
77 ( *wer-)\ GI 709 ( *wer-)\ BK 480 ( * war-/* war-)] . Olr c6(a)ir
(. DIL coir) (< *< *ko(m)-uer-o-) ‘appropriate, correct’, Lat
vereor ‘honor, fear’, ON varr ‘cautious, wary’, vari ‘care,
attention’, OE waer ‘cautious, wary’ (> NE ware , wary), warn
‘care, attention’, OHG gi-war ‘careful, cautious’, wara ‘care,
attention’, Goth wars ‘careful, sober’, Latv vert look, gaze,
notice’, Grk ini opovrai ‘they supervise’, ovpoq (< *uorijo-)
‘guard’, (Hesychius) opei ‘guards’, opaco' see’, copa c are’, Hit
werite (< *ueri dhehj- ‘put one’s attention’?) ‘fear’, TochAB
war- ‘smell’. Extremely widespread and certainly old in IE. In
Italic and Anatolian this word appears in the specialized sense
of “(ritual) fear”; a rather similar social sense is seen in Celtic.
Such a specialization of meaning may well be old in PIE.
*M.er-b(h)- ‘oversee, protect’, [cf. IEW 1164 ( *uer-)\ VW
593-594; BK 480 (* war-/* war-)]. OPrus warbo ‘protects’,
TochB yarp- (< *uerb(h)~) ‘oversee, observe, take care of. An
enlargement of *uer-. The apparent agreement of Baltic and
Tocharian would seem to guarantee at least late PIE status for
this word.
PERCEIVE
•h^eu- ‘perceive’. [IEW 78 (*ay-); Wat 4 ( *au-); GI 688;
BK 458 (*haw-/*/iaw-)]. OCS aviti ‘show, reveal’, umu
‘intellect, intelligence’, Hit uhhi (< *h^eu-h 2 e-i) ‘see’, Olnd
ud-avati ~ pra-avati ‘observes, notices’, uve ‘1 see’; from
*h 4 euis- we find Lat audio (< *h 2 euis-dh-ie/o-) ‘hear’, Grk
aioOdvopai ‘perceive’. Also reasonably widespread and old
in IE. Possibly related, as with GI, to the PIE word for ‘ear’.
*sent- ‘perceive, think’. [7£W 908 (*sent-)', cf. Wat 58
( *sent-)\ BK 187 ( *san-/*son -)]. Lat sentio ‘feel’, sensus
‘feeling, meaning’, OHG sin (< *sentno -) ‘meaning’, sinnan
‘strive, desire’, Lith senteti ‘think’, OCS spstl ‘wise’. A word of
the west and center of the IE world.
*ghou- ‘perceive, pay heed to’ (pres. *ghou-ehi~). \IEW
453 ( *ghou(e)-)\ Wat 23 (*ghow-e-)-, BK 238 ( *guw -/
*gow-)\ . Lat faveo ‘favor’, ON ga (< *gaud) ‘pay attention to’,
OCS govejp ‘honor’, Rus govetE fast’, Arm govern ‘praise’. Cf.
the Germanic denominative verbs: ON geyma ‘heed, watch’,
OE gleman ‘heed, watch’, OHG goum(j)an ‘foresee, care for’,
Goth gaumjan ‘see, observe’, built on the derived noun *ghou-
mo- seen in ON gaumr ‘attention, care’. A word of the west
and center of the IE world.
*k w ei- ‘perceive’. [IEW 636-637 (*k v ei-(t-))] ■ Grk dri^co
‘do not pay attention’, Olnd cinoti ~ ciketi ‘perceives’, cit
intellect’; *k w eis- in OIr ad-ci (< *-k w iset ) ‘sees’; *k w eit- in
Lith skaitau ‘count, read’, Latv skaitit ‘count, recite prayers’,
OCS cltQ ‘count, reckon, read something written’, Olnd cetati
~ clketati ‘pays attention to’. Though attested without further
enlargement only in Old Indie, the presence of enlarged
variants in Celtic and Baltic would seem to assure the PIE
status of this root.
*keuhi- ‘perceive’ (pres. *kouhi6ie/o~). [IEW 587-589
( *keu-)\ Wat 30 (*keu-\ GI 734-735 ( *k b e/ou-)} . Lat caved
‘take heed’, OE hawian (< *keueh a -ie/o-) ‘look at’, OCS cujp
‘note’, cudo ‘wonder’, Grk koeco ‘note’, KvSog ‘glory’, Lydian
kawe- (< *kouhiei ‘seer’) ‘priest’, Av kava (< *kouh\ei ) ‘seer’,
Olnd kavl- ‘wise, seer’, akuvate ‘intends to’, akutam ‘intention’;
we find a variant form *keus- in: Lat cust os ‘watchman’, ON
heyra ‘hear’, OE hieran ‘hear’ (> NE hear), OHG horen ‘hear’,
Goth hausjan ‘hear’ (Gmc < *kous-ie/o- ), Rus (dial.) cukhati
(< *keus-eh a -) ‘perceive’, Grk oikovco (< *srp-kous-ie/o-) ‘hear’,
(Gortyn) dcKevco ( < *srp-keus-ie/o-) ‘hear’. We find the variant
*skeu(hi)~ in OE sceawian ‘show’ (> NE show), sclene
‘beautiful’ (> NE sheen), OHG scouwon ‘show’, sconi
‘beautiful’, Goth skauns ‘beautiful’, Arm c‘uc‘anem (<
*skouske/o~) ‘show’, MPers skoh ‘splendor, majesty’. Wide-
spread and old in IE.
See also Ear; Favor; Feel; Hear; Magic; Priest; See;
Seek; Taste; Watch. [D.Q.A.]
PERCH
?*h 2 eku- ‘perch’. [IEW 18-19 (*ak-)\ cf. Wat 1 (*ak-)\ BK
398 (*huk[ h }-/*hok[ h ]-)\. ON pgr ‘sea-bass ( Perea marina )’
(cf. Danish aborre ‘perch [Perea fluviatalis]'), Norw abbor
‘perch’, Swed aborre ‘perch’, all < *agh-borre where -borre as
if < *bhfso-on- ‘having a point’ (because of the perch’s spiny
fins) and similar to *bhorso- seen in OHG bersich ‘perch’,
NHG barsch ‘perch’, OE bae(r)s ‘perch’ (> NE bass), MHG ag
~ egle ‘perch (Perea fluviatalis)', Lith eserys ~ asetys ‘perch’,
Latv asar(i)s ~ aseris ‘perch’. Derived from *h 2 ek- ‘sharp’
because of the perch’s spiny fins (as also with the case of
‘sturgeon’). However, there is no reason that the Baltic and
Germanic words could not be independent creations. Of
doubtful IE status. Old Norse also shows a form augr beside
pgr. The former was created by crossing the latter with auga
‘eye’ because of the perch’s large, projecting eyes. So also is
Rus okuni ‘perch’ a derivative of oko 'eye.
The perch is found in Europe from the Atlantic to the steppe
regions where it is occasionally recovered from prehistoric
sites; its southern limit is marked by the Mediterranean.
See also Fish; Sharp; Sturgeon. [D.Q.A.]
PERSUADE
*bheidh- ‘persuade, compel, confide’. [IEW 117
( *bheidh-)\ Wat 6 ( *bheidh-)\ GI 23 ( *beid h -)\ Buck 17.151.
Perhaps OIr bibdu ‘guilty’ (if < *bhi-bhidh-udts), Lat fldo
‘trust’, fides ‘confidence’, ON beida ‘urge’, OE b&dan ‘urge’,
OHG beit(t)en ‘urge’, Goth beidan ‘expect’ (< "“have
confidence in’), baidjan ‘compel, exercise a moral constraint’,
OCS beda ‘necessity’, bediti ‘constrain’, Alb be
(< *bhoidheh a -) ‘oath’, Grk neiOco ‘persuade’, KeiOogai be
persuaded, obey’. At least a word of the west and center of
the IE world.
See also Contend. [D.Q.A.]
PHRYGIAN LANGUAGE
The Phrygians are numbered in the Iliad (2 .862-863 , etc.)
as neighbors and allies of the Trojans. As a major power in
Anatolia, they flourished during the ninth and eighth centuries
BC and literary records continued until the first centuries AD.
Their capital was at Gordion in central Anatolia and their
most famous king, Midas of the golden touch fame, died in
about 695 BC, when Phrygia was overrun by Kimmenans.
The capital was rebuilt and survived as an important center
through the later Hellenistic period beginning in 333 BC with
Alexander the Great’s famous visit. The extinction of the
Phrygian language has been variously placed in the fifth
century AD or perhaps as late as the seventh century.
Description
The evidence for Phrygian rests on inscriptions from two
diverse periods. The earliest are the old Phrygian insc options,
numbering on the order of 240, dating from about the eighth
to the third centuries BC. The majority are found in what is
presumed to have been the Phrygian-speaking territory of
western Phrygia, eastern Bythinia and in the old Hittite capital
of Hattusa and its environs. The longest of the old Phrygian
inscriptions runs to 285 characters. New Phrygian
inscriptions, written in the Greek script, date from the first
century AD and number just over a hundred examples. In
addition to these inscriptions are a handful of glosses, the
418 —
PHRYGIAN LANGUAGE
Phrygians The Phrygian capital of Gordion and the general area of
Phrygian power.
most famous occurring in Herodotus (2.2) where an
“experiment” to determine the most ancient language in the
world — raising an infant in isolation, deprived of hearing
human speech — was concluded when the child uttered the
word pEKog, the Phrygian word for ‘bread’. The Phrygian word
for ‘man’, zeme/en, preserved by Hesychius, is derived from
PIE *dh(e)ghem- 'tartti.
Phrygian, though poorly known, is clearly IE, e.g., Phryg
matar(< *meh\ter ) ‘mother’, Phryg (acc. pi.) podas (< *podds )
‘feet’. If the second element in the personal name Benagonos
is derived from *genhi~ ‘be bom’, then Phrygian is presumably
lumped with the centum rather than satam languages (though
the z- in zemelen might argue for a satam development). One
feature frequently remarked upon is that Phrygian (like Celtic,
Italic, Anatolian and Tocharian) possesses a medio-passive in
-r, e.g., <x55aK£Top (< *dh(e)hi- ‘put’) and appeperop (<
*bher- ‘carry’). While this feature has often been regarded as
conservative, Phrygian also retains the augment (like Greek,
Armenian, Indo-Iranian), e.g., edaes ~ eSaeq (< *hie-
dhehi -) ‘he put’. The augment is usually seen as a late
innovation restricted to the southeastern dialect group of
Proto-Indo-European. Reduplication is employed in forming
some perfects, e.g., teriKpevoq.
The position of Phrygian with respect to the other IE
languages is not entirely clear since it sends mixed signals.
What is agreed is that it is not a language of the Anatolian
type although it has borrowed some personal names from
the previous and contemporary occupants of Anatolia, e.g.,
Mamutas , Tovr\q. Although it has often been asserted that
Phrygian had a specially close relationship with Thracian (the
so-called Thraco-Phrygian language), the fact that the Balkan
language would appear to have been satam provides little
support and arguments for a close association tend to rest
more on meager historical evidence than linguistic. Armenian
has also been regarded as a possible close cousin, the origins
of the Phrygians and Armenians often held to belong to the
same general folk-movement through Anatolia yet here again
the evidence is not particularly striking. The closest relation-
ships are argued to be with Greek which also shares the relative
pronoun *jos, the suffix *-meno-, the pronoun *auto-, the
use of the ending *-s in the nominative singular masculine of
a-stems, and the augment (shared also by Armenian and Indo-
Iranian). The relationship with Greek, as C. Brixhe and M.
Lejeune observe, may also have been particularly close in the
area of lexicon: the Phrygian inscription on the tomb of King
Midas: Midai lavagtaei vanaktei ‘to Midas (war-)leader and
king’ appears to contain two of the important Greek
designations of the leader, found as early as Mycenaean la-
wa-ge-ta and wa-na-ka. Brixhe has argued that rather than
having been borrowed from the Greek, these terms may point
to a common heritage.
Origins
The usual starting point for any discussion of Phrygian
origins is the statement of Herodotus (7.73) that the Phrygians
were originally called Bpvyeq and inhabited the Balkans
alongside the Macedonians. They migrated into Anatolia
where they changed their name to Qpvyeq. This explanation
was repeated by a number of other writers of the ancient
world, notably Strabo (7.3.2), who cites the testimony of the
Lydiaka of Xanthus: the Phrygians came from Thrace after
the Trojan War where they killed the king of Troy and then
settled in their own lands, eastward of Troy. As Robert Drews
has indicated, such testimony for a migration from Europe is
contradicted by other sources such as Homer who would
already have the Phrygians occupying the land east of the
Trojans during the Trojan War (Homer also describes them
as possessing fast horses [ Iliad 3. 184-189)). Herodotus’ story
of how they were proved to be the oldest of peoples in the
world also suggests that there was widespread belief in their
being autochthonous in their historical territory. Contradictory
historical testimony such as this is too dubious to erect any
theory upon.
The starting point for any serious discussion of Phrygian
origins must lie with the evidence of the language itself. Since
it is clear that Phrygian does not belong to the Anatolian stock,
it is most unlikely that its origins can be placed either in its
historical seat (the territory occupied by the Hittites) nor
anywhere else in central or south-western Anatolia where we
find clear evidence of the Anatolian languages. The evidence
of Homer notwithstanding, the Phrygians cannot have been
autochthonous from time immemorial but must have achieved
their historical location in the face of the collapse of the
Anatolians of central Anatolia. Given the inscriptional and
historical evidence, they must also have reached central
Anatolia by the ninth century BC. If one accepts that their
greatest linguistic affinity was with Greek, then any
explanation of Phrygian origins must also accommodate in
some fashion a model of Greek origins.
Traditionally, the trip line for movements into Phrygia is
PHRYGIAN LANGUAGE
held to be Troy and proto-Phrygian migrations are commonly
assigned to one of the levels of this multi-period site in
northwest Anatolia. Robert Drews has argued that their earliest
appearance might be set to the period marking the transition
from Troy V to Troy VI, i.e., c 1700 BC, where there is a
major cultural break which, among other things, marks the
appearance of the domestic horse at this site. He suggests
that both Phrygian and Greek dispersals were associated with
the spread of chariot-aristocracies from eastern Anatolia who
arrived first in northwest Anatolia by a sea route from the
east. This model rests entirely on the assumption that chariot
warfare was invented in eastern Anatolia/Arm'enia; as we also
have solid archaeological evidence for spoked-wheeled
vehicles in the Volga-Ural steppe region by c 2000 BC, the
spread of chariots need not have issued from an east Anatolian
center but might also have come across the Balkans providing
both Phrygians and Greeks with a more proximate southeast
European staging area.
Another possible event correlated by some with Phrygian
origins is the transition to Troy Vllb at c 1200 BC which sees
the appearance of coarse ware on the site. This transition
coincides with the collapse of Hittite power and the widely
held view that this was a period of massive folk-movement in
the eastern Aegean. In this model Phrygian would have been
carried from the Balkans into Anatolia at least some centuries
after the proto-Greeks had already established themselves in
Greece. Hittite references to a King Midas on their northern
frontier have also been adduced to indicate that this intrusion
coincides with the movements of early Phrygians. What
remains problematic is linking the coarse ware (or knobbed
ware) pottery from Troy at c 1200 BC with somewhat similar
pottery recovered from the Phrygian city of Gordion of the
ninth and eighth centuries. The similarities lie both in
technique of manufacture and in ornament and can be traced
back further to Thrace. Evidence for some form of symbiosis
between the hand-made pottery traditions of possible
immigrants and the wheel-made styles of the Anatolians at
Gordion appears to be extremely meager but cannot be
excluded. But most evidence for the material culture associated
with the Phrygians appears to suggest local derivation and
the presumption remains that wherever the Phrygians came
from, they adopted most of the material culture of the local
inhabitants of Anatolia. The main exception to this general
adaption of the indigenous culture perhaps is their mode of
burial since the Phrygians are renowned for their tumulus
burials over wooden tombs with stone-capped roofs. This
style would also appear to be intrusive to Anatolia and finds
its closest parallels in the Balkans and north of the Black Sea.
Some movement of peoples from the Balkans into Anatolia
across the twelfth through ninth centuries then might both
account for the Phrygian migrations into Anatolia and
accommodate their linguistic relations with Greek (and
perhaps Thracian).
See also Indo-European Languages. Q.RM.]
Further Readings
Language
Brixhe, C. and M. Lejeune (1984) Corpus des inscriptions paleo-
phrygiennes. Paris, Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Brixhe, C. (1994) Le phrygien, in Les indoeuropennes , ed. F Bader,
Paris, CNRS, 165-178.
Diakonoff, 1. and V. P Neroznak (1985) Phrygian. Delmar, New York,
Caravan.
Haas, O. (1966) Die phrygischen Sprachdenkmaler. Sofia, Akademie
bulgare des sciences.
Origins
Drews, R. (1993) Myths of Midas and the Phrygian migration from
Europe. Klio 75, 9-26.
Sams, G. K. (1988) The Early Phrygian period at Gordion: toward a
cultural identity. Source 7, 3/4, 9-15.
PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Attempts to “reconstruct” the original physical type of the
Proto-Indo-Europeans and trace their expansions through the
evidence of human physical attributes began in the nineteenth
century. The techniques involved have been various and have
included deductions based on the physical appearance of
modern or historically attested populations, the analysis of
skeletal remains, in particular the skull, and genetics.
Physical Types
The initial (and transparently fallacious) approach involved
the extension of an early physical description of one IE-
speaking population to the earliest Indo-Europeans. Hence
Tacitus’s description of the Germans as blonds might be
extended to the Proto-Indo-Europeans while the Indie “Law
of Manu” was cited to prove that the earliest “Aryans” were
brunettes. From the 1870s until the second World War, there
was a persistent attempt to assemble overwhelming proof that
the earliest Indo-Europeans were tall, blue-eyed blonds,
approximating the “Nordic” physical type. Here the evidence
was derived not from a single population but through sifting
early classical descriptions of Greeks (140 out of 158 Greek
deities and heroes were reputedly described as blond),
Germans, Celts, Scythians, the upper classes of India, etc.,
which appeared to suggest that the earliest IE-speaking
populations were either blond or at least ruled by blonds and
recognized a common Nordic ideal physical type. Linguistics
was even pressed into service as some attempted to derive
the ethnic term ‘Aryan’ from *hiel- ‘red, brown’, hence the
earliest Indo-Europeans were believed to have distinguished
themselves as the ‘fair-skinned’ or ‘fair-haired ones’. It is now
clear that word for ‘Aryan’ is descended from PIE *h a er-, with
an *-r-, and is sharply distinguished from the color term
*hiel - .
With the “original” physical type described, it remained
only to determine its point of origin. The home of the Indo-
European “race” was initially set in the Pripet marshes on the
border of Belarus and the Ukraine but then swiftly shifted to
— 420 —
PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
absurdity of such racial dogma was evident in the vitriolic
works of Georges Vacher de Lapouge who maintained that
“the ancestors of the (dolichocephalic) Aryans cultivated wheat
when those of the brachycephalics were probably still living
like monkeys”. Racial geographers such as Griffith Taylor,
although rightly recognizing that brachycephalism had
actually increased through time (in Europe), developed the
equally bizarre argument that an evolutionary hierarchy
existed which placed the dolicocephalics at the bottom and
acknowledged the higher evolutionary (and presumably
intellectual) development of the brachycephalics, e.g., the
Chinese.
The continuous attempts to apply cranial metrics with
language also had its persistent critics such as Max Muller
who likened the concept of an Aryan (i.e., IE-speaking) “race"
to a “dolichocephalic dictionary” and many argued that there
is no obvious or scientifically sound way to identify directly
the language of a prehistoric population from its physical type.
Although the type of correlations that were frequent in the
nineteenth century have generally disappeared, the use of
physical anthropology as a source of subsidiary evidence
concerning population movements and contacts has not and
so it still plays a role in discussions of prehistoric populations
shifts. The selection of a single variable, however, such as the
cephalic index, has been abandoned for multivariate analyses
of human physical remains. As changes in physical
characteristics may not only be explained by an influx of
immigrants but also by environmental and subsistence
fluctuations, the interpretation of the record of human physical
types in Eurasia is far more ambiguous than nineteenth and
earlier twentieth century scholars tended to think. Other than
very major changes in human physical types, much of the
evidence for migrations based on physical anthropology (given
past excesses in such interpretations) tends to attract more
scepticism than belief from current archaeologists.
Physical Anthropology I Distribution of hair and eye pigmentation
Shading indicates relative dines from light to darker pigmentation
northern Europe, particularly Germany and southern
Scandinavia, which helped underlie later Nazi claims as to
the “master race”. Yet even in the late nineteenth century, the
problem of confusing pigmentation with linguistic group was
exposed as it was pointed out that populations speaking
decidedly non- IE languages of northern Europe such as the
Finns and Estonians, were every bit as blond as their Germanic
neighbors. In general, the pigmentation or hair color is
determined (originally) by climate (light skin may provide a
selective advantage in producing vitamin D at high latitudes)
and is distributed in gradients or dines from north to south
in Eurasia. Such features need not have, and in attested
populations do not have, any direct relationship to linguistic
affinity.
Skeletal Remains
Fossil populations, recovered during archaeological
excavations of cemeteries, were also seen as repositories of
evidence about the origin and trail of the earliest Indo-
Europeans. Initially, the link between human physical type
and language followed a rather tortuous logic that began with
light pigmentation which was to be associated with the Nordic
physical type and then, by extension, to the skull proportions
of the Nordics. Skulls were divided into three broad
categories — dolichocephalic (long headed), brachycephalic
(broad head) and mesocephalic (medium headed). The
Nordics were predominantly long-headed and so this type,
once referred to as homo europaeus dolichocephalus flavus
(blond, long-headed European man) was sought in the
archaeological record as the probable physical representation
of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. As the brachycephalics tended
to predominate in the Alps and the Carpathians, they were
dismissed as remnant populations of originally non-IE
speakers who had survived in mountain fastnesses. The full
Genetics
The most recent exercise in employing the evidence of
human physical type in discussions of IE populations is
founded on genetic data. Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his
colleagues, for example, have prepared genetic maps of
Eurasia, based on blood types and other factors, and these
have been found to correlate often with linguistic borders;
the assumption is that populations sharing the same language
are more likely to intermarry than social groups speaking
different languages. A study by G. Barbujani and R. Sokal
suggested that thirty-one European linguistic borders could
be correlated against thirty-three gene-frequency boundaries.
Although such studies indicate to some extent the persistence
of mating communities (many of the gene -boundaries also
formed along natural boundaries), claims that they can also
indicate the point of origin and dispersal patterns of the Indo-
European languages are far more controversial.
A major problem with the use of genetic data is that they
are based on modem (post- 1945) gene maps and there is,
PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Physical Anthropology II Synthetic maps of genes based on the
first three principal components. A = First principal component has
been interpreted as the result of a “wave of advance” of Neolithic
farmers from the Near East which is associated by some with the
dispersal of the Indo-Europeans; B = Second principal component
has been interpreted as reflecting Mongoloid admixture in Lapp
populations; C = Third principal component has been interpreted
as reflecting “Kurgan” expansions from the steppelands.
therefore, good grounds to doubt that such studies can control
for the very considerable movement of populations across
Europe since the initial expansion of the IE languages. Lacking
control for the specific time depth of the boundaries, one
might suspect that they are unable to pronounce on prehistoric
population movements at all. Nevertheless, in the major study
of genetic patterns in Eurasia, Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his
colleagues have attempted to provide their synthetic maps of
all Europe with historical explanations. They argue that the
gross patterns seen in the application of principal component
analysis permit one to arrange some of the patterns in
sequence. The map based on the first principal component,
which portrays a series of dines emanating from the Near
East, specifically Mesopotamia, is explained by the movement
of the first farmers across Europe from the Near East. They
suggest that the Neolithic economy spread by population
movement with the more productive economy of the earliest
farmers replacing both the subsistence base and the earlier
populations of hunter-gatherers. The effect of this replacement
would be a genetic trajectory from the Near East westwards
across Europe. It is also suggested that this trajectory may
also reflect the movement of Proto-Indo-European speakers
out of the Near East (the “Neolithic” or “Anatolian solution”
to the problem of IE dispersals). Alternatively, the map based
on the third principal component shows a similar east-west
clination but here centered on the area north of the Black
Sea. This cline, Cavalli-Sforza suggests, may support the
concept of a later IE migration from the steppes across Europe
(the “Kurgan solution” to IE dispersals)
The real value of such maps for elucidating IE dispersals is
by no means clear. Given that an east-west movement from
the Near East is also the likely model of Homo sapiens sapiens
movements 40,000-30,000 years ago, other “prehistoric”
explanations might be sought to account for the first principal
component. The map for the third principal component with
its origin in the Dnieper-Don region may suggest east-west
spreads across Europe but again, given the continuous
movement of populations historically recorded from the Iron
Age onwards, it is very difficult to know precisely when this
genetic pattern was established or whether we are discussing
an extremely protracted genetic process. The genetic map of
the third principal component also exhibits dines running
southwards, which, given the logic of the previous
interpretations, should indicate nonh-south spreads from the
steppes toward Egypt which is historically and linguistically
unmotivated by any obvious demographic event. The second
principal component, which centers on northern Scandinavia,
is explained either by mongoloid migrations from northwest
Asia or the dispersal of the Uralic-speaking peoples. The latter
hypothesis is particularly unconvincing given Proto-Uralic
relationships with Indo-Iranian far to the south, i.e., the Uralic
languages should have spread northwards into Lappland (over
an indigenous population whose traits are retained among
the modem Saami) and not the reverse.
Much of the explanation currently employed in mixing
PICENE LANGUAGES
modem genetics with the prehistoric distribution of languages
tend to be circular, i.e., it requires one discipline to propose
migrations and then these movements are employed to explain
the observed genetic patterns; the genetic patterns do not in
themselves require one to either assume that they reflect a
real demographic movement of people or any single migration
as an explanation.
Other studies that have modelled simulations based on
the various homeland theories, e.g., the “Neolithic solution”
that derives the Indo-Europeans from the spread of agriculture
out of Anatolia or the “Kurgan solution” that explains the
spread of Indo-Europeans from the steppelands in the fifth
through third millennia BC, have purported to find some
support for the Anatolian homeland. However, such studies
have been founded entirely on European data which is
incapable of representing a proper “test” of Indo-European
dispersals. Generally, such studies also support an expansion
of the Neolithic and attendant genetic patterns eastwards
across Iran as well (“Elamo-Dravidian” movements). As these
easterly migrations have nothing to do with IE expansions
one must then, consequently, presume that the expansion of
the Indo-Europeans across Asia is not (so far) genetically
marked. If this is the case, it is difficult to see why one should
accept conclusions drawn purely on the European evidence
that may well support the movement of early agricultural
populations across Europe but can in no way serve as proxy
evidence for describing Indo-European movements.
The use of modern genetic patterns seems still a very
uncertain tool for research into prehistoric problems.
Obviously, analysis of DNA in prehistoric burials may mitigate
this criticism in the future but the inherent methodological
problem of not only being able to identify prehistoric
population movements but also identify those that resulted
in language shifts and which population experienced the shift
suggests that the association of human physical types with
language change will still require much further work.
See also Indo-European Homeland; Proto-Indo-European;
Time-Depth. [J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Barbujani, G., and R. R. Sokal (1990) Zones of sharp genetic change
in Europe are also linguistic boundaries. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, USA 87 : 1816-1819.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca, P Menozzi, A. Piazza (1994) The History
and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, Princeton University
Press.
Day J. (1996) The concept of the Aryan race in nineteenth-century
scholarship. Orpheus 4, 13-48.
Haarmann, H. (1996) Aspects of early Indo-European contacts with
neighboring cultures. 7F101, 1-14.
Mallory, J. P (1993) Physical Anthropology and the Indo-European
Homeland Problem. Mankind Quarterly 33 , 131-154.
Sieglin, W (1935) Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Volker
des Alter thums. Em Sammlung der antiken Zeugnisse als Beitrag
zur Indo-Germanenfrage. Munich, J. E Lehmann.
Sokal, R. R., N. L. Oden and B. A. Thomson (1992) Origins of the
Indo-Europeans: genetic evidence. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, USA 89, 7669-7673.
PICENE LANGUAGES
From the standpoint of linguistics and perhaps from that
of ethnic-group, the term Picene is a misnomer if it is intended
to suggest a single population. The historical Picenes were
(an) Iron Age people(s) situated along the Adriatic coast from
Rimini to the Sangaro River. In this area they have left abun-
dant evidence of wealthy burials in a number of cemeteries,
e.g., Servici and Molaroni at Novilara. The wealth of their
graves, especially seen in weapons and ornaments, indicates
either a vibrant sea-trade or piracy and there is evidence that
they began trading with the Greeks by the seventh century
BC. Their territory was finally annexed by the Romans in
268 BC.
The territory of the Picenes (identified archaeologically as
the Middle Adriatic culture) is divided into two regions. The
southern was centered on Belonte. The language of the
southern Picenes is recorded in a few inscriptions and its IE
identity is secure although little else can be claimed with any
certainty. The Castignano inscription, for example, begins in
clear enough Indo-European, i.e., matereih paterefh (to the)
mother and father’ but continues qolofitur qupinh aritih imih
pufh pupunum estufk apaius adstafuh suals manus meitimum.
The most recent translation, that of H. Eichner, reads: ‘He
who well ..._s mother (and) father, (him) here the elders of
the Picenes have set up with their own hands as memorial’
while an earlier one achieved by V Pisani rendered this same
grave inscription: To the mothers and fathers let this be, for
the valiant *Arentes of the nether world, for which Manes
the Appaei set up this obelisk as a monument’. There is a
tendency to see in this language a close relationship with Osco-
Umbrian. However, our complete inability to translate most
of the words in South Picene should induce extreme caution
in suggesting particular linguistic relationships.
Text of Novilara Inscription:
mimnis ■ enlt ■ gaarestades
rotnem tivlin • parten iis
polem ■ isairon ■ tet
sHt trat ■ neSi ■ krtiS
tenag ■ trdt ipiem rotneS
ltitfiis ■ dalii isperion vtil
tes ■ rotem ■ ted ■ aiten taStir
soter ■ merpon ■ kalatne
nis ■ vilatos ■ paten am
i his ■ balestenag ands et
Stit ■ i ■ ak&t treten ■ teletafi
nem polem ■ tiSti ■ sotiis ■ ei3 s
Picene a. The text of the Novilara inscription.
— 423 —
PICENE LANGUAGES
Picene b. The reverse side of the Novilara inscription depicting a battle scene and the hunting of bears(?); c. Picene warriors grave
from Servici.
The northern territory appears to have been centered at
Novilara where there are not only major Picene cemeteries
but also one of the longest northern Picene inscriptions. Dated
to the sixth or fifth centuries BC, the Novilara stele consists
of hunting scenes (the prey is disputed: ?bear, ?boar) while
the opposite side consists of twelve lines of text that have de-
fied translation. Two schools of thought exist: one argues that
the language is Indo-European on the basis of word endings
which are somewhat reminiscent of Indo-European, e.g.,
-em (accusative). On the other hand, a number of linguists
regard the language of Novilara and the few other, very short,
northern Picene inscriptions as remnants of a language isolate,
a non-IE language spoken in Italy before the arrival of the
Indo-Europeans. As with both the Italic languages and the
Etruscans, the earlier archaeological evidence in the Adriatic
region indicates the presence of the Villanovan culture and
underlines the difficulty in assigning specific archaeo-ethnic
origins to the various peoples of Italy.
See also Italic Languages; Messapic Language. Q.PM.]
Further Readings
Eichner, H. (1988-90) Pikenische Pietas: Das Zeugnis des stidpiken-
ischen Cippus von Castignano. Die Sprache 34, 195-196.
Poultney, J. W (1979) The language of the northern Picene
inscriptions. JIES 7, 49-64.
Pulgram, E. (1978) Italic, Latin, Italian. Heidelberg, Carl Winter.
PIERCE
*terhx- ‘pierce by rubbing’. [IEW 1071-1072 ( *ter-)\ Wat
70 (*tera-); GI 152 ( *t h er-H -)]. OIr tarathar ‘instrument for
drilling’, Lat terd ‘rub, wear away’, terebra ‘instrument for
drilling’, Lith tiriu ‘inquire’ (with a secondary meaning), trinu
‘rub’ (with secondary form), OCS tlrp ‘rub’, Alb f/err‘spin’ (<
‘rub [yarn] back and forth’), Grk r eipco ‘pierce’ xepeipov
‘instrument for drilling’, Olnd tara- ‘piercing’. Etymologically
uncertain. Grk xepexpov points to a root of the shape *terh\-
but Grk TirpcocTKco ‘inflict a wound’, which may be related,
points to *terh 3 ~. It is possible that the meaning ‘pierce’ is a
later semantic development of *terh 2 - ‘cross over’ as has been
suggested for the Old Indie form.
*h2/3\fc§(h)~ pierce’, [cf. Puhvel 3:327-330], OPers vag-
‘pierce’, Hit huek- ‘slaughter, butcher, slay’ (< *‘stab, stick’).
Though only sparsely attested, this word would appear likely
to be of PIE age.
*dhyier- ‘pierce’. [BK 144 (*d y aw-/*d y 9W-)\. Lith duris
‘prick, stitch’, duriu ‘thrust, stab’, Arm dur ‘tool, gimlet’.
Various derivatives are seen in Lith durklas ‘spit, dagger,
bayonet’, Grk x\)p%r\ ‘two-pronged fork’, Arm durk ‘dagger’.
At least a word of the center of the IE world. If it is seen in an
enlarged form *dhuerhx- in Hit duwamai- ‘breaks, shatters’,
Olnd dh varati ‘bends, causes to fall, hurts’, dhdrvari ‘injures,
causes to fall’, dhurtl- ‘injury’, then we have evidence of great
antiquity in IE.
*dhelg- ‘sting, pierce’. \IEW 247 ( *dhelg -)]. Olr delg
‘needle, pin’, MWels dala ‘sting’, Lat falx ‘curved blade, pruning
hook’, falcula (< *dhlg-tleh a -l ) ‘curved blade, pruning hook’
(the -a- in Latin is difficult), OE dale ‘bracelet, brooch’, Lith
dilgits ‘stinging, smarting’, dilge ‘nettle’, dalgis ‘scythe’.
Apparently a western word in (late) IE, overlapping, in part,
the territory of the following word.
*g w el- ‘sting, pierce’. [IEW 470-471 Vguel-)\ Wat 24
( *g w el-)\ BK 359 ( *q w al-/*q w a/-)] . OPrus gallan ‘death (acc.)',
— 424 —
PIG
Lith gelti ‘sting (as a bee)’, geluonis ‘sting (of a bee)’, Latv gals
‘point’, OCS ze/p ‘deplore’, Grk peXovq ‘needle’, deXXiQcq (pi.)
‘wasps’. Perhaps a word in some central dialects of (late) PIE.
See also Auger; Bee; Harm; Rub. [M.N., D.Q.A.]
PIG
*sQs (gen. *s(u)]}6s) ‘pig (wild or domesticated (Sus
scrofa)'. \IEW 1038 (*sG-s); Wat 67 ( *su-); GI 508 (*sG-);
Buck 3.31; BK 169 (Vavr-/V3iv-)]. Lat sus ‘pig; boar; sow’,
Umb si- (< *su-) ‘pig; boar; sow’, ON syr‘ sow’, OE su ‘sow’,
OHG su ‘sow’, OPrus swintian ‘swine, pig’, Latv suvgns ‘young
pig’, Alb thi (< *sus) ‘pig’, Grk ug‘pig (wild or domesticated);
boar’, crvg ‘pig (wild or domesticated); boar’ (the Greek
doublet with initial s~, rather than the phonologically regular
h-, may reflect the influence of some non-Greek IE language),
Av hu- ‘pig’, NPers xuk ‘pig’, OInd sukara- ‘pig, boar’, TochB
su wo ‘pig’. Cf. the common derivative *suueinos ‘pertaining
to a pig’: Late Lat sulnus ‘pertaining to a pig’, ON svzn ‘swine,
pig’, OE swln ‘swine, pig’ (> NE swine), OHG swln ‘swine,
pig’, Goth swein ‘swine, pig’, Latv svTns ‘dirty’, OCS svinQ
‘pertaining to a pig’, svinija ‘pig’. Cf. TochB swanana misa
‘pork’. With a short vowel *su- we have OIr soc ‘pig’s snout;
part of a plow’, Weis hwch ‘pig’ (borrowed > NE hog) (Celtic
< *sukko~), Late Lat suculus ‘young sow’, subulcus
‘swineherd’, OE sugu (< *sukeh a ~) ‘sow’ (> NE sow), Myc su-
qo-ta ‘swineherd’, Grk crvjiwTqg ‘swineherd’. It has often been
assumed that the word for ‘pig’ is a derivative of *seuhx- ‘bear,
bring forth’ (and thus we should reconstruct *suh x s rather
than *sds). Such an assumption makes sense semantically in
that the pig is the only livestock animal to give birth to litters
and obviously that characteristic would be very salient to those
practicing animal husbandry. It receives some support in the
Old Irish word for ‘sow’, birit , which is etymologically ‘one
who bears’. Against such a hypothesis, however, is the fact
that in most early IE traditions this word is not restricted to
‘sow’ as this hypothesis might suggest. More difficult yet is
the fact that, if the root is *suhx~ as this hypothesis demands,
there is no easy explanation for all the forms with *su- (in
Celtic, Latin, Germanic and Greek). It is better to take the
root to be *su- , perhaps as others have suggested ultimately
based on a call to pigs (cf. NE sooeyl). The long vowel would
be phonologically regular in the monosyllabic *sus and also
regularly optional, by Lindeman’s Law, in such disyllabic forms
as the genitive *s(u)uos. Whatever its origin, this word is
clearly widespread and old in IE. It fails to appear only in
Armenian and Hittite, and since we do not know the Hittite
word for ‘pig’ (we have only the Sumerogram) its failure to
appear in that language may be only accidental.
*hieperos ‘boar (adult male of Sus scrofa)'. \IEW 323
( *epero-)\ GI 434-435 ( *q h wep h -)\ Buck 3.23]. Lat aper
‘boar’, Umb apro- (the Italic a- rather than the expected *e-
may reflect the influence of caper ‘he-goat’) ‘boar’, ON jpfurr
‘prince’, OE eofor ‘boar’, OHG ebur ‘boar’, Latv vepris ‘boar’
(borrowed from Slavic?), OCS vepri ‘boar’, Rus vepri ‘boar’
(Baltic and Slavic with obscure v-). Probably belonging here
as well is Thrac eppog ‘buck’. At least a word of the west and
center of the IE world.
*pdrkos ‘young pig, piglet’. [/EW841 ( *porko-s)\ Wat 52
( *porko-)\ GI 508 (*pWV); Buck 3.31; BK 46 ( *p[ b Jar -/
*p[ h ]ar-)}. Mir ore ‘young pig’, Lat porcus ‘young pig’, Umb
purka ‘pig’, OE fearh ‘pig’ (cf. NE farrow), OHG far(a)h ‘young
pig’, OPrus prastian ‘young pig’, Lith parsas ‘young pig;
castrated male hog, farrow’, OCS prasp ‘young pig’, Rus
porosenok ‘young pig’, Av parasa- (< *parasa-l) ‘± young pig’,
Khot pasa- ‘pig’. From *perk- ‘dig/root up the earth’, i.e.
*porkos would be an agent noun, i.e. ‘one who roots’. Pre-
Iranian *porsos was borrowed into Uralic (e.g., Finnish parsas
‘Pig’)-
?*keul- ‘pig’. MWels Culhwych Welsh mythological figure
associated with swineherds and boar-hunting (< *keulV- +
hwych ‘sow’), Lith kiaule (< *keuliieh a -) ‘pig’. An isogloss
restricted to the northwest.
*ghor- ‘young pig’. [IEW 445 (*ghers-)]. Alb derr ‘pig,
hog, swine’, derk ‘piglet’ (< *ghdr-n- or *ghor-ni-7), Grk
Xoipog (< *ghonos) ‘young pig; swine’. Perhaps a late word
of the center of the IE world; a derivative of *gher - ‘bristle’.
?*tuorkds ‘boar’, [cf. IEW 1032], OIr tore ‘boar’, Av
Oparasa- ‘boar’. The Avestan word is a hapax legomenon so is
not as secure as one would like but the apparent agreement
in form and meaning of the Avestan and Old Irish is good
evidence for PIE antiquity. This word may be a derivative of
*tuerk- ‘cut’, itself only sparsely attested in Grk odpE, ‘flesh’
(< *tufks ‘that which is cut off’).
Archaeological Evidence
The wild pig ( Sus scrofa) was encountered from the Atlantic
to the Pacific and was frequently hunted in both the Mesolithic
and Neolithic in quantities approaching those of red deer.
Pig domestication began by the seventh millennium BC in
Anatolia and southeast Europe. The distribution of the
domestic pig is of considerable interest. While it is found
across Europe, it tends to be absent from the steppe region
east of the Urals, i.e., territories which were historically
associated with eastern Iranians and which may have served
as the putative staging area for Indo- Iranian and Tocharian
migrations. For example, it appears to be absent in the
Andronovo and Afanasevo cultures which have often been
assigned Proto- Indo- Iranian or Tocharian identities. Moreover,
the domestic pig, although found in the Ukraine and
Caucasus, is rarely encountered in the steppe region north of
the Caspian or in the southern Urals until the Bronze Age. By
the Bronze Age, the domestic pig was introduced into these
more easterly regions and this may correlate with the
borrowing into Uralic (e.g, Finnish porsas ‘suckling-pig’) of
the Indo-Iranian or earlier IE form of the word for domestic
Pig-
Pigs in IE Traditions
The pig in Indo-European beliefs is a mysterious, liminal
animal, having a wide variety of different associations with
— 425 —
PIG
the otherworld and the supernatural. It is associated with
death and decay, burial and the underworld, and regarded as
a harbinger of death; it is associated with vegetation goddesses
and the cycle of crops; with heroes, but in a posture of defense
and mortality; with divine or otherworldly guidance; with
the sky and the sun; and with celebration and feasts. Most
Indo-European cultures seem to hold two or three of these
beliefs, although no one culture displays them all.
First, the association with death, the earth, and burial. The
Romans believed, according to Cicero’s De Legibus (2.22.57)
nec tamen eorum antea sepulchrum est quam iusta facta et
porcus caesus est ‘a tomb was not formally completed as such
until the rites had been performed and a pig killed’. On Roman
tombs, lions most frequently represented death devouring a
victim, but boars and bears can be substituted. Boars are
especially popular on funerary monuments in Roman Ger-
many probably because the animal was more common there.
In Celtic stories, too, the pig has underworld connections: in
the tale of Mag Mucrime magic pigs come or are sent from
the gates of the underworld to ravage the land for seven years,
and in the Welsh story of Lieu Llaw Gyffes , sows feed hungrily
on the rotting flesh of Lieu as it falls from him while he is in
the shape of an eagle sitting in a tree.
On the reverse side of the coin, the pig is regarded as very
suitable food for a funeral feast. The Hittites, Germanic tribes,
and Celts are particularly noted for having pig bones or even
entire skeletons buried in graves.,
The association of the pig with the underworld can be
explained by the habits of the animal. Not only do they wallow
in mud, they also root in the earth to find food. From medieval
times on, pigs had snout-rings to keep them from rooting up
the farmer’s fields. Pigs also eat snakes, thereby overcoming
another chthonic creature. The pig is a rarity among animals,
a flesh-eater which does not actively hunt for meat. Seemingly
vegetarian, a pig will devour a dead or motionless body if it
comes across one, and this duality in its nature can be
perceived as sinister and unnatural.
The connection with earth leads fairly clearly to the
connection with vegetation goddesses. In Neolithic southeast
Europe, the pig is represented in sculpture as often as dogs,
bulls, and goats. There is the figurine of a goddess wearing a
pig mask, and pig sculptures have marks where grain was
pressed into the clay
In Greek mythology, the pig is sacred to Demeter. It was
an essential part of the Eleusinian mysteries for purification
rites, and was featured on coins from Eleusis. At the
Thesmophoria festival, mourning Persephone’s descent into
Hades and celebrating her return, suckling pigs were thrown
into underground caves to rot and be eaten by snakes. Three
months later, the remains were brought to the altars and mixed
with seed com for a good crop. The pigs represent Persephone,
who is called Pherrephate, the killer of piglets; she is taken
into the earth and apparently destroyed by death, but returns
and ensures another year’s fertility. According to legend, a
swineherd, Eubuleus, is the first to tell Demeter what has
happened to her daughter, and the tracks left by Hades’
kidnapping are obliterated by pig tracks. Diana also has an
association with boars: when her worship is neglected in
Calydon, she sends a monstrous boar to lay waste the crops.
This story is reminiscent of the Irish tale mentioned earlier of
the otherworldly pigs which lay waste all vegetation for seven
years.
In Scandinavian mythology, Freyja is the goddess of fertility
and crops, aided by her brother Freyr. Both of them own
pigs: Freyja has the boar Hildisvln (Battle Swine), whose shape
she allows her protege Ottar the Simple to assume as a disguise
in the poem Hyndluljod. (This theme of humans taking pig
form is reminiscent of Circe’s transformation of Odysseus’
men into swine.) Freyja is herself given the complimentary
epithet Syr ‘Sow’. Freyr owns a pig with golden bristles, made
for him by dwarves, which not only runs faster than a horse
but illuminates the night with its shining bristles.
The relationship between pigs and vegetation deities
undoubtedly has to do with the pig’s earthy connections, but
also with its metabolism. Because pigs fatten very rapidly,
they can be seen to swell like the burgeoning crops, and like
the crops, their greatest value to man is to reproduce and be
eaten.
In its wilder aspect the boar is associated with warriors
and warrior virtues. Throughout Europe and Asia Minor, the
boar hunt is a sine qua non for proving valor and worthiness.
Extended into myth, the pig can be a nocturnal disguise for
heroes who are avoiding pursuit or warding off enemies. The
boar becomes the symbol of the hunter and warrior, but almost
always from the perspective of the killer doomed in turn to
die, the warrior on the defensive. Boars as quarry have been
represented in art as far back as the fourteenth millennium
BC; we have an impressive cave painting of a fierce-looking
boar c 13,500 BC from Altamira, northern Spain.
In Greek mythology, nearly every hero kills his boar.
Herakles’ third labor was slaying the Erymanthean boar;
Theseus killed the monstrous sow Phaea, and Meleager kills
the boar sent by Diana to ravage the countryside of Calydon,
a feat which results in a quarrel leading to his own death.
Odysseus, too, killed his boar, albeit offstage: his old nurse
Eurycleia recognizes him by the scar from a long-ago boar
hunt on his leg. In the Iliad , Homer uses lions and boars as
images of the hunt almost interchangeably: 'as a boar or lion
turns exulting in its power against the dogs and hunters’
(12.41). On Greek funeral monuments too the boar and lion
often appear, but while the lion is the victorious hunter, often
seen devouring its prey, the boar is the gallant loser,
representing the victim of death, the fighter who has been
conquered by the final adversary.
Boars and lions are also paired in Vedic myth: Indra,
chastising his son for arrogance, uses the metaphors, ‘a fox
crept up to the lion from behind’, ‘a jackal attacked the wild
boar from ambush’ (RV 10.28).
Another pointer showing the defensive, doomed aspect of
the warrior-boar may occur in Hittite. A ritual for purification
— 426 —
PIG
after a military defeat calls for the sacrifice of a prisoner of
war, a pig and a dog. The bodies are cut in half, and put on
either side of a wooden gate flanked by fires near a river. The
army marches through and is sprinkled with river water.
In Scandinavian, Germanic, and Anglo-Saxon territory the
boar shows up frequently in its role of warrior on the
defensive. Boars are frequently engraved on helmets, helmet-
plates, and shields, all defensive weapons, although there is
at least one sword from East Anglia stamped with three small
boars. An Anglo-Saxon helmet with a gilded boar crest
embellished with ruby eyes was recovered from a Benty
Grange tumulus, perhaps resembling the boar on cheekguards
mentioned in Beowulf whose function, we are told, was to
protect the wearer. Another Anglo-Saxon writer, Cynewulf,
tells us that the emperor Constantine before his conversion
slept ‘covered by the boar-sign’, clearly under the animal’s
protection. The Baltic tribe of the Aestii, according to Tacitus,
had boars on their helmets, and perhaps boar masks or
faceplates: a helmet-plate from Vendel, Sweden, shows a
warrior with what seems to be a boar mask with one tusk
protruding.
We also hear of a Swedish king who held as a great treasure
a boar helmet named Hildigoltr, "Battle-pig’ and a heavy neck-
ring named Sviagriss ‘Swede’s piglet’. To this monothematic
collection he later added a second helmet, Hildisvin ‘Battle-
swine’ — the name of Freyja’s boar.
But overall, it is the Celtic tribes which value the pig most
highly. It is the most important sacred animal, depicted again
on helmets and shields, and worshipped as a god in a semi-
anthropomorphic form. The god Moccus ‘Pig’ is identified
with Mercury, and there is also the British god Vetiris, whose
statues are ornamented with pigs and boars. The boar is
particularly prominent among the Celtic tribes in the time
just before the Roman domination, a time when the Celts
may well have felt on the defensive.
Even the swineherds share in the pig’s charisma. The Welsh
hero Culwch is bom where a swineherd is watching his pigs.
(This story has been explained as a transformation of an
original rendition in which he is fathered by the boar-god).
And in the Triads , there are three powerful swineherds of the
Isle of Britain: Pryderi, who brought the pig to Wales from
the otherworld, Drystan, who prevented King Arthur from
taking away one of King March’s pigs, and Coll, who followed
a mysterious sow across the Island of Britain.
In central Spain and northern Portugal, many Celtic
hillforts are guarded by larger-than-life-size stone sculptures
of boars and bulls which overlook the cattle-enclosures. These
probably served a dual function of protection and fertility.
The flesh of the pork is valuable both to the living and to
the dead. Several Irish stories contain accounts of highly
ritualized disputes over the champion’s portion of the pig at a
feast. Pork cuts were allotted by status: the leg to the king,
the haunch to the queen, and the boar’s head to the charioteer.
Poseidonius observed that the thigh was the portion allotted
to the ranking champion. A whole pig or joints of pork were
buried with the dead; a chariot burial in Champagne contains
a whole boar skeleton, although it is hard to know whether
this was meant as provisions for the journey, support for the
warrior, or even a psychopomp, i.e., one who escorts the
deceased to the afterlife. In the north of England, too, Iron
Age burials frequently contained offerings of pigs as food.
Why did the boar have this image? Among dangerous
animals, it is almost unique in being hunted for food rather
than protection. The boar is a loner, and unlike the lion with
which it is so often compared, it does not pose a threat to
humans if it is left alone; when threatened and at bay, however,
no animal fights more fiercely. But its ferocity is of no avail;
boars which face lions or hunting parties are always doomed
to lose, just as warriors, however brave, must finally lose the
battle against death.
A fourth pig association, which is less culturally widespread
than the previous ones, connects the pig with divine or
supernatural knowledge and powers of prognostication, and
frequently divine origin. The most famous example is probably
in the third book of the Aeneid, when the priest of Apollo
advises Aeneas to travel to Italy and found a city where he
sees a white sow suckling thirty piglets under an ilex tree by
a river ( Aeneid 3.390-393). The white color immediately
brings to mind the Welsh sow Henwen ‘Old White’ which
Coll, one of the swineherds mentioned earlier, followed across
Britain. As she went, she gave birth to such prodigies as grains
of wheat and barley, a bee, a wolf cub, and a baby wildcat
( Culwch and Olwen). Certainly some otherworldly association
is traceable here. Following a pig can be perilous, too; the
Irish Finn follows a boar at first voluntarily and then by
compulsion, and ends up in a sidh under threat of getting
married ( Duanaire Finn). The Welsh Pryderi, who has many
pig connections, follows a white boar into a mound; his
mother pursues him, and both must eventually be rescued
by Manawydan from the power of the otherworld ( Mana -
wyddan mac Llyr).
The Irish Diarmuid has a different problem: his foster-
brother is an enchanted boar and their lives are bound together
by fate; predictably, they kill each other. Then there is the
Welsh Twrch Trwyth, a magical boar in Culwch and Olwen ,
who carries a comb and razor between his ears; he is captured
by Mabon so that Culwch can fulfil his quest.
Certainly the Celts viewed pigs as having a divine origin.
It was the Tuatha De Danann who brought the pig to Ireland
(which was known in the Iron Age as Muic Inis, ‘Island of
Pigs’) and pigs came to Wales as a gift to Pryderi from the
king of the otherworld. These pigs were later fraudulently
obtained by Gwydion, causing a war between north and south
Wales. That some pigs remained in the otherworld we know,
because in one Irish tale a pig is killed and cooked every
evening for feasting, but is alive and whole again in the
morning (cf. the never-ending supply of pork in Valhalla).
Many of these connections with the supernatural can be
explained by the pig’s own characteristics. Pigs eat snakes,
and they apparently suffer no ill effects from snakebites
427 —
PIG
because of their subcutaneous fat; according to one authority,
the pig is ‘the only animal other than man capable of thinking
through a problem to a rational solution’. Pigs can be trained
to do any tricks a dog is capable of, and this obvious
intelligence in so earthy a creature seems so incongruous as
to require divine intervention. Rooting for truffles, too, is a
display of powers far beyond human capacity; it seems
miraculous that an animal can detect something buried up to
a foot deep. Pigs are also close to impossible to herd (and
therefore valueless to nomads); it can be frustrating to find
such a sluggish beast so easily able to evade its would-be
drivers.
Another point, which may help to explain the stories of
boars who are enchanted men, is that the pig is the only animal
other than man which will drink alcohol deliberately to the
point of drunkenness. The pig is physiologically more similar
to man than any animal except the primates, and this must
lead to a degree of fellow-feeling, on our part, at least.
To summarize, then, it seems that there are a number of
reasons why the pig was regarded by most of the Indo-
European peoples as a sinister and supernatural creature, with
connections to the underworld and death, otherworldly
knowledge, and the world of men and heroes.
See also Mammals; Plow. [D.Q.A., J.PM., L.J.H.]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, University of Miami Press, 23-31.
Clutton-Brock, J. (1987) A Natural History of Domesticated
Mammals. Cambridge, University Press.
Hamp, E. P (1987) The pig in ancient northern Europe, in Proto-
Indo-European: The archaeology of a linguistic problem, eds. S.
N. Skomal and E. C. Polome, Washington, D. C, 185-190.
Mason, 1. L. (1984) Evolution of Domesticated Animals. London
and New York, Longman.
McCone, K. (1992 [94]) OIr tore, Av dfiaraso < PIE *tworkos ‘(cutter,)
boar’. MSS 53, 99-100.
Zeuner, E E. (1963) A History of Domesticated Animals. London,
Hutchinson.
PIKEPERCH see CARP
PILLAR see POST
PIN
?*dhelg- pin’. [7EW247 ( *dhelg-)]. Olr delg 1 thorn, pin,
brooch’, Corn delk ‘necklace’, ON dalkr ‘pin to fasten cloak;
dagger, knife’, OE dale ‘bracelet, brooch’. Possibly a word of
the west of the IE world.
?*n e dsk6h a - ‘tie, ring’. [1EW 758-759 (*ned-)\ Wat 44
( *ned -)]. OIr nasc ‘fastening tie, ring’, OHG nuska ‘metal-
clasp’. If correctly reconstructed a word of the far west of the
IE world. From *ned- ‘bind’.
Confined to the northwest periphery of the IE world,
although these terms may refer back to an organic predecessor
(cf. Germania 17 where Tacitus claims that the early Germans
fastened their cloaks with thorns), the referent of the *dhelg-
may just as well have been a metal pin which is known from
the early Bronze Age in continental Europe and in the later
Bronze Age in the British Isles.
See also Clothing; Tool. [D.Q.A., J.PM ]
PINE
*p6uks (gen. *pukds) ‘(Scotch) pine, conifer ( Pinus
sylvestris ), (any) conifer’. [JEW 828 ( *peuk-)\ GI 543-544
(*p tl euk h -/*p h uk h -)-. Buck 8.64; Fried 31-32; Camp 1 59—
161]. OIr ochtach ~ ochtgach ‘pine, fir’, OHG fiuhta ‘fir’ (also
‘pine’?), OPrus peuse ‘pine’, Lith pusis (dial. pi. puses showing
the remains of an old consonant stem) ‘pine; fir’, Grk kevkt]
‘pine, spruce’, Waigali puc ‘species of pine’. Widespread and
old in IE.
*pit(u)- ‘(some form of) conifer, (probably) pine’. \IEW
794 ( *pUu-)\ cf. Wat 47 ( *peio-)\ GI 543-544 ( *p b it h -), Fned
31-38]. Lat pinus (< *pitsno-) ‘pine’. Alb pishe (< *pitso-)
‘spruce, pine, fir’, Grk (Homeric) nhvg‘ pine, spruce’, and a
bit more questionably Wakhi pit a species of tree, OInd pltu-
daru ‘ Acacia catechu ’ (a resinous tree with hard wood) or
‘deodar’ (a kind of pine). If the Asiatic cognates are accepted,
then a word of PIE status; otherwise, a word of the west and
center of the IE world.
*k6ss ~ *K6s (gen. *k£sos) ‘(Scotch) pine’. OE harap ~
harad'a wood’, OHG hard ‘mountain forest, wooded hills’ (<
*kos-dhh i -o- ‘pine-place’?) , Khot ?saha-cara- 'Barlena enstata
?saha-marai (a plant name); from *Rosnd- ‘piney’: OE cen
‘torch (of resinous pinewood)’, OHG ken ~ kien ‘resinous
wood, torch’, NDutch kien(spaan) ‘(piece of) resinous pine-
wood’ (Gmc < Proto-Gmc *kezna- regularly by Grimm’s Law
from pre-Gmc *gezna- itself by voicing assimilation from late
PIE *keznd- with new full-grade), Rus sosna ‘pine’, Grk Kcovoq
‘pinecone; pine-seed; cone’, kcovcc ‘pitch’, kcoveiov ‘hemlock
(conium maculatum)\ giant fennel ( Ferula communis)' (Greek
from lengthened grade *R6sno- ‘that pertaining to pine’),
Shughni sanj ‘stout beam extending to the edge of the
bedstead’, Oroshi sanj ‘post’, Yazghulami sanj ‘beam’ (Proto-
Iranian *sanaka- with dissimilatory loss < *sasnaka-< *kosno-
kf w) o- ‘pine-beam’?), ? Khot sana- ‘ Celosia cristata, Ptychotis
ajowan'. The words preceded by a question-mark have as
their referents shrubs or herbs rather than pines and might
be considered semantically incompatible. However, it should
be pointed out that the relationship within Greek of Kwvoq
and Kcbveiov has never been seriously doubted and that NE
hemlock includes among its referents both the herb Conium
maculatum and any tree of the genus Tsuga of evergreen
coniferous trees of the pine family. Certainly a word of the
center and west of the IE world. If the semantically divergent
words from Iranian also belong, then we have evidence for
its widespread existence in PIE.
?*pfkf w ^eh a - (or *purk^ w ^eh a -l) ‘pine’ (or ‘fir’?), [cf. IEW
822-823 ( *perk u u-s )], Italian (dialect of the Trentino) porca
‘fir’ (borrowed from Raetic?), ON fura ‘pme’, OE furh-wudu
— 428 —
PIT-COMB WARE CULTURE
‘pinewood’ (> NE fir), OHG for(a)ha ‘pine’. These words have
been almost universally taken to be related in some fashion
to *perk w us‘ oak’.
The complex situation involves several reconstructible
terms and, at first blush, almost a dozen referents but there
are basically three conifers involved in most of the reconstruct-
ed meanings: pine (Pin us), fir (Abies), and spruce (Picea)
although cognate sets possibly ascribable to the last term tend
to be dialectally restricted, e.g., Balto-Slavic: OPrus addle
‘spruce’, Lith eg/e ‘spruce’, Latv eg/e ‘spruce’, Rus elP spruce’.
The Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris) was presumably the primary
or most frequent meaning of PIE *peuks. The second term,
*pit(u)-, is primarily confined to three Mediterranean stocks
but may include Indo-lranian examples as well. Although
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov have argued that the two roots may
retain an ancient distinction between *peuks ‘pine’ and
*pit(u)~ ‘fir’, supposedly evident in the distinctive meanings
seen in the Greek cognates, neither the lexical evidence nor
that of the local botanical environments of the cognate stocks
requires this interpretation. What we can say is that despite
the plethora of early IE forms and meanings and the general
confusion of names, the data almost never include juniper,
cypress, cedar, yew nor any evergreen aside from pine, fir
and spruce (nor the larch). PIE *peuks was presumably then
a middle level taxon between ‘conifer’ and the three genera in
question, i.e., ‘fir’, ‘spruce’ and ‘pine’. For these and for specific
types an adjective may have been added, as today with silver
fir and Scotch pine. The PIE conifer terms correspond
strikingly to terms in Finno-Ugric and may reflect an early
borrowing, e.g., Proto-Finno-Permian *peca as in Mordvin
pitSe ‘pine’, Proto-Finno-Ugric *piska ‘resin, pitch, gum’, and
Proto-Finno-Ugric *puxi ‘tree’.
The fir (Abies), spruce (Picea) and pine (Pinus) were all
probably in the PIE area. Of these, the firs were mainly in the
hills and mountains except the white or silver fir of central
Europe. Pollen evidence indicates that in the period c 6000-
3000 BC, the fir was spread from Spain and France in the
west eastwards across the Mediterranean and central Europe
and then across the Ukraine and Russia through Siberia. It is
also frequent in Anatolia and was known from the Caucasus.
It was absent, however, in Atlantic and northwest Europe
and throughout the Baltic region. The spruce grew on the
edges of highlands and across central Russia and Siberia west
to eastern France. It is also known from southwest Anatolia.
Prevalent in the Baltic region, it is however absent from
northwest and Atlantic Europe. Among the pines, two
occupied specific niches, e.g., the mountain pine (Pinus
mughus) of the Carpathians, whereas the Scotch pine (Pinus
sylvestris), a distinctive tree with blue-green needles and bright
orange bark, was found over most of Eurasia and often formed
great forests, as it does still today. Pine was used for building
dwellings, ships and other artifacts, and, as terms in
descendant languages suggest, also for tar, resin and the like.
The distribution of all three main conifers was so wide that
they could accommodate almost any solution to the homeland
problem other than (in the case of fir and spruce) one situated
in northwest Europe.
See also Fir; Oak; Sap; Trees. [RE, D.Q.A.]
PIT-COMB WARE CULTURE
The term Pit-Comb Ware culture can be applied specifically
to a culture of the c fifth-third millennia BC occupying the
territory between the east Baltic to the northern Ukraine. It is
also applied as a blanket term for a series of cultures stretching
across the forests from eastern Scandinavia to the Urals from
the fifth millennium BC onwards. These cultures might
include the Narva culture of the Baltic region, the Sperrings
culture of Finland, the Pit-Comb Ware culture proper of
western Russia to the Ukraine, the Upper Volga-Oka Pit-Comb
Ware (or Lyalovo) culture, the Kama Neolithic culture, and
the Ural Neolithic culture. Similarities between these different
cultures are such that they can be treated as a single block
with reference to the Indo-Europeans.
In general, the Pit-Comb Ware culture occupied the forest
region of northeast Europe and settlements are primarily
confined to the Baltic, lakes, and rivers where the economy
was primarily, in most areas exclusively, based on hunting-
fishing and gathering. The wild fauna is extensive but is
particularly comprised of red and roe deer, elk, aurochs, wild
pig and beaver with a considerable number of other species
(bear, fox, wolf, marten, otter, wolverine, lynx, etc.); coastal
sites have also yielded remains of seals. There is some evidence
for mixed farming in the Baltic, e.g., in the Narva culture of
Lithuania there is evidence for sheep and goat and sickle
blades attesting (perhaps) some agriculture. Evidence for
habitations often tends to be slight except in areas where
marine resources permitted longer term stable settlement, e.g.,
the Baltic coast. Normally, the evidence for settlement is
limited to transient camp sites in its earlier phases but by the
late phase there is some evidence for more substantial houses,
measuring up to 8 x 5 m in size, and sunken into the ground.
Tools comprised arrowheads, spearheads, harpoons, axes,
fishhooks and other implements appropriate for a hunting-
gathering economy. The Pit-Comb Ware culture also made
use of pointed-based, frequently highly-decorated, pottery.
Where the iconography is representational, it sometimes
depicts water birds.
The region of the Pit-Comb Ware culture would appear to
lie too far north of what is normally presumed to have been
an area of early Indo-European settlement. Moreover, its
culture, primarily hunting-gathering rather than agriculture
and stockbreeding, makes a very poor fit with the picture of
PIE culture derived from linguistic evidence and later
technological items such as wheeled vehicles, metals, plows,
etc., would also be very foreign to the Pit-Comb Ware culture.
As its geographical location accords well with the later
distribution of the Uralic-speaking peoples and its economy
also accords in general with that reconstructed lexically for
Proto-Uralic it has often been regarded as the archaeological
expression of the Uralic language family. This equation,
— 429 —
PIT-COMB WARE CULTURE
Pit-Comb a. Generalized distribution of the Pit-Comb culture(s).
however, also has many critics as it has proven nearly
impossible to correlate the various Pit-Comb Ware cultures
with the inter-stock divisions of the Uralic language family or
their probable movements. Moreover, toponymic evidence
from this region suggests some reason to identify a strata of
non-Uralic (and non-Indo-European) language(s) in the Pit-
Comb Ware area, especially in the Volga- Oka region.
Chronologically, many prefer to have the Proto-Baltic-Finnish
movement begin only in the last millennium BC and find its
ascription to populations in this area so many millennia earlier
as extremely doubtful. The widely disseminated presence of
(Indo-)lranian loanwords in' the Uralic languages would also
suggest that their dispersal was later than the fifth or fourth
millennium origin of the various Pit-Comb Ware variants.
Finally, there is a body of scholars who prefer to situate the
original home of the Uralic languages at least east of the Upper
Volga if not east of the Urals altogether.
The fate of the Pit-Comb Ware culture is also problematic.
The Baltic, central Russia, and the northern Ukraine were all
areas of the later Corded Ware horizon, e.g., Battle-ax culture,
Fatyanovo culture, Middle Dnieper culture, which has
generally been associated with early IE movements. However,
these cultures appear in some areas where we have no reason
to suspect early IE settlement, e.g., central Russia, and there
they have often been seen to have been culturally (and
presumably linguistically) assimilated by the descendants of
the Pit-Comb Ware populations.
See also Corded Ware Culture. [j.PM.]
Further Reading
Napolskikh, V (1995) Uralic Original Home: History of Studies.
Izhevsk, Udmurt Institute for History, Language and Literature.
PITCH see SAP
PLACE
*stih 2 tis (gen. *stf^ 2 ^ 1 s) ‘place’. [ 7EW 1 006 (*ste-ti-); Wat
64-65 ( *sta-)\ G1 143 ( *sthH -)] . With zero-grade generalized:
Pit-Comb b. Reconstruction of hut at Voi Navolok; c. Antler
harpoons; d. Fishhook; e. Pit-comb pot from the Ukraine;
f. Waterbirds on pot from northern Russia.
PLANTS
Lat statio ‘position, station', ON stadr ‘place', OE stede ‘place’
(> NE stead), OHG stat ‘place, site’ (> NHG stadt ‘city’), Goth
staps ‘place, land’, Lith stacias ‘standing’, Grk oxaoic, ‘place,
setting; standing stature’, Olnd sthlti- ‘position’; with full-
grade generalized: ON (hug-) stoedr'hnri, OCS po-stati part,
manner’, Av staid- ‘station’; Cf. *stp 2 to- ‘placed, standing’:
Lat status ‘standing’, Lith status ‘standing’ (With semi-regular
shift to a u-stem), Grk axaroq ‘placed, standing’, Olnd sthita-
‘standing’. Widespread and ancient derivatives of *steh 2 -
‘stand (up)’.
*stih2mon (gen. *stp2m6ns or *stp2^ds) ‘what stands,
stature, position, warp’. [IEW 1007-1008 (*sta-men-)\ Wat
64-65 ( *sta-)\ Buck 12.111. Mir samaigid ‘sets down’
(denominative verb), Weis sefyll ‘a stand’, Lat stamen ‘warp’,
OE stemn ‘stem’, OHG stam ‘stem’, Goth stomin ‘stem’, Lith
stomud ‘stature’, Latv stamen ‘body, torso’, Grk cnrrigcov ‘warp’,
Olnd sthaman- ‘position’, TochA stam ‘tree’, TochB stam ‘tree’.
Distribution secures PIE status. From PIE *steh 2 - ‘stand’.
?*stp2tiom ~ *steh2tlom ‘place’. [IEW 1007-1008
( *sta-tlo-)\ Wat 64-65 ( *sta-)\ Buck 12.11], From *stp 2 tIom :
ON stpdull ‘place’, OE stadoV place, foundation’, OHG stadal
‘station’; from *steh 2 tlom : Lat ob-staculum ‘obstacle’ (< *‘what
stands in front’), OCS stadlo ‘place’. These words are very
likely to be independent creations in the three stocks that
show them.
See also Stand [A.D.V1
PLAIT see TEXTILE PREPARATION
PLANK
*bhelhags( gen. *bhlhggds) ‘plank, beam’. [IEW 122-123
( *bheleg-)\ Wat 7 ( *bhelg-)\ Buck 9.51]. ON bjalki (<
*bhelhag-eh a -n-) ‘beam’, OE bale ~ balca (< *bholh a g-(o)
(-on)-) ‘bank, ridge’ (> NE balk), bolca (< *bhlh a g-on~) ‘ship’s
gangway’, OHG balko (< *bholh a g-o-on-) ‘beam’, Lith
balzlena(s) ‘flexible crosspiece on a sled’, Latv balziens ‘binding
on sled’, Rus (dial.) bolozno ‘thick plank’, Grk (pdXayt; ‘post,
beam’. A variant *bh\k- is apparently to be seen in Lat fulcid
‘prop up, support with props’, Grk (paXicriq *± beam, plank,
rib of ship’. No known root connections. At least a word of
the west and center of the IE world.
*kJhx-ro-s ‘plank’. [IEW 545 (*klaro-)\ Wat 28 (*ke/-);
Buck 9.52], OIr clar ‘plank’, Weis clawr ‘plank’, Grk KXf\poq
‘piece of wood for casting lots’. From *kel- ‘strike, hew’. The
verbal root has many suffixes referring to something broken
or cut off, the means and the results of striking. Derivative
appears to be late IE with some independent developments.
*sph a en- ‘flat-shaped piece of wood’. [IEW 980-981
( *sp(h)e-)\ Wat 63 ( *spe-)\ Gl 38 (*sp h on-d h -)\ Buck 8.23],
OIr sonn ‘staff; support’, Weis ffon ‘staff’ (Celtic < *spondo-),
Lat sponda ‘bedstead; bed’, ON spann ‘wood chip’, OE spon
‘sliver, chip, shaving’ (> NE spoon), OHG span ‘wood chip’
(the Gmc forms as if < *spen- whose vowel is not well-
explained), Grk oiprfv 1 wedge’, (Hesychius, Doric?) mpaviov
‘bed, couch’. Distribution indicates a word at least of the west
and center of the IE world. A related form *spp a -dh-eh a - yields
ON spadi ‘spade’, OE spadu ‘digging tool, spade’ (> NE spade),
Grk onddr\ ‘flat blade’.
*plut- ‘plank’. [IEW 838 ( *pIouto-)\ . Lat pluteus ‘shed,
penthouse; permanent breastwork; shelf, desk’ (i.e., ‘anything
made out of planks’) (< *p!uteios ‘made out of planks’) , with
full grade *ploutos: ON Heydr ‘rafter’, Lith plautas ‘plank’,
Latv plauts ‘wall-plank’. Northwestern regionalism in late IE.
*syel- ~ *sel- ‘plank, board’. [IEW 898-899 ( *sel - ~
*sye/-); Wat 68 (*swel -)] . From *suel\ ON syll (< *su!jom) ~
svill (< *siielieh a ) ‘doorsill, threshold’, (pi.) svalar ‘arcade’,
OE syll (< *suIiom) ‘doorsill, threshold’ (> NE sill), OHG
swelli ~ swella ‘doorsill, threshold’, Grk oeXiq ‘plank’, oeXpa
‘beam’, (Homeric) ebaaeXpoq ‘well-benched; well-decked (of
a ship)’ (the connection of these Greek forms seems clear but
the appearance of PIE *su- as Grk oo - is not altogether
expected); from *sel-\ OE selma ~ sealma ‘bed’ (< * ‘bedstead’),
Lith suolas ‘bench’, sile ‘trough’, Latv si/e ‘trough’, Grk
(Hesychius) e'Xpara (pi.) ‘planking, decking’. Perhaps Alb
gjolle ‘a slab on which salt for livestock is placed, a salt-lick’
belongs here (if< *seleh a -) rather than taking it as a denvative
of *sal - ‘salt’. The variation between *suel- and *sel- is not
well-explained but nonetheless we have evidence for a word
of the west and center of the IE world.
See also House; Shield. ]A.D.V]
PLANTS
The PIE speakers undoubtedly knew and named many
plant species; however, only a small number of names for
plants are reconstructible. As PIE speakers moved into new
areas, new environments brought new plants (or new varieties
of old ones) and the disappearance of familiar plants. Names
for new plants and varieties come from new descriptive
phrases or by borrowing from other languages. Plants that
tended to keep their IE names were those which were
ecologically salient, especially food plants and trees.
The variety of plants known across Eurasia is so enormous
that it would be futile to assemble all of the plant names
possibly known to the earliest IE groups. On the other hand,
there is at least some evidence of the types of plants exploited
and presumably known and named by prehistoric populations
across Eurasia. These may be recovered from archaeological
excavations in the form of well preserved seeds (from
waterlogged deposits such as obtain in lakeside settlements
in Alpine Europe) or the far more available evidence of
carbonized, i.e., charred, seeds which may be found in most
environments. Moreover, the impressions of seeds may also
be found on the surface of prehistoric pottery and their
characteristic imprints can be identified to the level of genus
or possibly species. Another source of palaeobotanical
information derives from pollen which, in certain environ-
ments, may be very well preserved and provide evidence not
only for the existence of various plants but also changes in
their abundance through time. As the IE homeland has been
variously placed in the region of Anatolia, southeast Europe,
— 431 —
PLANTS
central Europe, northern Europe, and the steppe and forest-
steppe region north of the Black and Caspian Seas, one may
obtain from the reports a brief checklist of the commonest
plants that have been recovered from archaeological sites of
the Neolithic and Copper Age, the period of or immediately
preceding the expansion of the IE language family. As with
the lexical evidence, the greater majority of the plants
recovered are varieties of Cerealia. But a general survey of the
main European and southwest Asian crop plants does indicate
something of the breadth of the elements present or missing
from our reconstructions of the PIE botanical vocabulary.
Chenopodiaceae
Two main plant groups belong to the Chenopodiaceae
which may have been known to the earliest IE communities.
The first genus is the sugar beet ( Beta vulagaris ) which is
found exclusively in Europe. Although it was exploited as a
potherb and as fodder in the Greek and Latin worlds, its
presence in earlier sites appears to be minimal and it is not
listed as one of the plants recovered from Swiss lakeside sites
which offer by far the largest roster of Neolithic and Eneolithic
plant remains. On the other hand, Chenopodium album
(goosefoot), was widely found across Europe and clearly
exploited since the Mesolithic (in the New World it is the
ancestor of quinoa, one of the primary plants of early Peruvian
agriculture). However, the Chenopodiaceae do not appear to
be a part of the early IE lexicon.
COMPOSITAE
Among the Compositae , it is at least remotely possible that
some early IE communities may have become acquainted with
the safflower ( Carthamus tinctorius ) and lettuce ( Lactuca
sativa ) which were both domesticated in the Near East,
particularly in Egypt. The latter spread through the
Mediterranean and was extensively employed among the
ancient Greeks and Romans.
Cruciferae
It is with the Cruciferae that we at least encounter some of
the plants that show some interstock linguistic cognates. The
turnip ( Brassica campestris ) is indicated by *repeh a —
*rapeh a - , a culture word that appears in Italic, Germanic,
Baltic, Slavic and Greek. It was widely found over Europe
and recovered from Neolithic deposits in the Swiss lakeside
sites. It was initially grown for its oil (rape seed) and the edible
turnip is a relatively recent development. There is also an
early term for the cabbage/kale/cauliflower ( Brassica oleracea )
whose domestication is normally attributed to various regions
of the Mediterranean. The IE *kaulos , attested in Latin, Greek
and Hittite poses some problems as the word may have derived
from an IE word meaning ‘stalk’ and is, therefore, less easily
derived from some non-IE Mediterranean source. The dates
of its earliest domestication are unknown although kale, for
example, is attested in Greece c 600 BC. Mustard ( Brassica
nigra ) is generally regarded as a cultigen derived from
Anatolia-Iran but it is recorded already from Neolithic levels
in Alpine Europe. There does not appear to be any name for
this plant of IE antiquity nor for the radish (Raphanus sativa),
although the latter may have been confined to Egypt and the
eastern Mediterranean in earlier prehistory. Watercress
(Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum), well represented in early
Irish literature and also employed as a medicinal plant in the
classical world, is similarly absent from the IE lexicon.
Gramineae
The Gramineae (grasses) as they comprise also the cereals
are the primary focus of the reconstructed botanical lexicon.
The variety of different cereals is in no way matched by the
variety of IE terms and we are generally left in some doubt as
to which specific variety of wheat or barley was being referred
to. For example, the range of terms for ‘wheat’ only includes
*puh x ros and possibly *sepit although the types of wheat
widely found over all perspective IE homelands comprise at
least Triticum monococcum (einkom), Tnticum turgidum
(Emmer, durum), and Triticum aestivum (bread wheat, spelt).
On the other hand we have an abundance of terms for ‘barley’
( *ghresdh(i ), *h2elbhit , *bhars, and *meig(h)-) although
there are only two main types ( Hordeum distichum and
Hordeum hexastichum) . However, distinctions may have also
been made as to whether the different varieties were hulled
or free-threshing. There are also a considerable number of
terms for ‘grain’ ( *ses(i)o - , *ieuos ~ *ieuom, *gfh a nom,
*dhoh x neh a -, *dfh x ueh a - and perhaps *h2ed~) which may
conceal a more specific original sememe. There are geo-
graphically restricted terms of some IE antiquity for oats
C Avena sativa), i.e., *h a euis and rye ( Secale cereale ), i.e.,
*rughis and *h2ereh a -. On the other hand, although millet
( Panicum miliaceum) is relatively widespread in Eurasia from
the Neolithic period onwards, we appear limited to a rather
banal derivative, *melh2-, based on the word for ‘grind’ and
confined to several European languages and a Latin-lranian
isogloss built on *pano-. Finally, there are a variety of
temperate grasses such as meadow fescue ( Festuca pratensis),
tall fescue ( Festuca arundinacea), timothy grass ( Phleum
pratense) and smooth brome ( Bromus inermis) which should
have drawn the notice of early farmers in Europe as they
colonized deforested areas and became abundant enough to
serve as animal fodder. Hints of these in the IE lexicon
occasionally occur, e.g., OPrus pure ‘brome-grass’ from
*puh x ros which in many other IE stocks is translated ‘wheat’.
Leguminosae
Along with cereals, legumes were the other main com-
ponent of the ‘Neolithic package’ of domesticated plants that
spread across Europe from southwest Asia. The two principal
early legumes were the pea ( Pisum sativum) and the chick-
pea ( Cicer arietinum). Although these words have some
antiquity among the IE stocks, their distribution does not
support their ascription to PIE status. The name of the ‘pea’,
for example, may be reconstructed as *hiereg w o- but it is
432
PLANTS
only attested in Italic, Germanic and Greek and at least one
of the stocks reflects a borrowing; in fact, the word itself has
often been presumed to be a late loan into several of the IE
stocks from some Mediterranean source. Its linguistic ancestry
notwithstanding, the domestic pea was so widely known
across Eurasia in the Neolithic that it is very difficult to imagine
an IE homeland in which it would not have been known. On
the other hand, the word for chick-pea, *kiker-, is confined
to Mediterranean languages (Latin, Macedonian and Arme-
nian) and was also geographically circumscribed to southern
Europe, at least during the Neolithic. A third legume, the
field or broad bean ( Vicia faba ) is attested in the west and
center of the IE world (Italic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic) as
*bhabheh a - and in Albanian and Greek under the' form of
*bhaRo/eh a -. A domesticate of southern Europe, it probably
did not appear among the ancestors of the northwest Euro-
peans until the third or second millennium BC. The vetches,
both common vetch ( Vicia saliva) and bitter vetch (Vicia
ervilia), as well as the grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) are attested
archaeologically among Neolithic cultures of Anatolia and
southeast Europe with some extension into central Europe
but other than the occasional transference of another IE term
to indicate one of these plants, e.g., Lat ervum ‘vetch’ (when
the other cognates indicate the ‘pea’), there is no evidence for
IE antiquity for any of these crops. Although more widely
dispersed and associated with the initial expansion of domestic
cereals from southwest Asia, the lentil ( Lens culinaris) is also
unretrievable from the IE lexicon although it was likely to
have been known to early IE speakers.
Liliaceae
Two words relating to the Liliaceae (onions, garlic, and
leaks) appear to be of some IE antiquity. An early *kremh x us
‘(wild) garlic’ would appear to refer to either Allium sativum
or Allium ursinum while *alu- is even more unspecific as it
refers to some esculent root with the more precise meaning
of ‘garlic’ in Lat alium ~ allium. None of these are widely
found and their area of domestication, like that also of Allium
cepa (onion), is generally thought to lie on either the northeast
fringe of southwest Asia or perhaps further north in Central
Asia or Afghanistan. Garlic is believed to have been domestic-
ated by c 2000 BC in Mesopotamia and earlier in Egypt.
LlNlACEAE
A word for ‘flax’ ( *linom ) is confined to the IE stocks of
northwest Europe (Celtic, Italic, Baltic, Slavic, possibly
Germanic) and Greece. Flax ( Linum usitatissimum ) was
domesticated quite early in southwest Asia and is found on
Neolithic sites at least from central and northern as well as
southeast Europe but is not recorded until quite late in the
regions north of the Black Sea.
Moraceae
Hemp ( Cannabis ) is found from western Europe to Central
Asia (and beyond into China where it was the principal fibre
plant) and is likely to have been known to early IE speakers
either in their homeland (no matter where situated) or during
their expansions. Lexically, however, the only reconstructed
term, *kannabis is a culture word borrowed between vanous
IE stocks, presumably at some later date after their formation.
Other forms of Moraceae such as the fig ( Ficus carica ) are
confined to southwest Asia and Greece in the Neolithic and
do not appear to have any great IE lexical antiquity (Lat ficus ,
Grk <7 vkov, and Arm t'uz are all believed derived from some
common “Mediterranean” source). The cultivation of hops
(. Humulus lupulus) seems to date no earlier than the Middle
Ages and this species lacks any obvious lexical antiquity
among the IE stocks.
Rosaceae
The Rosaceae comprise a large number of plants, bushes
and trees with edible fruits and berries that were clearly
exploited over broad areas of Europe and into parts of Asia
since the Neolithic. But other than the apple, almost all others,
irrespective of their distribution or the antiquity of their
exploitation, are with only great difficulty ascribable to IE
antiquity or, if there are cognate forms, their original meaning
is apparently beyond recovery. Generally, forms such as
*h a ogeh a ~, *h x oiuo/eh a -, and *srdh a gs, all ‘± berry, fruit’ must
do for a wide variety of edible fruits. For example, one of
these forms may conceal the word for ‘strawberry’ as it was
widely dispersed since the Neolithic in the wild state over
central and northern Europe, i.e., those regions where we
might expect some form of northwest isogloss. From its
quantity on archaeological sites of all periods, it was clearly
collected since at least the Neolithic but cultivation did not
take place until about the fourth century AD. A very similar
situation obtains for raspberries and blackberries ( Rubus ) for
which we can reconstruct *morom. Grouped here are also
several important fruit trees such as Prunus domestica (plum),
cherries ( Prunus avium and Prunus cerasus ), and the pear
(. Pyrus ). Pips of most of these are known from Neolithic sites
of temperate Europe although deliberate domestication does
not usually occur until Roman times. These provide further
examples of food resources, probably exploited by the
ancestors of at least some IE stocks, but which seem to lack
any widespread set of cognate terms. Only the pear (Lat pirum,
Grk amov) seems to have a common, presumably non-IE
source.
Umbelliferae
The main domestic variety of the Umbelliferae that offers
a name of some antiquity is the *mfk- ‘± carrot’ with cognates
in Germanic and Slavic indicating the carrot and an obscure
term in Greek indicating a wild vegetable. The natural distribu-
tion of the carrot is from southern, primarily Mediterranean,
Europe eastwards to Iran and Afghanistan although it is also
found often on Swiss Neolithic and early Bronze Age lakeside
dwellings. The origin of the domestic carrot has been seen
either in or around Afghanistan and the spread of the domestic
— 433 —
PLANTS
carrot to the west occurred during the medieval period,
arriving in Turkey by the tenth century and Spain by the
twelfth century AD. From this it is evident that the proto-
form among the IE stocks referred to a wild plant.
VlTACEAE
Two possible words referring to the ‘vine’ or ‘grape’ are
known from the early IE lexicon. The primary term is *uoinom
which is attested in Italic, Albanian, Greek, Armenian and
Anatolian. The precise referent has always posed some pro-
blem and it may refer to the vine, i.e., Vitis vinifera which, in
the wild state, could be found during the Neolithic from Iberia
east to beyond the Caspian Sea and as far north as southern
Britain and even southern Sweden. The domestic grape, on
the other hand, appears in the Near East around the fifth or
fourth millennium BC and in southeast Europe by the third
millennium. A more poorly represented and phonologically
problematic word is *tris- which yields the meaning of ‘vine’
in Slavic and Greek and more generalized meanings (‘seedling,
offshoot’) in Albanian.
Papaveraceae
The one well-known representative of the Papaveraceae ,
the poppy (Papaver somniferum), is at least known in late IE
guise as *meh a k- where it is found in Germanic, Baltic, Slavic
and Greek. Unlike most of the domesticates, the wild poppy
( Papaver setigerum) is native to the western Mediterranean
and it is found as a crop weed from Iberia to the Black Sea
but is absent from Greece and southeast Europe until the
early Bronze Age, i.e., c 3000 BC. Its place of domestication
has been sought in the west Mediterranean.
See also Agriculture; Angelica; Bark 1 ; Bean; Berry, Branch;
Chaff; Chick-pea; Feed; Flax; Flower; Fork (of tree); Grain;
Grass; Hellebore; Hemp; Henbane; Knot 2 ; Leaf; Mistletoe;
Moss; Mulberry; Nettle; Pea; Poppy; Reed; Sap; Shoot;
Splinter; Stalk; Thorn; Tree, Trees; Vegetables; Wine.
[D.Q.A., J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Brown, C. H. (1984) Language and Living Things: Uniformities in
Folk Classification and Naming. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.
Simmonds, N. W (1976) Evolution of Crop Plants. London and
New York, Longman.
van Zeist, W, K. Wasylikowa and K-E. Behre (1991) Progress in
Old World Palaeoethnobotany. Rotterdam, A. A. Balkema.
Zohary, D. and M. Hopf (1988) Domestication of Plants in the Old
World. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
PLAY
*loid- ‘play, jest’. [JEW 666 ( *leid-)\ Wat 36 ( *leid -)] . OLat
loidus ~ loedus ‘game’, Lat ludus ‘game’, ludd ‘play’, Grk
(Hesychius) (< *lidie/o- ) ‘plays’, Xoi5opeo> ‘insult,
abuse’. Though attested in only two stocks, it represents the
only possibly reconstructible word for ‘play’ in PIE.
[M.N.]
PLEASE
*pleh a k- ‘please’, [cf. 7EW831 ( *pla-k -); Wat 51 (*p/ak-);
GI 3711 Lat placed ‘please, am pleasing’, placo ‘smooth; calm,
appease, pacify’, TochAB plak- ‘be in agreement’, TochA
plakam ‘permission’, TochB plaki ‘understanding, agreement’
(Tocharian nouns < *pleh a kmen). From *pleh a k- ‘flat’. The
presence of this verb in both Latin and Tocharian suggests
that it was at least a late PIE term.
See also Favor; Happy. [D.Q.A.]
PLOW
*h a 6rh^e/o- plow’. [1EW 62-63 (*ar(o»; Wat 3 (*aro-);
GI 593-594 ( *har -); Buck 8.21; BK 400 ( *har-/*hdr-)\ . Mir
airid ‘plows’, Weis arddu ‘plow’, Lat aro ‘plow’, ON erja ‘plow’,
OE erian ‘plow’ (> NE ear), OHG erran ‘plow’, Goth arjan
‘plow’, OPrus artoys ‘farmer’, Lith ariu ‘plow’, OCS 0 / 70 ‘plow’,
Grk ctpoco ‘plow’, TochAB are ‘a plow’. Widespread and old
in IE. Note the widespread derivative *h a erh 3 trom ‘plow’:
Mir arathar ‘plow’, Weis aradr ‘plow’, Lat aratrum ‘plow’, ON
ardr ‘plow’, Lith arklas ‘plow’, Grk aporpov ‘plow’, Arm arawr
‘plow’. It has often been suggested that Hit hars- ~ harsiya- *±
till the earth’ belongs here (if so the root would be *h 2 erh 3 -),
reflecting an extended PIE *h 2 erh 3 -s~. On the other hand,
the Hittite word has also been taken as a borrowing from
some Semitic source, e.g., Akkadian harasu ‘plant’, harasu
‘dig a furrow’, or western Semitic * haras- (= Akkadian eresu )
‘plow’. If the word is inherited, as ultimately seems more
probable, it greatly strengthens our ability to reconstruct plow
agriculture to PIE.
*UOg w hnis‘ plowshare’. [IEW 1179-80 ( *uog u hm-s)\ Wat
78 {*wog w h-ni-)\ GI 595 ( *wo^°ni-) J. Lat vomis 1 plowshare’,
ON vangsni ‘plowshare’, OHG waganso ‘plowshare’, OPrus
wagnis ‘coulter’, Grk otpvig ‘plowshare’. At least a word in the
west and center of the IE world.
hoe, plow’. \IEW700 ( *mat-)\ Wat 39 ( *mat-)\ Buck
8.28]. Lat mateola ‘hoe’, OHG medela (< *matileh a - ) ‘plow’,
OCS motyka ‘hoe, mattock’, NPers amaj (< *-mataC -) ‘plow’,
OInd matya- ‘harrow’. The obviously related OE mattoc
‘mattock’ (> NE mattock ) is usually taken as a borrowing from
a late Lat *matteuca. The geographical distribution of the
reflexes of this word strongly suggests PIE status. The semantic
range of the cognate terms is probably explainable by reference
to the very early systems of breaking the soil either by hand
with a stone hoe or antler mattock which might also serve to
be dragged by traction as a primitive plow.
*hi/<fok6teh a - ‘harrow, rake’. [IEW 22 ( *oketa ); Buck 8.28] .
Weis oged ‘harrow’, Late Lat occa (< *ot(i)ka < *okita) ‘harrow’,
OE eg(e)de ‘harrow, rake’, OHG egida ‘harrow’, OPrus (pi.)
aketes ‘harrow’, Lith (pi.) akecios ‘harrow’, Latv ecesas ‘harrow’
(the Baltic forms with e- have assimilated the first vowel to
the second; the length of the second vowel is also secondary),
Oss adaeg{< *agaed) ‘furrow’. Related are Grk oypoq furrow’,
(Hesychius) olivet ‘harrow’, Hit akkala- ‘furrow’ or perhaps
‘type of plow’ (the context is ambiguous). The underlying
verb *hi/^ek- ‘rake, harrow’ is seen in OE ecgan ‘rake, harrow’,
— 434 —
PLOW
OHG eggan ‘harrow’, Lith aketi ~ eketi ‘harrow’, Latv ecet
‘harrow’, Widespread and old in IE.
?*ghel - ‘plow’. [JEW 434 ( *ghel-)\ Wat 2 ( *ghel-)\ Buck
8.21 ; BK 230 ( *gal-/*gdl-)] . Lith zuolis ‘sleeper, tie’, Arm jlem
‘plow’, OInd hala- ‘a plow’. The Old Indie word is attested
only rather late (in the epics). Other than that, the apparent
connection of at least the Armenian and Old Indie would
suggest a word of the center and east of the IE world.
Archaeological Evidence
The plows reflected in the linguistic evidence would
generally have been metal plows. The earliest of these metal
plows appears in the Near East toward the end of the second
millennium BC and in Anatolia by c 900-700 BC. Metal plows
appear subsequently in Italy by c 600 BC and among the
Celts by c 500-400 BC. But the original PIE referents would
surely have been wooden plows (with stone shares). Even
the earliest wooden plows had a marked impact on agricultural
production in that they were capable of increasing the
cultivated area by three times as well as permitting the
expansion of agriculture onto soils which simple hoe-
agriculture would have found too difficult. The earliest
evidence for the plow is generally set to the Near East in about
the sixth millennium BC; later evidence for the plows are to
be found in the pictographic scripts of the Near East, both at
Uruk in Mesopotamia and in proto-Elamite layers in Iran,
that would date to c 3500-3000 BC. These depict a two-
handled plow with a composite draught pole while the earliest
evidence for plows in Europe tend to reflect single-handled
plows, i.e., crook ards. While one might expect that these
simple plows would have served more as seed drills than for
turning the soil, there is evidence of asymmetrical plow-marks
already from the fourth millennium BC which suggests that
the tip of the plow could be angled to turn the soil as well as
scour it. Evidence for the earliest appearance of the plow in
Europe rests primarily on these chance discoveries of plow-
marks on prehistoric sites and the actual remains of plows in
water-logged contexts. There is clear evidence for scratch
marks in the soil, made by primitive plows, from at least
Britain to Poland in the period c 3500-3000 BC while the
earliest actual remains of plows are known from c 2300-2000
BC (the earliest identified European plow derives from
Lavagnone, Italy). That plows may have predated the late
fourth millennium BC has been argued on the basis of three
further possible lines of evidence. The first of these are
polished stone adzes which appear in the Linear Ware and
other Neolithic cultures which probably served primarily for
working wood but which have also been interpreted by some
as plowshares. A very large perforated stone ‘ax’ recovered
from a site of the Lengyel culture has also been regarded as a
plowshare. In Brittany, megalithic art of the fourth millen-
nium BC also depicts what have been interpreted as ‘ax-plows’.
A final source of evidence is to be seen in the splayed phalanges
of cattle, which suggests their use in traction. Such evidence
has been recovered from the Balkans from the period of the
435 —
PLOW
Vadastra culture, i.e., c 4500 BC. The presumption here is
that animal traction was earliest associated with plowing, while
its use in drawing wagons began in the mid-fourth millen-
nium. Moreover, a simple “rope traction ard”, which could
be pulled by farmers without recourse to oxen, may also have
preceded the plow and several have been recovered from
Neolithic contexts in Denmark.
The use of the plow, which seems clearly attested across
the early IE world and hence is attributed to the PIE com-
munity itself, also bears social implications. The earliest
agriculture probably did not involve the use of the plow but
merely digging sticks or hoes, tools which are often found in
the ethnographic record to correlate with women carrying
out the bulk of agricultural chores and hence matrilineal
systems of inheritance which generally involved the lineage
rather than the individual family as owner. In plow-
agriculture, the role of the male is commonly found to become
more important and the inheritance system tends to patrilineal
descent and the land itself becomes an inheritable commodity.
Both the evidence of the Indo-European kinship nomenclature
and the existence of *h a erh3ie/o- ‘plow’ suggest that the earliest
Indo-Europeans correlate with this latter form of plow-
agriculture rather than that of digging sticks which is
presumed for the earliest agriculturalists in the Near East and
Europe.
See also Agriculture; Branch; Field; Furrow; Tool. [D.Q.A.,
J.PM.l
Further Reading
Sherratt, A. (1981) Plough and pastoralism: Aspects of the secondary
products revolution, in Pattern of the Past, ed. N. Hammond et
al, Cambridge, 261-305.
POET
*karu- ‘one who sings or praises, poet’. [IEW 530
(*karu-)\ Wat 27 ( *karu-)\ GI 177 (*k h erH-)]. Grk KppvE,
(Doric KtxpvQ ‘herald’, OInd karu- ‘one who sings or praises,
poet’. From *kar- ‘praise’. The semantic relationship whereby
a word for ‘herald’ in Greek is equivalent to ‘poet’ in Old
Indie requires some explanation. Indie literature provides
some evidence that the karu- wandered from one client to
another which could have resulted in a dual role, one that
not only involved the artistic creation of verse but also a means
of conveying messages, i.e. , he may also have carried out some
of the duties of a herald.
*y<3t- ‘seer, poet’. [IEW 1113 ( *uat -), Wat 78 ( *wet-)\ GI
699 (*wat h -)]. Olr faith ‘seer’, Gaul ovdreiq ‘seer’, Lat vates
‘ see , poet’, ON odr ‘poetry; madness’, OE wop ‘song, poetry’,
wod ‘madness’ (> archaic NE wood ‘mad’), OHG wuot
‘madness’, Goth wods ‘mad, insane’; cf. also Weis gwawd
‘poetry’. The meaning of a divinely inspired seer is well enough
attested between Celtic and Italic although its extended
meaning ‘poet’ does not occur in Latin until about the first
century BC. A lengthened grade derivative of PIE *uet- ‘blow’
s6en in Grk (Hesychius) derpa ‘flame of a fire’, aerpov ‘spirit’.
ampr\ ‘breath’, Av aipi-vat- ‘blow, inspire’, OInd api-vat
‘blows upon, fans; blows in, inspires’. The Greek word*,
suggest we should reconstruct *h a uet- ‘blow’ and thus *h a uot
for ‘seer, poet’. As a word for a ‘poet’ it still appears confinec
to the extreme west of the IE world.
??*g w fhx-dhos ‘poet’(< *g w [hx-dhehi- ‘put praise’). [IEW
478 ( *g v er(o)-) ; Wat 25 ( *g w ero-)\ BK 364 ( *q’ w ur
*q w or-)\. Olr bard ‘bard’, Weis bardd, Gallo-Lat bardus ‘bard’
Attested nominally only in Celtic and verbally only in Indo-
Iranian, i.e., A v garam da- ‘give praise’, OInd giram dha- ‘give
praise’. The forms, although composed of PIE words, would
appear to be innovations in each of their respective areas.
See also Poetry; Praise; Priest; Sacred. ID.Q.A.l
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1995) How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European
Poetics. New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press.
POETRY
Although no reconstructed word survives to designate
‘poetry’ in PIE, its existence is unchallenged as the possession
of a poetic tradition would appear to be a near cultural
universal and is certainly found among all the earliest attested
IE stocks. Furthermore, although we may reconstruct only
two words for ‘poet’, *karu- (a late IE isogloss joining Greek
and Indo-Aryan) and *yof- (a word of the extreme west of
the IE world), nevertheless most early Indo-European stocks
reveal a class of men who served as poets or priests skilled in
the construction of verse. The work of these earliest poets,
whether known from Ireland, Greece or the old Indo-Iranian
world, was exclusively oral rather than written and sources
describe the many years required, for example, by an Irish
druid in the learning of the vast corpus of poems, metrical
rules, and other prerequisites of a poet. There is also some
evidence that the craft of poetry was treated as a specialist
skill, like any other craftworker, and may have been lodged
with particular families. The authors of the hymns of the
Rgveda , for example, can be assembled in familial relation-
ships with one another, there were Greek confraternities of
poets, and certain Irish families such as the O’Higgins or
O’Mulconrys maintained family traditions of poets. Indeed,
early Irish tradition required that one should belong to a poetic
family for at least three generations in order to be regarded as
a true poet.
The poet as a craftsman can be seen in the preservation of
metaphorical expressions that describe how the poet created
his poetry. Both Greek and Indo-Iranian provide evidence of
a PIE *uek w os teks- ‘fashion speech’ (Grk ekecw tektoves,
Av vacas-tasti-, OInd vacas- taks-) where the meaning of the
verb *teks- is extended beyond the semantic sphere of
building. Thus, there are verses in the £gveda ( RV 5.2.1 1)
where we read ‘as a skilled craftsman makes a chariot, l, a
devout worshipper, have composed this hymn for you, O
mighty one’. And in Welsh, the poet may be termed the
‘carpenter of the song’. In addition to the image of a ‘word
— 436 —
POETRY
carpenter’ (cf. also in NE word-smith) we also find that of the
weaver of verse employed as well, where PIE *uebh- ‘weave’
underlies OE wordcrxft wad ‘he wove poetry’, Grk juvOovg
Kai prjdca Kacnv vyaivov ‘they have woven words and
thoughts for all’, and in Avestan the root for ‘weave’ (vaf-) can
also be employed in the meaning ‘to praise’. Another root
indicating ‘weave’, PIE *ueg~, underlies OIr figid ‘weaves’,
seen in the expression faig ferb fithir ‘the master weaves the
word’. Finally, the poet might be ‘the maker’ par excellence
as in Greek noiqrqq ‘maker, poet, writer’.
The Proto-Indo-European poet was a professional. What-
ever the exact image the poet as craftsman took, he was worthy
of his hire, as the etymological comparison of Olr cerd ‘craft;
poetry’ (also ‘craftsman; poet’) or Weis cerdd ‘craft; poetry,
poem’ with Grk KEpdoq ‘gain, profit’ suggests. The Rgveda
tells of rewards to poets such as ‘two-hundred cows, four
horses, and two wagons’ (RV 7.18), a vast sum even for a
king to expend. The poet was worth the expense, however,
because only he, as the professional preserver of the spoken
word, could provide his patron the ‘imperishable fame’ that
was the central goal of the heroic warrior.
The creative act of the poet is generally associated with the
concept of his ‘seeing’ or ‘hearing’ his verse, e.g., Olnd sa etat
suktam apasyat ‘he saw the hymn’ and the inspirer of verses,
the deities, speak directly to the poet. This inspiration can be
seen in Old Indie tradition, for example, where the
embodiment of sacred speech, the goddess Vac, declares that
it is with her help that one ‘hears what is said though not
knowing it’ {R VI 0.1 25.4) and the common introduction to
the more arcane verses of Old Irish, co cloth nl ‘something is
heard’, i.e., something from “outside” inspires the poet. In
this way, the poet is presented as the instrument of reception,
inspired by a creative impulse that derives from outside of
himself; in short, the poet is “wired into” the world of creativity.
Indo-European Metrics
The quest to reconstruct the “original” metrical system of
the Indo-Europeans has extended almost to the beginnings
of comparative philology, but in terms of convincing results,
these have been either illusive or confined to a few interstock
similarities. For example, comparison between 12-syllable
Greek verse and the 12-syllable jagati form of the Rgveda
have prompted some to postulate a PIE 12-syllable line. A
comparison of the 11 -syllable Greek saphic verse with the
11 -syllable tristubh form of Old Indie verse yields a PIE 11-
syllable line. One can descend in length with the 10-syllable
saphic form and early Slavic verse. A shorter 8-syllable line
has also been attributed to PIE and this may be found in the
traditions of the Romans, Balts, Slavs, Greeks, Anatolians,
and Indo- Aryans. Here we find, for example, verse expressed
in lines of seven or eight syllables, with a caesura dividing at
4 + 4 (or 3) or 5 + 3 syllables, e g., the opening of the first
hymn of the Rgveda ( agm'm l\e \ purohitam , i.e., 4 + 4). The
problem with all of these “comparisons” is that they are not
in the strict sense “reconstructions” as one employs the term
in the comparative method in linguistics, i.e., unlike the
comparison of two cognate words, there is no guarantee that
lines of poetry in two different IE stocks are necessarily
“cognate” or inherited from a proto-form; other than a number
of phrases we simply lack cognate lines of PIE verse in two
different major language stocks.
There have been attempts to go beyond the specific to the
more general in describing the main tendencies of IE oral
poetry. For example, irrespective of the number of syllables,
it has been suggested on the basis of Greek and Old Indie
poetry that there are at least stable patterns such as a constant
number of syllables per line, a uniform succession of short
and long syllables, a break within the longer lines of verse
forms. However, even all these can be reduced to oft-observed
general tendencies but not necessarily norms of their
respective stocks to say nothing of PIE.
Poetic Diction
Studies of oral tradition have uncovered evidence that the
poet frequently uses certain groups of word in his poetic
diction that may be employed under the same metric
conditions. These phrases, such as the frequent reference to
Agamemnon in the Iliad as the aval; avSpcav ‘lord of men’,
form a specialized poetic vocabulary or set phrases which the
poet may insert whenever he requires the filling out of a
particular meter. Although no single line of PIE verse has so
far proven to be recoverable, there is at least a body of brief
phrases or formulae that may be assigned varying degrees of
IE antiquity. In general, the sources offering evidence for PIE
phrases are to be found in the earliest and highest register of
the poetic traditions of several IE stocks. In Germanic, this is
to be found in the Old Norse Eddie poems, in Italy there is
early Latin poetry and the Iguvine tablets of the Umbrians, in
Greece the Homeric tradition is of primary importance
although there are other sources of early Greek verse, in old
Iran the A vesta and in India the Vedas.
Of the reconstructed PIE formulae, one of the earliest
discovered and certainly among the most important are those
phrases that are associated with the subject of poetry itself
and are built on *kleuos ‘fame’ which is derived from *kleu-
‘hear’, indicating that ‘fame’ derives from that which is heard,
that is, what has been related by the poets. Hence there is PIE
*kleuos ndhg w hitom ‘fame everlasting’ (Grk KXdog acpOnov
[cf. Myc a-qi-ti-ta as a personal name derived presumably
from something like *ak w hthito-klewejja\ , Olnd
sravas...aksitam\ cf. OIr clu ‘fame’). We find *kleqos in several
other recurring formulae. Not all of these have an exactly
reconstructible PIE shape, but the general collocation is
certain. Thus a related formula is * ‘famous of name’ (Grk
ovopd-K^vrog (cf. the personal name ’OwpcocXcrig] , Olnd
srutyam nZma, TochA fiom-kalywats, TochB nem-kalywe)\
PIE *kIeuos ueru ‘wide fame’ (Gaul Verucloetius , Grk tcXeoq
evpv, Olnd urugayam...sravo)\ PIE *kleuos megh a ‘great fame’
(Grk peya icXcoq, Olnd mahi sravah\ cf. OIr clu mor ‘great
fame’, ON mikil fraegd ‘great fame’); PIE * ‘having fame from
437 —
POETRY
god’ (Grk AioKXfjq, OInd Devasravas-)\ PIE *k leuos uesu ~
*kleuos hjesu ‘possessing good fame’ (Illyrian Vescleves-, Grk
EvxXepg , OInd Susrava -; cf. Olr sochla (< so +du) ‘of good
fame’, Av vanhau sravahi ) and PIE * ‘acquire fame’ (Grk icXeog
KaraOdoOca , OInd sravah dha~). One could also acquire a
bad repute and terms for this may also be extended into IE
antiquity, e.g., *dus-£/eyes-‘havingbadrepute’(Grk SvcncXeriq,
Av dus-sravahya-) .
As we have seen, the ‘fame’ acquired or celebrated is
generally held to have concerned the heroic deeds of warriors,
i.e., PIE *kleuos h a prom ‘fame of (real) men’ (Grk kXegc
dvdpcov, OInd sravo...nfnam ) although the use of ‘fame’ was
then subsequently extended to other activities in the various
IE stocks. But the central theme of ‘fame’ is clear in the early
literatures of the various IE peoples where one’s ‘fame’ or
‘name’ (as the two were equivalent) was the overriding factor
in heroic behavior. Thus, the Irish hero Cu Chulainn ( Tain
610-641), hearing that a druid had prophesied that whoever
took up arms on a certain day would be short-lived but acquire
great fame (‘his renown [ainmm ‘name, repute’] would be
over Ireland forever and his famous tales would last forever’),
himself remarks that ‘provided that I be famous, it is fine
with me though l be but a single day on earth’. Similarly in
the Iliad, the Greek hero Akhilleus observes that if he stays at
Troy, his homecoming will be destroyed, i.e. , he will be killed,
but his fame (fcXdog) will be imperishable (d<p6irov).
The word for ‘name’ also provides the basis for a series of
formulae that may be attributed to IE antiquity. The very act
of naming is expressed in PIE *h jnehsmiji dhehj- ‘give a name’
(OCzech dieti jmi, Hit laman da-, HierLuv atamain tuha, Av
nampn da-, OInd nama dha -, TochB nem ta-). There is a
striking Germanic-Indo-Aryan correspondence in the formula
*priidm hineh 3 mn ‘one’s own name’ (OE freo nama ‘surname’,
OInd priyam ...nama ‘own name’; cf. also the divine
epithet ^‘having many names’ [Grk noXvcovvpog, OInd
purunaman -]).
More directly, indeed redundantly, we find the expression
PIE *uek w os uek w - ‘speak a word’ (Grk enog eixeiv, Av uxda
vacdi, OInd avocama...vaca-). The poet may also employ his
skill to make ‘sweet speech’, i.e., PIE *sueh a du- uek w - (Grk
r)Svenrjg ~ [Doric] ddvexijg , Av hvacah-, OInd suvacas-)(cf.
also Grk peXiyXcoGoog, OInd madhujihva- both ‘honey-
tongued’). In prayer, the invocation of the priest may begin
*Kludhl moi ‘hear me’ (Grk kXvOi poi, OInd srudhi me; cf.
Messapic klaohi ‘hear’).
One phrase of poetic diction concerns the spiritual property
of the hero who acquires fame. This heroic property is
embedded in the concept of *menes- ‘strength’, but not so
much physical as mental inspiration, that motivates and
enables the hero to accomplish great deeds. It can be found
alone or used in such constructions as PIE *ishjrdm menos-
‘sacred strength’ (Grk iepov pdvog, OInd isirena...manasa)
which indicates how this ‘strength’ is divinely inspired. Other
constructions built on this word include both the positive
possession of such strength, i.e., PIE *uesu ~ *hiesu menos
‘good thought’ (Myc [personal name] E-u-me-ne , Grk evpevrjg
~ pdvog rjv, [personal name] Evpevriq , Av vohu manah- ~
humanah-, OInd sumanas-, [personal name] Vasumanas-) and
its opposite *dus-menes- ‘bad thought’ (Grk dvopevrig , OInd
durmanas).
Phrasal or epithetic echoes of the types of deeds one
accomplished to win fame are also preserved. For example,
we may reconstruct a PIE *h a ny-g w hen- ‘man-killer’ (Myc
[proper nam e)]A-no-qo-ta, Grk dvdpotpovoq [epithet of
Hektor], Av Jannara-, OInd ny-han- [epithet of Rudra], cf.
semantically related concepts in Celtic, e.g., Olr oirgnech
‘man- killer’, an epithet of the hero Conall). One of the central
deeds of the IE warrior-hero is the slaying of a serpent/dragon
which is preserved in the phrase *(hie)g w hent hidg w him ‘he
killed the serpent’ (Grk kteive ocpiv ‘he slew the serpent’ [with
the substitution of a different verb, though xdipve o<piv with
the inherited verb was surely possible, just not attested] or
Hit illuyanka kwenta ‘he killed the snake’ [with a new noun] ;
Av janat azlm ‘[who] killed the serpent’, OInd ahann ahim
‘he killed the serpent’); cf. Olr gono mil ‘I slay the beast’.
Other formulae are associated with deities and the celestial
world. The most famous is the epithet of the deity of the
open sky, PIE *diius phatir ‘sky- father’. (Lat lupiter ~ luppiter,
Umb Iupater, Illyrian Aei-xdzvpoq, Grk Zevg xarrip, OInd
dyaus pita\ cf. Luv tatis tiwaz ‘daddy sky’, Palaic tiyaz....papaz
‘sky... papa’). The concept of solar disc or wheel appears
embedded in IE tradition where we can reconstruct PIE * ‘sun’s
wheel’ (ON sunnu...hvel, Grk rjXi'ov KvicXoq, OInd sQras
cakra-) and there is also a clear association between the sun
and horses in Greek, Avestan and Old Indie tradition. The
sun is also depicted as a watcher of the affairs of humankind,
i.e:, PIE *seh a jjeliom. . .spokom ‘sun... watching’ (Grk
’HdXiov...<JKon6v, OInd s6ryam...spasam) and this metaphor
of the ‘sun’ as a great ‘eye’ is retained in Olr suil ‘eye’
(etymologically ‘sun’). A deity may be a PIE *deli 3 tdr ueseijom
‘dispenser of goods’ (Grk [voc.] dcorop eouov, Av vohunfim
dataro, OInd data vasunam). There is evidence that the
goddesses might be given the epithet PIE *dhug(h a )ter diuds
‘sky daughter’: Lith dievo dukti ‘Saulyte’ (daughter of the
sky), Grk Ovyarrip Aioq ‘sky-daughter’ (epithet of Aurora,
the dawn), OInd duhita divah ‘sky-daughter’; cf. also Lith
saules dukti ‘sun daughter’, Latv saules meita ‘sun maid’, OInd
duhita sdryasya ‘daughter of the sun’. Another epithet of a
deity is PIE *hjisud-ghesj--ih a ‘having an arrow in the hand’
(Grk loydaipa [epithet of Artemis], OInd isu-hasta-).
There are a number of formulae of poetic speech employed
to describe both the earth and life. The earth itself would
appear to have born the epithet ‘broad’ and hence we find
the formula PIE *dhghom- plth a u- ‘earth-broad’ (Grk evpeia
yOcbv, Av zpm pamOwim, OInd ksa...pjth(i)vim\ cf. ON fold,
OE folde [< *plth 2 -eh a - ‘broad’] ‘earth’). The earth might also
be described as ‘dark’, i.e., ’“‘dark earth’ (Olr domun donn,
Hit (abl.) dankuiaz tagnaz ). Human settlement might also be
described as ‘broad’, e.g., PIE *ufru sedos ‘broad seat/place’
(Grk evpveSrjq, OInd uru...sadas). The formula which would
— 438 —
POLTAVKA CULTURE
embrace all living beings appears to be PIE * ‘bipeds and quad-
rupeds’ (Umb dupursus peturpursus, MPers dopaSan
...caharpadan, OInd catuspadam.-.dvipadam) or the
semantically similar PIE *uih x ro-pekud ‘man and beast’ (Umb
ueiro pequo, Lat pecudesque virosque , Av pasu vira). This
latter expression has been regarded as a component of a still
longer verb phrase *iiih x rons peku(e)h a peh 2 ~ ‘protect men
and livestock’ (Lat pastores pecuaque salua seruassis, Umb
ueiro pequo... salua seritu {where the Italic dialects have
replaced *peh 2 - ‘protect’l, Av Orayrai pasv3 virayfi , Olnd
trayantam...purusam pasum {where *peh 2 ~ has been replaced
by *terh 2 ~ ‘protect’ in both languages and Old Indie has
innovated on the word for ‘man’l).
The concept of belief is embraced in the formula *k red-
dhehi- ‘believe’ (< *‘put heart’) (OIr creitid , Lat credo , Hit
k(a)ratan dai-, Av zrazda-, Olnd sraddhi). Other actions with
a poetic resonance include PIE *uyh xdhyds meigh- ‘standing
upright’ (Grk opOoq Gxf\vai , Olnd urdhvah stha -), here
applied to the hero or deity although we also have * ‘urinate
upright’ (Grk opOoq opeiyeiv, Olnd meksyami urdhvah).
Another expression of at least late PIE date is *dlgh6-h a o\u
‘having a long life’ (Grk doXiyaftov, Av darogom ayu, Olnd
dlrghiyu-).
With reference to animals, horses and dogs were singled
out for special poetic treatment. We find, for example, PIE
*hjekuds h^eh^keues ‘swift horses’ (Grk coKeeq ijikoi, Av
asu.aspa- ‘possessing fast horses’, Olnd asvavsya- ‘possessing
fast horses’) and it is frequently suggested that the very word
for horse derives from the adjective ‘swift’. With a different
root, the same concept is to be found in PIE *h 2 fgrds hiekuds
‘swift horses’ (Grk mnoi...apyoi ", Olnd [jras. . asvas\ cf. Av
orazraspa- ‘who has fast horses’), PIE */ijsu-hjekyos ‘having
good horses’ (Grk emmtoq, Av hvaspo). The dog is clearly
associated with the defense of flocks, e.g., PIE *peku-seruos
‘guarding livestock’ (Lat servat pecus , Av pasus.haurva-) and,
like the horse, was also prized for its swiftness, i.e., PIE
*h 2 fgros k(u)u6n ‘swift dog’ (Grk revvaq apyovq, Olnd
Qjfsvan- ‘having a fast dog’; cf. also ’'Apyoq, the dog of
Odysseus).
Finally, we uncover chance reflexes of formula that describe
practical pursuits, e g., PIE *dheighti peigti (~k w e) ‘shapes
and paints’ (Lat pictis fictis, TochA tsekesi pekesi).
See also Name; Poet; Praise. fJ.PM.]
Further Readings
Campanile, E. (1990) La ricostruzione della cultura indoeuropea.
Pisa, Giardini.
Nagy, G. (1974) Comparative Studies of Greek and Indie Meter.
Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
Schmitt, R. (1967) Dichtung und Dichtersprache in
Indogermanischer Zeit. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.
Watkins, C. (1995) How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European
Poetics. New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press.
POINT
*h a 6rdhis ‘point’. [IEW 63 {*ardh-)\. OIr aird ‘point;
direction’, ON erta{< Proto-Gmc *artjan-) ‘to goad’, Grk ctpSiq
‘arrowhead’; cf. Olnd ali- (< *ardi- ) ‘bee’ (< * ‘having a point’).
The geographical distribution suggests PIE status.
*bhfstfs ‘point’. [IEW 109 ( *bhysti-)\ Wat 5 ( *bhar-)\ BK
4 (,*bar-/*bor-)\. OIr barr 1 point, tip’, Lat fastigo l makt pointed,
bring to a point’, fastlgium ‘top of the gable, gable end,
pediment’, ON burst ‘bristle’, OE byrst ‘bristle’ (> NE bristle),
OHG burst ~ borsi ‘bristle’, Rus borsc ‘hogweed’, Olnd bhfsti-
‘point’. Widespread and old in IE.
See also Barley; Spear. ID.Q.A.J
POISON
*\}Iss ~ *yls (gen. *uis6s) ‘poison, poisonous liquid (e.g.,
snake venom or poisonous sap)’. [IEW 1 134 ( *uIso-s)\ Buck
4 89] . MIr //‘poison’, Lat virus ‘potent liquid, poison, venom’,
Grk ioq ‘(organic fluid) poison; stagnant smell and taste’, Av
vis(a)- ‘poison’, Olnd Wsa- ‘poison’, TochA was ‘poison’, TochB
wase ‘poison’ (Toch < *uiso-). From *yeis- ‘flow (slowly),
ooze (out)’, other derivatives of which appear in Weis gwyar
‘blood’, ON veisa ‘swamp’, OE wase ‘mud’.
See also Flow. [D.Q.AJ
POLECAT
*kek- ‘polecat ( Mustela putorius) (?+ ‘marbled polecat
(Vormela peregusa)'. [IEW 543 (*ke£-)]. Lith seskas ‘polecat’,
La tv sesks ‘polecat’ , Olnd kasa- ‘weasel’, kasiM- '± she -weasel’.
The exact meaning of this word in IE is not clear, but its
distribution suggests at least late PIE status.
In addition to the otter, badger and wolverine, the musteli-
dae also include the martens, the weasel and the polecat,
among which there seems to be considerable lexical confusion.
The polecat is found over most of Europe (except Ireland,
northern Scandinavia, and Greece), Kazakhstan, and south
to Kashmir but this same area also embraces that of many
other mustelids as well and that overlap may account for the
shift of meaning between Baltic and Old Indie.
See also Badger; Mammals; Marten; Weasel. [D.Q.A., J.P.M.]
POLTAVKA CULTURE
The Poltavka culture is the early to middle Bronze Age
culture (c 2700-2 100 BC) of the Volga-Ural steppe and forest-
steppe. Culturally, it continues the earlier steppe traditions
of the Yamna culture and precedes that of the Srubna or
Timber-grave culture; in some archaeological systems it has
been regarded as the early phase of the Srubna culture. It is
roughly contemporary with the Catacomb culture of the
Dnieper-Don region.
The Poltavka culture distinguishes itself from its Yamna
predecessor through its ceramics (now flat-bottomed rather
than pointed or rounded-based) and the marked increase in
metallurgy, particularly that drawn from local metallurgical
centers in the southern Urals. In addition to local sources,
there is evidence of north Caucasian influences seen in gold
— 439 —
POLTAVKA CULTURE
Poltavka b. Poltavka burial from Berezhnovka; ocher under
the head and before the face and accompanied by a bronze
spearhead (c), an awl, and a Poltavka vessel (d).
and silver rings and bronze axes which ultimately mirror forms
from the area of the Maykop culture. The rise of metallurgy is
evident in the more conspicuous display of ornaments and
weapons in Poltavka burials which is seen to signal increasing
social stratification.
Settlements are exceedingly rare and largely confined to
scatters of Poltavka ceramics on sand dunes in the lower Volga
region. The culture is known almost exclusively from its
burials situated in cemeteries along river terraces. The
deceased was interred on his or her (left) side or back, head
oriented to the NE; in some instances the body was covered
with ocher although not so frequently as in the earlier Yamna
culture. Grave goods included pottery, metal objects (knives,
axes, ornaments) and occasionally stone scepters. The burial
pit might have a timber cover. The burials themselves were
generally inserted into the kurgans (tumuli) of the earlier
Yamna culture.
The Poltavka culture not only marks the local development
from the Yamna culture to the later Srubna culture but also
partially underlies the development of the Potapovka culture
of the middle Volga region. In general, it is seen then as a
culture ancestral to some of the earliest archaeological
reflections of what are generally presumed to be early Indo-
Iranian cultures.
See also Indo- Iranian Languages; Potapovka Culture;
Srubna Culture; Yamna Culture. IJ.PM.)
Further Reading
Kuznetsov, P E (1989) Poltavkinskaya Kultumo-lslorischeskaya
Obshchnost’. Sverdlovsk, Institut Istorii i Arkheologii.
POPPY
*mehjc- ‘poppy (Papaver spp.)’. ( IEW 698 ( *mak(en)-)\
Wat 38 (*mak-)]. OHG maho ~ mago (< *mfi a ko- and
*ml} a k6-) ‘poppy’, OPrus moke ‘poppy’ (if not a loanword
from Slavic), OCS makQ ‘poppy’, Rus mak ‘poppy*, Grk pr\K(uv
(Doric p-Gkcov) ‘poppy’. When taken together, these forms
suggest a PIE paradigm of nom. *m£h a kdn, gen. *mfr a kn6s.
Certainly a late word of the west and center of the .IE world.
The poppy was probably employed initially for its oil which
is extracted from its seeds which may also be consumed. The
oil can be used both in food and industrially. Nevertheless,
knowledge of its use as a pain killer, where opium could be
extracted from its unripe capsules, may also be quite old.
The form of wild poppy that is predecessor to the domestic
form is Papaver setigerum, a plant generally confined to the
west Mediterranean. It is not known from early Neolithic
contexts in either the Near East nor in southeast Europe,
including Greece (where we have a cognate); Papaver is first
recorded in Macedonia in early Bronze Age (c 3000-2200
BC) contexts. Other forms of wild poppy do regularly occur
throughout Europe as crop weeds. Papaver setigerum appears
in the late Neolithic of Iberia, southern France, Italy,
Switzerland and Germany (Linear Ware culture), Poland, and
Romania (Tripolye culture). It has been presumed that it was
POST
Poppy Distribution of the wild poppy (Papaver somniferum).
first domesticated in the west Mediterranean and then spread
eastwards. Changes in the poppy which are generally asso-
ciated with domestication have been observed in remains from
both Spain and Switzerland. Opium capsules have been found
associated with Neolithic burials in Spain dating back to c
4200 BC. It has also been suggested that the shape of some of
the vessels of the Neolithic TRB culture of northern Europe
reflect the form of inverted poppy heads and they may have
been employed as special ritual serving beakers. This has not
so far been confirmed by evidence of their residue but traces
of poppy have been recovered later in the Bronze Age from
flasks from Cyprus.
See also Hemp; Henbane; Plants; Sacred Drink. [D.Q.A.,
JEM.]
Further Reading
Sherratt, A. (1991) Sacred and profane substances: The ritual use of
narcotics in later Neolithic Europe, in Sacred and Profane, eds. P
Garwood, D. Jennings, R. Skeates and J. Toms, Oxford, Oxford
University Committee for Archaeology, 50-64.
PORRIDGE
*polt- ‘pap, porridge’. [IEW 802 (*pe/-)]. OIr littiu
‘porridge, gruel’, Weis llith ‘pap, mash’, Lat puls (gen. pultis)
‘pap, porridge, mash’, Grk noXxoq ‘pap, porridge’. A probable
word in late IE of the west and center.
See also Food. [D.Q.A.]
PORTION
*h 2 / 3 dnKos ‘what is bestowed’ . [ IEW 3 1 6-3 1 8 ( *onko-s),
GI 81 8 ( *on£^o-); Wat 44 ( *nek-)] . Grk dyicoq ‘burden’, Arm
(pi.) hunjk“ harvest’, Hit henkan- ‘fate, death’, Av psa- ‘part’, .
OInd amsa- ‘portion, share’. Though sparsely attested, the
geographical distribution of those attestations strongly
suggests PIE status for this word. The underlying verb is
preserved only in Hit henkzi ‘bestows’ (cf. hinkuwar ‘offering’).
?*pp(hj)tis ‘what is distributed’. [IEW 817 ( *pf-ri-); Gl
712; Wat 50 (*pera-); Buck 13.23], Lat pars ‘part’, portio
‘portion’, OInd purta- ‘gift, granting, reward’, pQrtf- ‘granting,
rewarding, reward’. From *per(h 3 )~ ‘sell, distribute’. If these
words are not independent creations in the various stocks,
then we have good evidence of a word of PIE status.
See also Exchange. ]D. Q.A.]
POST
*lc//£s(gen. *klitds) ‘post, trimmed log’, [cf. IEW 60 1-602
( *Klei-)]. OIr c/Kgen. cleth) ‘housepost’, ON hlid ‘lattice-gate’,
OE gehlid ‘fence’ (i.e., ‘series of posts’; Gmc < *Rlitdm ), Latv
slita ‘fence of horizontal pieces of wood’, Grk (pi.) SncXiSeq
(with secondary -d- for *-t-) ‘double-posted (of doors or
gates)’, (Hesychius) (pi.) KXixa ‘cloister’ (< * ‘arcade’ < *‘series
of posts’), Waigali qI .‘ladder made from a single log’,
Yazghulami xad (< Proto-Iranian *srita- ) ‘ladder’, OInd srft-
‘ladder’. Presumably from *Klei- ‘lean’. Widespread and old
in IE.
*Ksulom ‘worked, shaped wood; post, stake’. [Buck 1.431.
Goth sauls (< Proto-Gmc *(h)sula- ) ‘pillar’ (and with new
lengthened grade: ON sul(a) ‘pillar’, OE syl ‘pillar’, OHG sQl
‘pillar’), OPrus sulis ‘stave’, Lith Sulas ‘wooden post, stave’
(dial.) Siilinis ‘well’ (< *‘made from wooden planks’), Rus Sulo
(< *kseulo~) ‘fencepost’, Grk £vAov ‘wood (ready for use),
timber, plank, bench’, £tUivo$ ‘wooden’. The underlying verb
is preserved in Grk t;va) ‘scrape, polish’. A word at least of
the west and center of the IE world.
*kroku- ~ *krdlqeh a - post’. [IEW 619 (*krek-)\ Buck
19.17]. From *kroku- : OIr cnch (< *krekijeh a ‘boundary
marker’?) ‘end, boundary’, Weis crib ‘point’, Rus krokva ‘stake’;
from krokieha - : Lith krakt ‘post’, Grk (pi.) Kpooaai
‘crenellation’. Cf. also Lith kreklas ‘rafter’. At least a word of
the west and center of the IE world.
*mlts( gen. *mit6s ) ‘stake, post’. [IEW 7 09 ( *me(i)t~)\ Wat
40 (*mei-)]. Mir methas (< *mit-ustu- ) ‘boundary marker’,
ON meidr (< *moito-) ‘post; border, boundary’, Lith mietas
‘post’, Latv miets ‘post’, Arm moyt‘ ‘pillar’, OInd mlt-
‘something erected, pillar, post’, methl- (with unexplained -
th- rather than -t-) ‘pillar’. Except for OInd m/t- we find
younger thematic derivatives of one sort or another. The
geographical distribution of these derivatives would appear
to guarantee the PIE status of this word. The underlying verb
*mei- is preserved in Latv meju ‘drive in a stake’ and OInd
minoti ‘fixes, fastens in the ground, sets up’. Lat meta ‘pyramid
structure, boundary stone’ has also been associated with this
group. If it belongs here, it might represent a *meiteh a - or it
might represent a conflation of *meiteh a - with the verb metlri
‘measure’.
*masdos post’. [IEW 701-702 ( *mazdo-s), Wat 39
( *mazdo-)\ Buck 10.87]. Mir maide (< *maite < *mazdios)
‘post’, OIr matan ‘club’, Lat malus (< *mados < *mazdos )
‘mast’, OE maest ‘mast’ (> NE mast), OHG mast ‘pole’, Lith
mastas ‘mast, pole’ Latv masts ‘mast’, Rus mostov&ja ‘plaster’.
A northwestern isogloss in late IE.
*perg- pole, post’. [IEW 819-820 ( *perg-)\ Wat 50
— 441 —
POST
(*perg-)]. Lat pergula ‘porch’, ON forkr ‘pole’, Lith pergas
‘fishing-boat, dug-out canoe’, OCS pragu ‘threshold, doorstep’,
Rus pordg ‘threshold’. Northwest dialectal isogloss in late IE.
*(s)teg- ‘pole, post’. [ IEW 1014 ( *(s)teg-)\ Wat 65
( *steg-)\ Buck 10.87; BK 135 (*f’aq-/*f’oq’-)]. Lat lignum (<
*teg-no-) ‘building materials, log, post, beam’, ON stjaki ‘post’,
OE staca ‘pole’, OHG slehho ‘club, post’, Lith stagaras ‘long
stalk’, Latv stgga ‘long stalk’, OCS stezeri ‘pivot’, Rus stozar
‘pole’. Perhaps Arm Vakn ‘club’ belongs here as well. A word
of the west and center of the IE world. This is related to the
word for ‘roof’ and perhaps we may ascribe to *(s)teg- ‘cover
with poles’ and thus presume a metonymic shift to ‘pole’ and
‘to roof’ as nominalizations of the original root.
*rehit ‘post, pole’. [IEW 866 (*ref~); Wat 54 ( *ret-)]. Late
Lat (pi.) retae ‘trees pushing out from the bank of a water-
course’, ON roda (o-grade) ‘pole, cross, holy picture’, OE rod
‘cross’, gallows’ (> NE rood), OHG ruota ‘switch, pole’, OCS
ratiste ‘spear-shaft’ (Gmc and OCS < *rohit-). Northwestern
regionalism in late IE.
*khjon-(?*kih x jjon-) ‘pillar, post’. Myc ki- wo- ‘post, pillar’,
Grk kTcdv ‘(free-standing) pillar’, Arm siwn ‘pillar’, seamk 1
(pi.) ‘doorjambs’. Distribution suggests a Greek-Armenian
isogloss of late IE. Possibly derived ultimately by laryngeal
metathesis from *kh x i-uon- which would derive from
*keh x (i)~ ‘sharpen’, i.e., a pointed pole or stake, and hence
the noun would derive from an adjectival form *7ci'7i ;r ydn-
with retraction of accent.
*stb 2 bho/eh a - 1 post, pillar’. [7EW1012-1013 (*st9bho-s)\
Wat 65 ( *stebh -)]. Mir sab (< *stfr 2 bheh a -) ‘post’, ON stafr
‘staff, OE staef ‘staff’ (> NE staff), OHG slap ‘staff, OPrus
stabis ‘stone’, Lith stabas ‘post’, Latv stabs ‘pillar’. Similar is
Lith stabaras ‘dry branch, stalk’, OCS stoboru ‘column’. A
nominalization of *steh 2 - ‘stand’. A word of the northwest of
the IE world.
*stih 2 ur (gen. *sth 2 unds~ *stuh 2 nds) ‘post’. [IEW 1009
(*stau-ro-)\ Wat 64-65 ( *sta-)\ Buck 10.86], ON staurr 1 post’,
Grk mavpoq ‘post, cross’ (ON/Grk < *steh 2 ur-o-), Shughni
sitan (< Proto-Iranian *stuna-) ‘pillar, post’, OInd sthtina-
‘pillar, post, column’; with a new full-grade we have OE steor
‘steer, guide, direct’ (> NE steer), OHG stiura ‘steering-oar;
post’. Derivatives include Arm stvar ‘thick’, OInd sthavara-
‘fixed, immovable, permanent’, sthura- ~ sthavira- ‘thick,
strong, big’. Attested as it is on the peripheries of the IE world,
this word is of PIE date. From *steh 2 u-, an enlargement of
*steh 2 - ‘stand’.
*stlneh a - 1 post, support’. [7£W 1019-1020 ( *st/-no-); Wat
66 (*stel-)}. OHG stollo ‘support’, Grk arfjXri (< *stalna )
‘pillar’. Nominalization of *stel- ‘stand’. Cf. also ON stallr
‘stand’ from PIE *stolnos. A word of the west and center of
the IE world.
*syer- ‘post, rod’. [IEW 1050 ( *suer-); Wat 68 ( *swer-)\ .
Lat surus ‘twig, shoot, stake’, OE sweor ‘post’, MHG swir
‘mooring post’, Grk eppa (< *syermy), ‘support’, OInd svaru-
‘sacrificial post, stake, long piece of wood’. Though attested
sparsely, the geographic spread of those attestations would
seem to guarantee PIE status, even though the exact PIE form
cannot be reconstructed.
*y^7sos ‘stake’. [IEW 1140-1142 (*ue/-); Wat 73
( *walso-)\ . Lat vallus ‘pole, stake; palisade’, vallum ‘rampart
set with palisades’, Grk r]Xog (Doric ctXoq) ‘nail’. The only
late attested OInd vala- ~ valaka- ‘± pole, beam’ are sometimes
also put here. Related are the Germanic words reflecting
*ualu -: ON vplr ‘round staff, OE walu ‘stripe left by a blow,
wale’ (> NE wale), MHG wal ‘staff , Goth walus ‘staff’. A word
of the west and center of the IE world.
*ghalgheh a -‘ pole, stake’. [7EW411 ( *ghalg(h )-)\ Wat 21
( *ghalgh-)]. ON galgi ‘gallows’, gelgja (< *ghalghieh a -) ‘pole,
stake’, OE gealga ‘gallows’ (> NE gallows), OHG galgo
‘gallows’, Goth galga ‘stake, cross’, Lith zalga ‘long thin pole’,
Latv zalga ‘long rod’ (borrowed from Lithuanian), ?Arm jalk
‘twig, switch, rod’ (the -7c- rather than the expected *-g- is
not well explained, perhaps < *ghalgeh a -). Certainly a word
of the northwest of the IE world, also the center if Armenian
belongs here too.
*ghasdhos rod, staff’. [IEW 412-413 ( *ghasto —
*ghazdho-)\ Wat 21 ( *ghasto-)\ Buck 20.26|. Mir gat ‘willow
withe’, Lat hasta ‘spear’, Umb hostatu ‘armed with a spear’,
ON gaddr ‘rod, goad, spike’, OE gierd ‘staff, twig, pole;
measuring rod’ (> NE yard), OHG gartia ‘pole’, gart ‘goad’,
Goth gazds ‘sting’. A word of the IE west.
*(s)kdlos ‘stake’. [7EW924 ( *(s)kolo-)\ Wat 59 (*skeI-)[.
Lith kudlas ‘pale, stake, post, pile’, Alb hell ‘spit, skewer’,
Grk cndbXoq ‘pointed stake’. A word of the center in late PIE.
From *(s)kel- ‘cut’. Similar in meaning but with a short vowel
is OCS kolu ‘stake’.
*pin- ‘± shaped wood’. [7EW 830 ( *pi-n-)\ . OHG witu-
fina ‘heap of wood’, OCS pml ‘tree trunk’, Rus pen! ‘stump’,
Grk mvcd; ‘plank, tablet’, OInd pmaka- ‘staff; bow (especially
of Rudra)’. The geographical distribution would seem to
guarantee this word’s PIE status. The agreement of the Indie
and Greek in terms of form is noteworthy. The precise meaning
of this word is difficult to establish.
*stup- ‘± off cut, piece of wood’. [IEW 1034 ( *(s)teu-p -);
GI 102], ON stufr (with new lengthened grade) ‘stump’, OE
stofn ‘trunk, stem, branch, shoot’, Latv stups ‘worn out broom’,
Grk GTVKoq ‘stick, post, pole; stalk, stem’, TochA stop (<
*stoupo-) ‘club’. Widespread and clearly old but the exact
form and meaning are elusive. From *steup- ‘strike’.
Although this semantic field is well represented with terms
of some IE or PIE antiquity, the precise meaning or even use
of many of the reconstructed proto-forms is very difficult to
recover. It has been argued that the ritual use of the Hit
sarhul(i) and cls kurakki- ‘(ritual) post’, posts by which
sacrificial offerings are deposited, finds earlier parallels in the
Neolithic cultures of the Balkans where timber and plastered
posts have been uncovered in ritual shrines in Romania.
Furthermore, the possible antecedents of Myc ki-wo ‘pillar,
post’ have also been sought in later Neolithic Greece where
there is evidence of free-standing posts in presumably ritual
contexts. However, there is no evidence that the Hittite terms
— 442 —
POT
are reflexes of PIE words and the Mycenaean word for ‘pillar’
is confined to a Greek- Armenian isogloss. Whatever similari-
ties one might wish to posit between later cultic practices
and those found during the Neolithic period rest solely on
surface similarities (of widely distributed ritual behavior) and
not on linguistic evidence.
See also House. [A.D.V, D.Q.A., J.PM.]
Further Readings
Makkay, J. (1988) Angaben zur Archaologie der Indogermanenfrage,
II-IV: II. Opferpfosten in Gebauden und Opfergaben in oder
neben Pfostenlochem. Acta Archaeologica 40, 3-16.
Waltz, Heidi (1991) Proto-Germanic plain c-stems: A case study.
JIES 19, 343-348.
POT
*h 2 em- ‘hold on to, contain’. [IEW 35 ( *am-)\ Mayrhofer
1:96] . Grk apr/ ‘waterbucket, pail’, Arm aman ‘container’, Khot
handra- (< Proto-Iran *amtra- ) ‘jar, pot’, OInd amatram ‘a
large vessel’. Perhaps Lat ampla (< *h 2 em-tleh a -) ‘handle’ also
belongs here. The Old Indie vessel is described in Vedic
literature as a deep bowl with a wide opening which served
both for drinking and eating. Certainly found in the center
and east of the IE world and in the enlarged form, *h 2 ems-,
even more widely (see ‘Handle’, ‘Reins’, ‘King’). Cf. also *h 2 em-
h a ksih a ‘wagon chassis’. However, the actually attested
derivatives look to be all independent creations in the stocks
in which they occur.
*kumbo/eh a - ‘bowl, small vessel’. [IEW 592 ( *kum-bh-)\
Wat 30-31 (*keu-)\ Buck 5.26.7]. Mlrcoim ‘pot’ (cf. MWels
cwm ‘valley’), Grk xu/i/fy ‘bowl’, Av xumba - ‘pot’, OInd
kumbha- ‘pot’. Either from *keu - ‘bend’ or a loan because of
the uncertain aspiration of the initial and the final bilabial.
The OInd kumbha- (masc.) was a jug for holding water, honey
or other fluids and occasionally might serve as an urn for the
deceased. It was employed in ritual, especially one which
involved the sympathetic drawing of water down from the
sky. The OInd kumbhf- (fern.) was similarly employed for
holding liquids. It could be covered and might also serve as
an urn.
*k w erus ‘large cooking pot, caldron’. 1 IEW 642 ( *k u er-)\
Buck 5.27.3; BK 327 (*k w [ h ]ar-/*k w [ h ]dr-)}. ON hverr
‘caldron’, OE hwer ‘pot, bowl, kettle, caldron’, OHG (h)wer
‘caldron’, OInd caru- ‘caldron’. Also, OIr coire ‘caldron’, Weis
pair ‘cauldron’ from a derivative *k w arioso r *k w po -, cf. ON
hvema ‘pot, head’; if related, TochB keru ‘drum’ is an o-grade
(i.e., *k w oru-). The underlying form is not derived from a
productive stem and the geographical separation assures PIE
status.
The Celtic terms (OIr coire , Weis pair) generally refer to a
large metal caldron and in early Irish and Welsh literature,
such a vessel plays an important part in mythology which is
replete with magic caldrons which may satisfy all and even
rejuvenate the dead. Old Norse similarly had a magic caldron
(hverr) whose acquisition by the gods is recorded in the
Hymiskvida. In general, the underlying referent is a large metal
vessel suitable for boiling or brewing. The OInd caru- was a
cooking vessel that might be made out of metal ( ayas -) or of
clay. Since the word appears to be PIE, it is easiest to assume
that the ascription to a specifically metal caldron was a later
semantic development made in western Europe. Here, from
the later Bronze Age, i.e., c 1200 BC onwards, we find the
production of bronze caldrons from central Europe to Britain
and Ireland. An alternative possibility is that the term referred
to a metal caldron already by late PIE. Bronze caldrons are
known, for example, from the Maykop culture of the north
Caucasus dating from the period c 3000 BC. One of these
had an estimated capacity of seventy liters.
*pel(hl)euis ‘container’. [IEW 804 ( *peI-otji-)\ Wat 48
( *pel-owi-)\ BK 54 ( *p[ b ]al-/*p[ b ]ol-)] . Lat pelvis ‘basin’, OInd
palavi- ‘pot’; related are ON full ‘goblet’, OE full ‘goblet’, Grk
neXXa ‘milk-can’. From *pel- ‘hide’ or *pelh}- ‘fill’. The
unusual formation, an i-stern derivative of a u-extension, and
the geographical separation assure PIE status.
*pdthaf (gen. *p e tbands) shallow dish’. [IEW 824-825
(*pet-)\ Buck 5.28; BK 38 (*p[ h ]at[ b j-/*p( h j9t[ h ]-)). OIr an
‘drinking vessel’, Grk kgct&vt] bowl, flat dish’ (borrowed >
Lat patera ‘low bowl, saucer, libation-bowl’, patina ‘broad,
shallow dish, stewpan’), Hit Gls pattar'± dish; vessel made of
ossiers or wood used for holding dry material but not liquids’.
The archaic morphology (i.e., the remains of an r/n-stem)
strongly suggest PIE antiquity for this word. From *peth a -
‘spread out’.
*teEsteh a - ‘plate, bowl’. [IEW 1058 ( *tekp-ta-)\ GI 611
( *t h ek h s-)\ Buck 5.35.7; BK 91 (*tl h ]ak[ h J-/*tl h ]9k[ h J)\. Lat
testa ‘plate, pot’, Av tasta- ‘cup’. From *tek-s- ‘hew, fashion
from wood’. The geographical separation suggests PIE status.
*h 2 #uk w - ‘cooking vessel’. [IEW 88 ( *uequ(h)-)\ Gl 613;
Buck 5.25.2, 5.26.2]. With older, marginal *k w > *p : ON
ofn ‘oven’, OE ofnet ‘closed pot’, ofen ‘furnace’ (> NE oven),
OHG ofan ‘oven’, OPrus wumpnis(< *up-ni-w ith anticipatory
nasal) ‘bake-oven’, Myc i-po-no ‘cooking bowl’, Grk i/rvog
‘oven’, Hit huppar(a)- ‘bowl, pot, keg’ (also a unit of measure).
With innovative delabialization after [u] . Lat aulla ‘pot’, Goth
auhns ‘oven’, Arm akut' ‘hearth’, OInd ukha- ‘cooking pot’.
A very old PIE construction with a delabialized variant of
*h2/3uk~.
The OInd ukha- (masc.) and ukha- (fern.) were clearly
some form of boiler and in the feminine form, one of the
most frequently cited ritual vessels in Vedic religion. As such
it was specifically hand-made rather than wheel-made which
attests to its antiquity (wheel-made vessels, such as those
produced by the earlier Harappan culture, were regarded as
‘demon-made’ and unsuitable for Vedic ritual). The manu-
facture of vessels for sacrifices was attended by considerable
ritual. From abundant descriptions in later Vedic literature
the vessel was generally round with a flat bottom although
occasionally described as nine-cornered. It was built up from
three or five clay strips and had a base-diameter of about 24
cm and stood between 24 and 40 cm high with a mouth
— 443 —
POT
anywhere from 24 to 120 cm wide. It was employed in
conveying fire.
*bhidh- ‘large pot’. [IEW 153 ( *bhidh-)\ G1 23 ( *b h id h -)] .
Lat fidelia ‘earthenware pot’, Nice bida ‘small tub’. Grk m 6 og
‘jar’, although sometimes compared, is unrelated since the
earliest Greek form, Myc qe-to, indicates an initial labio-velar.
The distribution suggests a western word, possibly based on
*bheidh- ‘bend’, referring to basketry or coiled pottery
techniques.
*poh 3 tlom ‘drinking vessel’. [IEW 840 (*po-tIo-m)\ Buck
5.31.7, 5.35.2,7; BK 40 ( *p[ h ] a-/* p[ h ]o-)[ . Lat poculum ‘cup’,
OInd patra- ‘drinking vessel’. From *peh3~ ‘drink’. Although
geographical separation is good, the construction is common-
place. The OInd patra- was made of clay and might serve
either as a pot or a dish where it might also provide a covering
for another vessel. While it could be drunk from it might also
be employed in conveying fire. The word could also be used
to designate the spout of a vessel.
*kelp- ‘jug, pot’. [IEW 555 (*kelp-)]. OIr cilorn (<
*keIpumo- ) ‘pitcher’, Weis celwm ‘milk can’, Grk xdXmg ~
KaXnri ‘jug, (water) pitcher’ (borrowed via Oscan or Etruscan
> Lat calpar ‘wine bowl’). The Old Irish word is glossed in
Latin as a situla ‘bucket’ or urceus ‘pitcher, water pot’ and is
described as made either of bronze or yew. The Greek xdXmg
was a (ceramic) water pitcher; it was also used for drawing
lots and as an urn. It has been suggested that the IE word
may derive from Semitic, e.g., Akkadian karpu ‘recipient’,
but this seems very distant. OInd karpara- ‘cup, pot’ is
sometimes set here but it is better associated with OHG scirbi
‘sherd’, OPrus kerpetis ‘skull’, OCS crepl ‘sherd’ from PIE
*(s)kerp-, an extension of *(s)ker- ‘cut’. If Old Indie does not
belong here then a word of the west and center of the IE
world. If karpara- is a cognate, then we have evidence of a
word of greater antiquity.
?*kVlVK- ‘cup, drinking vessel’. [IEW 550 ( *kel-)\ Buck
5.35.1]. Lat calix'c up, goblet’, Grk kvXiZ,' cup’, OInd kalasa-
‘pot, pitcher’. Possibly a Near Eastern loan because of the
uncertain vowels and syllable structure.
?*kuh x p- ‘water vessel’. [IEW 591 ( *keu-p-)\ Wat 30
( *keu-)\ GI 27; Buck 5.26.7, 5.35.1], Lat cupa ‘cask’, Grk
KV7iEXXov‘cup', cf. ON hufr' hull of a ship’, OE hyf 1 beehive’
(> NE hive), OInd kdpa- ‘hole’. From *keu(h x )- ‘curve’. The
geographical confinement and banal semantics makes PIE
status unlikely. Many vessel names are found with an initial
*ku~.
?*le/ok- ‘dish’. [IEW 308 ( *el-£q-)] . Lat lanx ‘plate, platter,
dish’, OCS lakutu ‘earthenware jug’, Grk Xexdvri ‘dish, plate,
pot, pan’. The Latin word may be borrowed from the Greek
whose own formation contains the same suffix as naxdvr]
‘bowl’. It is not altogether certain that the Slavic and Greek
words belong together. If so, we have evidence for a word of
the center of the IE world.
?*bhel- ‘pot’. [IEW 121 {*bhel-)\ Wat 6-7 (*bhel-)\. OIr
ballan ‘drinking vessel’, ON bolli ‘offering cup’, OE bolla' pot’
(> NE bowl)- At best a Celtic-Germanic isogloss but the Irish
form may be borrowed from Old Norse.
?*(s)pondh(n)os ‘wooden vessel’. [IEW 989
( *(s)pondho -)]. ON spann ‘pail’, MHG span ‘wooden vessel’,
MDutch spaen ~ span ‘wooden pail’ (Gmc < *spondhnosl ) ,
Lith spandis ‘pail’, La tv spa(n)nis ‘pail, a kind of wooden
honey-container’, OCS spodu ‘measure (of grain)’, Arm p'und
(< *phondho-) ‘pot’. It is not certain that the words gathered
here all belong together (the Germanic words might otherwise
be grouped with OE spann ‘span’ for instance). If they do, we
have evidence for a word of the west and center of the IE
world.
*??*gh(e)utreh a - '± pot’. Thracian ^expccia 'pot' , Grk^ur pa
‘pot’. So little is known about Thracian that we cannot be
certain that the attested Thracian word would be the regular
descendant of the proposed PIE pre-form. In any case, the
divergence in ablaut grade (Thracian presupposing *-eu- and
Grk *-u~) makes it clear that if the two are related, the relation-
ship rests on the basis of inherited morphological elements
rather than mutual inheritance of a particular PIE word.
Ceramic terms in the Indo-European languages were highly
susceptible to borrowing, especially in the Mediterranean.
There are, for example, words which have long been
recognized as loans from non-Indo-European populations in
the Near East into individual Indo-European languages, e g.,
Hebrew kad ‘bucket’ and Grk xdSoq ‘large vessel’, Lat cadus
‘large vessel, wine-jar, jug’, OCS kadi ‘cask, barrel, tub’
(dialectally also ‘a measure for grain’), which suggests pro-
gressive loans across the Mediterranean and northwards.
These may date from the first millennium BC when Phoenician
traders dominated much of the Mediterranean exchange
routes and were in contact with Greeks through their colonies
in Cyprus and Sicily. Possibly the loans date to an earlier period
as there is also evidence for exchange between Greece, Crete
and the Levantine coast in the later Bronze Age, i.e., in the
mid second millennium BC. These loans may then have
penetrated northward via the Greek colonies in the west
Mediterranean who were in contact with the Celts of southern
France (who acquired both wine and the vessels associated
with its consumption from the classical world) or later by
way of the Roman expansion across Europe. In some cases
the chain of loans may begin with an Indo-European language:
Grk dp<pop£vq ‘wine jug’ was borrowed into Latin amphora
‘two-handled vessel, pitcher’, and then on into Germanic, e g.,
OE amber ‘vessel, pail, tankard, pitcher’ (a dry or liquid
measure [= four bushelsl?), OHG ambar ‘pail, vessel’. Finally,
there are the terms listed above that appear to have some
antiquity in Indo-European.
Archaeological Evidence
The production of ceramics in southwest Asia began c 7000
BC and they are known in adjacent territories such as Greece
from c 6500 BC and by the sixth millennium BC pottery begins
to appear both north of the Black Sea and in Baluchistan.
Ceramic technology crossed Europe with the spread of farming
communities and reached the far northwest c 4000 BC. The
— 444 —
POT
POT
terms for ceramics then have a lower date of about the seventh
millennium or more recent, depending on the location of the
Proto-Indo-Europeans or, possibly, the communities from
whom some Indo-European groups adopted ceramic terms.
That the etymology of some of the terms for vessels may be
associated with organic containers, e.g., *bhidh- perhaps from
basketry, *pel(hj)euis possibly from a skin container, or
*teksteh a - from wood, occasions no surprise since all these
materials were employed prior to the invention of clay-fired
pottery. It should be emphasized though that containers made
of organic materials do not necessarily relate to the invention
or initial contact with ceramics by Indo-Europeans since such
containers were also used concurrently with ceramic vessels
throughout the Neolithic and on into subsequent periods.
Their use is archaeologically evident in areas permitting the
preservation of organic remains such as the Swiss lakeside
settlements of the Neolithic that have yielded abundant
evidence of vessels ranging from large oak tubs to smaller
birch-bark cups. A large domestic industry of organic
containers can be assumed to have existed across Eurasia. In
a few instances regions that previously employed ceramic
vessels appear to have abandoned them, e.g., Ireland where
clay vessels seem to disappear by the Iron Age and other than
very rare imports, the only clay vessels known from the early
medieval period, the time of our earliest Irish texts, were
confined to the northeast of the island. Hence the Irish terms
for vessels are usually in reference to those made of either
wood or metal which suggests a later semantic shift, cf. the
Germanic and Celtic terms associated with *k w erus which
generally relate to metal caldrons of the late Bronze Age (c
1200 BC or later) rather than ceramic vessels. There are also
a series of terms that refer to both vessels and the human
skull, e.g., Latin cuppa ‘beaker’ but MHG kopf~ koph ‘skull’,
or ON hverr ‘caldron’ but Goth tvaimei ‘skull’.
Any attempt to utilize the lexical evidence to support a
particular homeland theory rests at best on exceedingly
contestable evidence. In terms of ceramic form and technology,
those words that appear to be the most strongly attested
generally offer semantic fields too vague for archaeological
identification, e.g., ‘container’ or ‘bowl’. Broadly speaking,
early Neolithic ceramic production in both southwest Asia
and the Balkans employed both coarseware vessels and fine
painted pottery. The Indo-European vocabulary does not
directly permit the reconstruction of painted vessels (nor
would we expect the survival of such terms even if they did
exist). The only argument for such wares rests most tenuously
on Wilhelm Schulze’s observation of the parallel structure of
the Tocharian tsekesi pekesi pat arampat : Latin ficta sive picta
forma both of which would render: ‘beauty (or form) either
fashioned or painted’. The combination of ‘fashion and paint’
(which in the Tocharian text specifically referred to an object
carved from wood) led Julius Pokorny to assume that this
rhyming formula originated with painted pottery (fashioned
from clay and then painted) and, therefore, the Tocharians
must themselves have originated in the vicinity of the Romans
and gained their knowledge of painted pottery from the Linear
Ware culture of Moravia and Bohemia (painted ceramics can
be found from Italy to the Dnieper). This concatenation of
assumptions impresses no one.
Although some have sought to situate the lE-homeland in
southwest Asia, in so far as ceramic terminology is concerned,
the only deep Indo-European-Semitic correspondence (as
opposed to late Mediterranean loanwords) argued is *neh a us
‘vessel, ship’, and Proto-Semitic *’unw-(at~) ‘pottery vessel’
which also yields words for boats in the Semitic languages.
Given the antiquity of boats within Eurasia, the dissimilarity
of the roots compared, the semantic distance between the
terms, and the fact that the IE form can be derived from a PIE
verbal root for ‘swim’, this “borrowing” is hardly convincing.
GI have also suggested that PIE society knew wheel-made
pottery. While it is clear that the early Indo-Europeans did
know the wheel, there is no certain indication that it was
applied to the manufacture of ceramics. The slow wheel begins
to appear at the beginning of the Bronze Age, i.e., c 3300 BC,
in southwest Asia and southeast Europe (as well as Mesopo-
tamia). Of interest here perhaps is the fact that the Harappan
culture did engage in the mass production of vessels using
the wheel while the OInd ukha- ‘cooking pot’, which was
important in Vedic ritual, was required to he made by hand
rather than by wheel. This requirement suggests, at least, that
the early Indians inherited a tradition of hand-made wares
and regarded wheel-made pottery as foreign.
See also Basket. [M.E.H., J.PM.)
Further Readings
Pokorny, J. (1949) Die Trager der Kulture der Jungsteinzeit und die
Indogermanenfrage, in Urgeschichte der Schweiz, ed O Tschurru,
Frauenfeld, Huber, 689-693.
Rau, W. (1972) Topferei und Tongeschirr im vedischen Indien.
Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, 1972,
10, 428-496.
Schulze, W (1921) Tocharisch tseke peke. Sitzungsbericht der
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften ( BSB ) 1921, 293-
297.
POTAPOVKA CULTURE
Recently discovered and defined Bronze Age culture (c
2500-2000 BC) of the middle Volga, the Potapovka culture
straddles the cultural traditions of both the European steppe
and that of the southern Urals and western Kazakhstan. It is
known from eleven kurgans (tumuli) comprising some eighty
burials. The kurgans measure some 24 to 30 m in diameter
and stand up to a half-meter in height. A typical feature is a
large central burial chamber or chambers surrounded by
smaller peripheral graves. Offerings such as the remains of
horses, cattle, sheep/goat and dog may be found near the
central burial complex. One of the most unusual ritual displays
is found in one of the burials at Potapovka where an individual
was apparently decapitated and his head replaced by that of
a horse skull, a practice that has been claimed to be remini-
— 446 —
POTAPOVKA CULTURE
scent of the Vedic account of how the ASvins replaced the
head of the priest Dadhyaftc Atharvana with that of a horse
so that he could reveal the secret of the sacred drink.
The possible remains of wheels or wheeled vehicles have
also been observed. Grave goods Consist of decorated pottery,
metal objects (twenty-one knives have been recovered along
with a variety of chisels, awls, hooks and other tools); bronze
ornaments such as bracelets, beads and rings are also known
and, much more rarely, are found small ornaments of silver
and gold. Flint arrowheads constitute the major category of
stone artifact while the culture is especially marked by the
presence of bone cheek-pieces ( psalia ) for controlling horses.
The Potapovka culture bears many close similarities
(ceramics, burial ritual, animal sacrifices, cheek-pieces) with
more easterly cultures such as Sintashta and the Petrovka
phase (or culture) of the Andronovo culture. Similarities are
also seen between the Potapovka and Abashevo culture. Geo-
graphically, the Potapovka culture fills out the northern
territory of the Poltavka culture and it is suggested that its
genetic roots lie within the Poltavka with influences derived
from the Abashevo and other neighboring cultures. That it is
not derived from a more easterly source is argued both by the
lack of a local ancestry for the Sintashta and earliest Andronovo
cultures in their home region while the Potapovka culture
occupies a region with a long genetic chain leading back to
the Khvalynsk and Samara cultures. If this hypothesis is
accepted, then there is good reason to argue a cultural
trajectory moving from west to east which explains the
Potapovka a. Distribution of the Potapovka culture
POTAPOVKA CULTURE
emergence of the Andronovo culture, one of the primary
candidates for the earliest Indo-Iranians.
See also Abashevo Culture; Andronovo Culture;
Poltavka Culture; Sintashta. [J.PM.]
Further Reading
Vasilyev, I. B., P F Kuznetsov and A. R Semenova (1995) Pamyatniki
Potapovskogo tipa v lesostepnom Povolzh’e, in Drevniye Indo-
iranskiye Kul'tury Volgo-Ural’ya (II tys. do n.e.). Samara, Institut
Historii i Arkheologii Povolzh’ya, 5-37.
POUR
*gheu - ‘pour’. [IEW 447-448 ( *gheu-)\ Wat 22-23
( *gheu-)\ Buck 9.35]. Lat futis ‘water- vessel, pitcher’, Grk
%e(p)m ‘pour’. Arm joyl (< *gheu-lo- ) ‘poured’, Av zaoOra-
‘libation’, zaotar- ‘priest, one who performs a sacrifice’, OInd
juhdti (with reduplicated present) ‘sacrifices, pours a libation
(of butter) into the fire’, hotar- ‘priest, one who performs a
libation’, TochAB ku- ‘pour’, TochB kwalfle ‘libation’. Suffi-
ciently widespread in its geographical attestation to be assured
of PIE status. The religious associations round this verb in
Indo-Iranian are striking.
*gheud- ‘pour’. [7EW 448 ( *gheud-)\ Wat 22-23
( *gheu-)\ Buck 9.35]. Lat fundo ‘pour’, ON gjota ‘throw
(young)’, OE geotan ‘pour, flow’, OHG giozzan ‘pour, flow’,
Goth giutan ‘pour, flow’. An enlargement of the previous word,
found only in the west.
*seik- ‘pour out; overflow’. [IEW 893-894 ( ^sei/^-); Wat
56 ( *seik w -)\ . Olr silid ‘flows, let flows’, Lat siat (crossed with
meare ) ‘urinates’ (baby-talk), ON slga ‘glide down or forward’,
OE slgan ‘sink’, seon ‘filter, strain, trickle’ (> NE sye ), OHG
sihan ‘filter, strain’, Grk iKpa^co ‘strain, filter’, hcpaivo)
‘moisten’, Av hicaiti ‘sprinkles, pours out’, OInd sificati
‘sprinkles, pours out’, TochA sik- ‘overflow’. It is not clear
that the Old Irish form belongs here and the shape of the
Latin form is unexpected although its affective meaning,
especially in children’s language, may explain its peculiarities.
The wide geographical spread of the reflexes of this word
supports reconstruction to PIE.
*leh 2 - ‘pour, wet, make flow*. [BK 582 ( *lah-/*hh-)\ . Lat
lama ‘bog, slough’ (< * ‘flooded over area’), Grk Xrjvog (Doric
XGvoq) ‘tub, trough (for watering animals), wine-vat’, Hit
lahhuzi ‘overflows (intr.); pours (liquids, salts, intangibles);
empties (a container) (tr.)’, lahni- ‘bottle, pitcher’, TochB lane
‘flood’. Perhaps Lat lamina (pi.) ‘thin slices, layers, leaves’
belongs here too if the original meaning was ‘varves’ (i.e.,
thin layers of sediment laid down by periodic flooding). The
geographical distribution of the attestations of this verb assures
its antiquity in IE.
See also Draw (water); Flow; Libation; Pot;
Sprinkle. [M.N., D.Q.A.]
POWERFUL
*Eouhiros~ *kuhiros ‘powerful’. [7EW592-593; ( *Eoya-
ro-s); Buck 4.81]. From *kouh iros. Olr coraid ( DIL cora(i)d)
‘heroes’, Weis cawr ‘giant’; from *kuhiros : Thracian lovpa-
(in proper names), Grk KVpiog (< an unattested *Kvpoq)
‘having power’, Av sura- ‘hero’, OInd savlra- ‘strong’, sura-
‘hero’. Derivatives, quite possibly independent in Celtic and
the southeast of *Kouhif (gen. *kuhiros ) ‘power’, itself a
derivative of *keuhi- ‘swell (with power)’.
[E.C.P]
PRAGUE CULTURE
The Prague culture is the northwestern variant of the
Prague-Penkov-Kolochin complex of the fifth-seventh
centuries AD. The Prague culture extended up the Vistula
and Elbe, thus occupying the former Czechoslovakia, eastern
Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary and the Ukraine.
Approximately five hundred sites are known. These include
open settlements consisting of twenty to thirty houses, some-
times divided into clusters of houses that have been inter-
preted as the residential units of extended families. Large
fortified sites are also known. Houses tend to be of small
dimension and frequently include a stone built oven. Burial
was by cremation in an urn or simple pit and either in a flat
grave or under a tumulus. The cemeteries vary in size from
several graves to two-thousand burials. The burials have been
found to occur in small groups, again suggesting that the
— 448 —
PRAY
extended family was the basic social unit. The culture probably
represents the archaeological expression of the early (western?)
Slavic group although some see it as the primary archaeological
expression of late Common Slavic speakers.
See also Kolochin Culture; Penkov Culture; Slavic
Languages. Q.PM.]
Further Reading
Rusanova, 1. P. (1976) Slavyanskie Drevnosti VI-VII w. Moscow,
Nauka.
PRAISE
*hierk w - ‘praise’. [/EW340 ( *erk u -)\ Wat 17 {*erk w -)\ GI
822], Olr ere ‘heaven’, Arm erg ‘song’, Olnd arcati ‘praises’,
Hit arkuwai- ‘explain, answer’. Cf. *hierk w os ‘song of praise’:
Arm erg ‘song’, Oss aryaw ‘tale’, Olnd arka- ‘song’, TochA
yark ‘honor’, TochB yarke ‘honor’. Widespread and clearly of
PIE date. It is suggested that the Middle Iranian form *arga-
was borrowed into Finno-Ugric, e g., Xanty aroy‘ song’.
*hjeug w h- ‘speak solemnly’ (pres. *h}6ug w hetor, aorist
*h^ug w hto) [IEW 348 {*euefh-)\ Wat 74 ( *weg w h - ~
*eug w h -); Gl 705 (*Heug^VHweg^°-)]. Grk evyopai ‘pray
(for); vaunt’, evkto<; ‘fame’, evkto ‘asked’, Lydian ow- ‘±
proclaim’, Av aojaite ‘says, pronounces’, aoxta ‘said’, Olnd
ohate ‘they praise’, ohas- ‘praise’. Arm uzem ‘wish’, y-uzem
‘seek’ look like they should belong to this group on the basis
of their meaning but offer phonological difficulties (Arm -z-
should reflect PIE *-gh-). The correspondence between the
athematic aorist in both Greek and Avestan alongside the more
usual thematic formation has argued for the high antiquity of
this word which is presumed to have been part of the religious
vocabulary of the Indo-Europeans. The distribution of
cognates suggests that it is at least late PIE.
*ueg w h- ‘speak solemnly’. [ IEW 348 (*ye < g y h-); Wat 74
( *weg w h -); Gl 705 ( *Heug ho -/FIweg? }0 -)]. Lat voveo ‘vow,
promise solemnly, consecrate’, Arm gog ‘say’, Olnd vaghat-
‘sacrificer, supplicant, institutor of a sacrifice’. The geographic-
al distributions of the three attestations would seem to
guarantee a PIE date for this word. It is usually, and probably
rightly, connected with the previous word but the details of
'that connection are not altogether clear. If it were a different
word, then it becomes attractive to add here Hit huek-
‘conjure, treat by incantation’. In that case we would
reconstruct a PIE *h2/3ueg w h-.
*g w erhx- ‘praise’. [7EW478 ( *^er(?)-)- Wat 25 ( *g w ero-)\
BK 364 ( *q w ur-/*q’ w or-)\ . Olr hard ‘bard’, Weis hardd ‘bard’,
OPrus gimveUpraise’, Lith giriu ‘praise’, Latv dzirties ‘praise’,
Alb gershas ‘invite to a marriage’, Grk yrjpvg ‘voice’, Av gar-
‘praise’, Olnd gfnati ‘sings, praises’. Cf. Lat gratus ‘thankful’,
(pi.) grates ‘thanks’, Lith girtas ‘praised’, Olnd gurta-
‘welcome’. Distribution clearly indicates PIE status.
*kar ‘praise loudly’. [IEW 530-531 ( *kar-)\ Wat 27
( *kar-)\ Gl 176-177 ( *k h erH-)} . ON hernia ‘report’, OE hrep
‘fame’, OHG (h)rdd ‘fame’, hruom ‘fame’, Goth hrdpeigs
‘famous’, OPrus kirdlt ‘hear’, Lith ap-kerdziu ‘announce’, Grk
KapKaipco ‘quake’, Av carokora- ‘praise’, Olnd carkarti
‘praises’. Distribution indicates PIE status.
*steu- ‘praise’. [IEW 1035 ( *steu-)\ . Grk arevrai ‘make a
gesture or show of (doing something), promise, engage
oneself, or threaten (to do something)’ (< Upraise oneself’),
Av staoiti ‘praises’, Olnd stauti ‘praises’. Distribution suggests
a late IE isogloss of the southeast.
See also Poet; Poetry; Pray; Sing; Speak. [D.Q.A.]
PRAY
*meldh- ‘pray, speak words to a deity’. [IEW 722
( *meldh-)\ Wat 40 (*meldh-)\ GI 703-704 ( *meld h -)\ Buck
22.17], OE meld(i)an ‘announce, declare, proclaim, reveal’,
OHG meldon ‘report’ (borrowed > NE me/d), Lith meldziu
‘pray’, malda ‘prayer’, OCS moljp ‘pray’, Czech modla ‘idol,
temple’, Arm malt'em ‘pray’, Hit malda(i)- ‘pray, invoke’,
maldessar ‘prayer, invocation’. Widespread and old in IE.
*g w hedh- ‘ask, pray’ (pres. * g w h6dhie/o-) [ IEW 488
{*g?hedh-)\ Wat 25 ( *g w hedh-)\ Buck 22.17]. Olr guidid (<
*g w hedhie/o-) ‘asks, prays’, Weis gweddi ‘prayer’, Grk
(Hesychius) OeoaacrGai ‘ask, pray’ (cf. the denominative
nodeco ‘yearn for, long for’ from noGoq ’longing, yearning,
regret [for something absent]’), Av jaiSyemi ‘ask, pray’, OPers
jadiyami ‘ask, pray’. Probably belonging here are ON bidja
— 449 —
PRAY
‘ask, pray’, OE biddan ‘ask, pray’ (> NE bid), OHG bitten
‘ask, pray’, Goth bid(j)an ‘ask, pray’, as long as it is possible
that PIE *g w h- before front vowels can be reflected by Gmc
b-. Representing other present formations we have Lith
gedauju ‘desire’, OCS zpzdp ‘desire’. Widespread and old in
IE.
*hi/^er- ‘ask the gods, consult an oracle’. [IEW 781
( *<5r-); Wat 46 ( *or-); G1 703 ( *or-)\ Buck 22.l1). Lat ord (<
*hi/ 4 dr-eh a -ie/o-) ‘address, solicit (the gods)’, draculum
‘oracle’ (< *ora-tlom ‘place of soliciting the gods’), Osc urust
‘he pleaded’, Hit ariya- ~ arai- ‘consult an oracle, determine
by oracle’. Sometimes put here is the ambiguous OInd dryati ,
if it means ‘praises’, but it is more likely to mean ‘acknowledges
(as lord)’ and be derived from arya-. Perhaps a bit more
plausible a connection is that with Rus oru ‘cry out’. Though
found certainly in only two stocks, their geographical
distribution would seem to assure PIE status for this word.
*ti 2 eru- ‘± pray, curse’. [G1 703 (*arw-) ]. Grk apdopai
‘pray, vow; call down curses’, app ‘prayer (for evil), curse;
ruin, mischief’, (Arcadian) Kazapfog ‘accursed’, Luv hlrut-
(< Proto-Anatolian *h 2 erut -) ‘curse’. Though only attested in
two stocks, the word is very likely to be old in IE.
*telhx- *± pray’- [GI 708] . ON pylja ‘murmur; recite a poem’,
pul ‘string of words’, pulr{< *tlhxbs) ‘wiseman, sage, sayer
of sacred rituals’, OE pyle ‘orator, speaker, jester’ (< *tjh x i -),
Hit talliya- (< *tolhxei + later -iya-l) ‘appeal to a god for help’.
Though sparsely attested, the agreement of Germanic and
Hittite would seem to assure PIE status for this word.
The structure of the earliest attested IE prayers follows a
formulaic pattern of 1) invocation, the addressing of the deity
whose assistance is requested; 2) basis, the justification for
why the deity should either be honored or interested in
assisting; and 3) the request, the expression of the desired
action, often given with an imperative verb at the end. For
example, in Hittite, the fourteenth-century king Mursilis II
prays: ‘O Sungoddess of Arinna, my lady [invocation!, the
neighboring enemy lands which called me child... now try to
take your borders [basis] , so smite those enemy lands before
me [request]’. Similarly, the Roman author Cato ( Agricultura
132 1) prays: ‘Juppiter Dapalis [invocation], because it is
fitting that a cup of wine be. offered you in sacrifice at my
house by my family, for this reason thus [basis], be honored
hy this sacrifice which is about to be made [request]’. In the
Iliad (3. 298-301) a similar structure is evident when the Greek
troops pray: ‘Zeus, most glorious, greatest, and the other
immortal gods [invocation], whichever first violates the oaths
[basis] , may his and his children’s brains pour to the ground
[request]...’.
See also Ask, Sing. [D.Q.A., J PM.]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, University of Miami, 499-507.
Justus, C. F. (1993) Dislocated imperatives in the Indo-European
prayer. Word 44, 273-294.
Polome, E. C. (1975) Old Norse religious terminology in Indo-
European perspective, in The Nordic Languages and Modern
Linguistics, 2, Stockholm, 654-665.
PREPARE
*sep- ‘handle (skillfully), hold (reverently)'. \1EW 909
(*sep-); Gl 728 ( *sep h -)\ Wat 58 (*sep-)\. Grk end) ‘serve,
prepare’, peOenco ~ expend) ‘manage [horses]', Av hap- ‘hold’,
Olnd sapati ‘touches, handles, caresses; venerates', sapti- ‘team
of horses’. A derivative *sepelie/o- is seen in Lat sepelid ‘bury’
(as opposed to cremate), sepulcrum ‘tomb’, Olnd saparyah
‘honors, upholds’.
*kmeh a - ‘made, prepared’. \IEW 557 (*Ecm(b»; cf. Wat
29 ( *kem9-)\ Buck 9.13]. Grk -Kprfzoq 'made, worked’ (e g.,
dvSpoKppzog ‘man-made’), Olnd samita- ‘prepared’. From
*k emh a - ‘become tired’ (intrans ), ‘work’ (trans ). As it is
attested only in Greek and Old Indie, it may be a late IE
iso gloss.
See also Death; Put in Order. [M.N ., D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Vine, B. (1988) Greek ento and Indo-European *sep-. IFdS, 52-61.
PRESS
*prem- ‘press down or back’. [VW 390] . Lat premcre ‘press
down, press upon, squeeze’, TochB pram- ‘± restrain, hold
back’. Not widely attested but the geographical distribution
of those attestations would strongly suggest PIE status for the
word.
*gem- ‘press, squeeze together, squeeze’. [IEW 368-369
( *gem-)\ BK 278 (*k’um-/*k'om-)\. Mir gemel ‘fetters’, Umb
gomia ‘pregnant’, OE cuml - cumul ‘swelling, wound’, Lith
gumstu ‘seize, grasp’, OCS zimp ‘press’, Rus gomola ‘lump,
heap’, Grk yepco 1 am full’, Arm cmlem ‘press together’. A word
of the west and center of the IE world
?*mak- press’. [IEW 698 (*mak-)\ Wat 38 Wmag-)\ BK
548 (*mak’-/*m9k’-)]. Lat macero ‘tenderize by mannation’,
Latv makt ‘oppress, depress’, Czech mackati ‘press, squeeze’
Attested only in three western and central stocks, and there
with clearly divergent meanings. It is possible that it is a variant
of *mag- ‘work with hands, form, shape’ but, if so, it is both
phonologically ( *-k - rather than *-g~) and semantically
divergent.
*menk- press’. [IEW 730-731 ( *men(a)k-)\. ON mengja
‘mingle, mix, blend’, OE mengan ‘mix’, OHG mengen ‘mix’,
Lith minkyti knead, touch’, OCS mpkukQ ‘soft, delicate’, Grk
pdaoto ‘knead’, Olnd macate ‘bruises, crushes’. The Greek
form could derive from this root or *mak-\ the Old Indie is
not attested in texts but only in a list of verbs. Possibly related
to *mak- above.
*bhrak- ‘squeeze together, make firm’ (pres. *bhrakie/o-)
[IEV / 1 10-111 {*bharek“-)\ Wat 9 {*bhrck w -)\. Mir bare
‘storm, fury’, Lat farcid ‘feed, fatten’, fartus(< *farctus) ‘thick’,
Grk tppdcGO) ‘fill quite full, close, push together, make a fence
around, defend’, tppaKzoq ‘closed’, TochA prakar firm’, TochB
— 450
PRIEST
prakre ‘firm’. Sufficiently widespread to be a good candidate
for PIE status despite certain phonological difficulties ( *bhrak-
or *bhrp a kd) .
*treud- ‘thrust, press’ (pres. *tr£ude/o~). [IEW 1095-1096
( *tr-eu-d-)\ Wat 72 ( *treud-)- BK 1 10 ( *t[ h ]ur-/*t[ h ]or -)] . OIr
trom (< *trud-smo-) ‘oppressive’, Lat trudd ‘thrust, push
away’, ON prjota ‘tire’, OE (a-)preotah ‘tire, become
disagreeable’, OHG ar-driozan ~ bi-driozan ‘oppress, trouble’,
Goth us-priutan ‘bother, persecute’, OCS trudV trouble’, truditi
sp ‘exert oneself’, Alb tredh ‘castrate’. At least a word of the
west and center of the IE world.
*kem~ ‘± press together’. [IEW 555 ( *kem-)\ Wat 29
( *kem-)\ BK 202 ( *tf[ h jim-/*tj[ h Jem-)] . ON hemja ‘restrain’,
ME hamp(e)ren ‘hamper’, OPrus kumpinna ‘hinder’, Lith
kamuoti ‘press together’, Latv kamuot ‘torment’, Rus komlti
‘press into a ball’, Grk Kcbpog ‘band of revelers, festival
procession’, Arm k‘amel ‘press, squeeze, filter’. At least a word
of the west and center of the IE world.
*gen- ‘± compress’. [IEW 370-373 (*gen-)\ Wat 19
(*gen-); BK 311 (*k’un-/*k’on-)]. A “pseudo-root” of sorts
which, enlarged, gives a large number of at least semi-
onomatopoetic verbs, principally in Germanic but sometimes
also to be found in neighboring stocks. Attested both in
Germanic and outside of it are: (1) *gneu- in ON knyja
‘squeeze, strike’, OE cnu(w)ian ‘pound in a mortar’, cneowian
‘copulate’, SC gnjaviti ‘squeeze’; (2) *gneug- in OE cnocian ~
cnucian ‘knock, pound in a mortar’ (> NE knock), Lith
gniauziu ‘squeeze something tight in the hand’; (3) *gneibh-
in ON kneif a kind of pincers, knlfr ‘knife’, OE cnif‘ knife’ (>
NE knife), Lith gnybu ~ gnaibau ‘pinch (with fingers or
pincers)’. Similar is the case of *ken- in *kneug/k- [IEW 558-
559 ( *ken-), Wat 29 ( *ken-)\ in OIr cnocc ‘lump, ball’, OBret
cnoch ‘tumulus’, ON hnuka ‘sit cowering’, OE hnocc ‘penis’,
Latv knaupis ‘dwarf’, Grk (Hesychius) kvv^oco ‘draw together’.
*puk- ‘press together’. [ IEW 849 ( *puk-)\ . Alb puth ‘kiss’,
Grk ctfinvi; (< *ana-puks) ‘diadem’, Av pusa- ‘headband,
diadem’. At least a word of the center and east of the IE world.
*pisd~ ‘press’. [IEW 887 ( *pi-s(e)d-)\ . Grk me^co ‘press’,
OInd pidayati ‘presses, squeezes’. Dialectally limited to two
stocks that show numerous late isoglosses. This root has been
derived either from *pis- ‘crush, pound’ or from *h\epi- and
the root *sed- ‘sit’, the first appearing the more probable.
?*greut- ‘± compress’. [IEW 406 ( *greut -)]. OIr gruth
‘curds, cheese’, OE (with new lengthened grade) crudan ‘press,
crowd’ (> NE crowd). Only sparsely attested. Perhaps a dialect
word of the IE northwest.
?*tuengh- ‘± press, force’. [IEW 1099-1100 ( *tuengh-)\
Wat 72 ( *twengh-)\ . ON pvinga ‘force, torment’, OE twengan
‘pinch’, pwang ‘thong, band’ (> NE thong), OHG dwingan
‘force’, Av dwpzjaiti (< *tuengh-ske/o-) ‘falls into distress’. The
initial t- in OE twengan is unexpected while the etymological
connection with Avestan is very uncertain. Not clearly
reconstructed to PIE.
See also Push, Work. [M.N., D.Q.A.l
PRICE see EXCHANGE
PRICK
*steig- ‘prick’. [IEW 1016-1017 ( *(s)teig~), Wat 65
( *steig -); GI 102], Lat In-stigo ‘goad’, OE stician ‘prick’ (> NE
stick), stice ‘sting, prick, stab’ (> NE stitch), OHG sticken
‘stick, stab’, stehhon ‘stick, stab’, Goth stiks ‘sticking, stab’,
Grk cmf<w(< *stig-ie/o-) ‘prick, tattoo’, Av bi-taeya- ‘having
two edges’, taeza- ‘point, sharp’, OInd tejate ‘is sharp, makes
sharp’. Well attested and can be reconstructed to PIE.
*geid- ‘tickle’. [IEW 356 (*geid-)[. ON kith ‘tickle’, Oh
citelian ‘tickle’, citelung ‘tickling’, OHG kitzilon ‘tickle’, Arm
kcem (< *gidie/o~) ‘tickle, scratch (an itch)’, kcanem ‘prick,
bite’. Attested in the west and central region of the IE world.
*kel- prick’. [IEW 545 {*kel-)\ Wat 28 ( *kel-)\. OIr cuilenn
(< *kolinos) ‘holly’, Weis celyn ‘holly’, ON bulfr ‘holly’, OE
holen ‘holly’ (> NE holly), OHG hubs ‘holly 1 , OCS klasu ‘ear
of grain’, Alb kail! ‘straw, chaff, OInd katamba- (< *kol-to-)
‘arrow’. The verbal root *kel- is abstracted entirely from its
nominal derivatives which have in common spikiness or
sharpness. It is possible that this root is related to *kel- ‘cut’.
*peug- ‘prick, poke’. [IEW 828 ( *peuk - ~ *peug-)\ Wat
51 ( *peuk - ~ *peug-)]. Lat pungo (with nasal infix) ‘prick’,
Grk Kvypff ‘fist’. Attempts have been made to relate this word
to the tree-name *peuks ‘pine’ which has been treated as a
variant of this root but the pine word is securely reconstruct-
ible while *peug- is known only from two languages.
See also Pierce. [ M . N . 1
PRIEST
'there is no solid lexical evidence to support the recon-
struction of a PIE term for ‘priest’ There are, however, a series
of possible cognates that have been occasionally cited as
suggesting the existence of an IE priest class.
*kouhj£i(s)‘ seer, priest, poet’. 1/EVV578-579 ( *keu-): Gl
734-735 ( *k h e/ou-)\ Wat 30 ( *keu-)] . Grk (Hesychius) Kopq
~ Koipg ‘priest of the Samothracian mysteries’, Lydian kaves
‘priest’, Av kava (< *kouhiei) (designation of daevish pi mces),
OInd kavi- ‘skillful, wise; seer, sage, poet’. At least dialectally
present in PIE. From *(s)keuhi- ‘perceive’.
?*bhlaghmen ‘priest’. [IEW 154 ( *bhlagh-men-)\ Wat 9
( *bhlagh-men-)\ Gl 690 ( *bfilagp t -men-)\. Lat llamen priest’,
flamonium ‘the office of a flamen’, Messapic pXapivi priest’,
OPers brazman- ‘appropriate form, appearance', OInd
brahman- ‘priest’, brihmanyam ‘the state or rank of a
brahman’. This comparison is much disputed as there is no
evident reflex of PIE *-gh- in the Latin form (??? < *thgs-
men) and the root to which the suffix *-men is added is
otherwise opaque in both the putative descendant stocks and
PIE. It has been suggested that the Latin form may rather be
cognate with ON biota ‘sacrifice’, OE bldtan ‘sacrifice’, OHG
blozan ‘sacrifice’, Goth bldtan ‘sacrifice’. The Germanic and
Latin words would then reflect different enlargements of
*bhel- ‘swell’ in its metaphoric meaning of strengthen’ (i.e. ,
strengthening the gods through sacrifice) The word in the
— 451 —
PRIEST
east has thus been regarded as purely Indo-lranian which
has also been connected with ON bragf poetry’ from a putative
*bhregh-. Under this hypothesis the original meaning for the
Indie word would have been ‘± speaker of the [ritual] formula,
poet, performer of sacrifices’.
*p(o)nt- + *dhehi-/*k w er- ‘priest’ < * ‘way-setter/maker’.
Lat pontifex l o ne who makes a way (to the gods), high-priest’,
OInd pathi-kft- ‘path-maker’ but also a religious title applied
to priests. Although clearly not a PIE compound because of
the diverse verbal element in Latin and Old Indie, it is perhaps
possible that these both derive from a common underlying
concept.
?*h a eug- ‘increase’. [IEW 84 ( *aueg-)\ Wat 4 ( *aug-)] . Lat
augur 1 seer, soothsayer’, OInd ojas- ‘strength, power’. In the
context of Indie literature this ‘force’ is clearly associated with
the warrior function and is seen as a well of energy upon
which the warriors, usually Indra or the Maruts, may draw.
In Latin tradition, it is the priest who may draw upon this
‘power’ and distribute it ritually within the context not only
of the warrior class but also for religious or agricultural
purposes. The correspondences are not wide-ranging although
they do occur between two language stocks well separated in
space.
??*bhertdr ‘priest’ (< *‘one who bears [offerings?]’). [IEW
129-130 ( *bher-td/or)\ Wat 7 ( *bher-)\ BK 6 ( *bar-/*bar -)\ .
Umb ars-fertur ‘priest’, Av / ra-baratar - ‘priest’. From *bher-
‘carry’. The Italic-Iranian agreement may reflect something of
PIE age but could also be taken as independent developments.
Indo-European Priesthoods
Although the lexical evidence for the existence of a PIE
priest is inadequate, comparative data (indicated in the accom-
panying table) concerning the behavior of the Indie brahman
and the Roman Flamen Dialis suggests a number of corres-
pondences concerning proscriptive behavior that hint at an
earlier inherited core.
The trifunctional ideology of the Indo-Europeans is
believed to have been inherited in the Roman priest class
which was “functionally” divided into the Flamen Dialis
(priests concerned with the cosmic and social issues of reli-
gious practice), the Flamen Martialis who were concerned
with warfare, the army and terrestrial deities, and the Flamen
Quirinalis, who invoked the deities of the underworld to assist
in protecting the fertility of the crops and similar agricultural
pursuits.
The Priest Function
Within the system of IE ideology reconstructed by Georges
Dumezil, the religious “function” in society is represented by
a duality, generally represented by two deities. One of these
reflects the magico-religious nature of the function while the
other is more concerned with the specific application of
religious sanction to human society, in particular to contracts.
The underlying religious system is supported essentially by
similar structural features in the mythologies of various IE-
speaking peoples but generally lacks linguistic support.
The Indie evidence for this system is focused on the dual
deities Varuna and Mitra whose names are given frequently
in the form of a devata dvandva , a compound, such as Mitra-
Varuna or, in the dual form Mitra, i.e. , ‘Mitra and the other
one’. The name Varuna derives from the root \j- ‘enclose,
confine’ and Varuna exercises his magic powers through the
use of spells and snares. He is charged with the maintenance
of fta- ‘(divine) order’ which underlies the forces of the cosmos.
He has an association with water (he later becomes a sea god
and the motif of swearing by water is perhaps related to the
Greek tradition of swearing by the river Styx), and this
association is reflected in his specific punishment of inflicting
‘water belly disease’, i.e., dropsy. The name of Mitra, to whom
only one hymn of the Rgveda is dedicated (RV 3.59), is related
to mitram ‘contract’ < *mi- ‘exchange’ or *mi- ‘set up, fix’.
This name would comprise a semantic field involving
contracts, legality, which are beneficial to mankind. He and a
series of auxiliary deities are seen to insure the proper
contraction of relationships, e.g., legal, marriage, in human
society. The “epicization” of Indie myth, as reflected in the
Mahabarata translates Varuna (who in Atharvaveda 4.4,1 is
stricken with impotency) into Pandu (who has been inflicted
with punishments, pallor, and impotence) while Mitra is seen
to underlie Yudhistira, law king, who assumes the guise of a
brahman in the court of Matsya.
In Iranian tradition, where the Indo-lranian deities were
reconstituted as abstractions in the reforms of ZaraOustra, the
magico-religious figure is seen to lie behind Ahura Mazdah:
‘Lord Wise’, who, like Varuna, possessed the element *Asura
(in Iranian we find the compound MiBra-Ahura, cf. Mitra-
Varuna) and Varuna is also described as medhira- ‘wise’, where
Vedic medha is cognate with Avestan mazda- ‘wise’. Further
support for the correspondence derives from Ahura Mazdah’s
essence, Asa Vasista, where the first element is cognate with
Vedic fta-, the divine order Varuna was charged to maintain
and Vasista is clearly to be associated with Varuna’s son Vasista.
The second partner is reflected lexically as Mi0ra which, in
Iranian, originally indicated ‘contract’ like his Indie
counterpart, but later developed the meaning ‘friend’ and
finally evolved into a multi-purpose deity who absorbed not
only Varuna’s duties, but also those of the War god and the
Sun god. The abstraction Vohu Manah ‘good thought’ more
properly reflects the Mithraic character in his relations to
human society.
In Roman tradition, the presumably inherited IE priestly
deity crossed with the Sky god to yield Jupiter whose various
duties were increased to such an extent that it is difficult to
isolate his original role. In general, he would seem to represent
the Varunaic side of the priestly function while the Mithraic
may be seen in Dius Fidius (‘faith’), the deity who protected
both the sanctity of oaths and the laws of hospitality. As with
Indie literature, so also Roman mythology was incrypted in
the early histories of Rome where the dual nature of the priestly
function has been claimed to underlie the characters of Rome's
452
PROJECT
1 .
Brahman
cannot be killed
Flamen Dialis
cannot have hands laid upon him
2.
cannot be compelled as witness
cannot be compelled to swear oath
3.
must avoid smoke of funeral pyre
most not approach funeral pyre
4.
must not drink alcohol
must avoid intoxicants
5.
must not touch unsacrificed meat
must not touch raw meat
6.
other than head, must not have oil on body
must not rub himself with oil outdoors
7.
must cease religious activitity at time of warfare
must not see army
8.
must not study on horseback
must not mount or touch horse
9.
must not read Vedas when he hears barking dog, avoid dogs
must not touch or mention dog
10.
never be naked nor see wife so
must always have some priestly sign on
Priest Prohibitions of Indie and Roman priest classes.
first rulers. Romulus not only founded the city and served as
first king but also as an augur, who established correct religious
practice, was associated with the supernatural powers of
priests, and whose divine protector was Jupiter. Although
Numa is represented as his chronological successor, this
representation is regarded as historicized myth and the second
king, prominent as a lawgiver, who organized the annual Fides
‘contract’ ceremony, is taken to be a projection of Dius Fidius.
The distinction between a god of magic and spells and
another of oaths and contracts is replicated in other characters
of early Roman pseudo-history. The Roman soldier, Horatius
Codes (one-eyed), one of three brothers, was forced to defeat
the three Curatii of Alba. Although the tale relates how
Horatius separated each of his three opponents by pretending
to flee, both the etymology of his name and his “evil-eye” are
also credited with magically discouraging his opponents. His
Mithraic counterpart is seen in Mucius Scaevola (‘left-handed’)
who attempted to assassinate the Etruscan king and when
apprehended, swore with his right-hand in a bed of coals
that three-hundred further assassins had also infiltrated the
Etruscan camp. The (false) confession associates Mucius with
oaths and contracts, the domain of the Mithraic figure.
The distinction between a divinity possessing a baleful eye
and another lacking a hand by which oaths are sworn is reflect-
ed to some extent in both Germanic and Celtic mythologies.
Although the priest function appears to have been lost among
the early Germanic peoples, the functional ideology persisted
in Scandinavian myth with Odinn who gave up one of his
eyes in order to acquire the gift of seeing the future and the
god Tyr who lost his hand making a false oath in order to
secure the wolf Fenrir long enough to have it bound. The
identification of Tyr as the “contract deity” is further secured
by his Old English congener Tlw (whence Tues-day) who
was patron of the assembly like his Roman cognate Dius
Fidius. The Irish counterpart is seen as Lug who dances about
the host of Formorians on one foot and with one-eye closed
(and their own leader Balor who possessed an enormous eye
capable of inflicting death at a distance which Lug puts out)
and Nuadu, the king who has lost his hand in a battle and
requires a silver prosthesis to make him whole enough again
that he may serve as king. Like Odinn, Lug is also strongly
associated with the raven. A further euhemerization of Lug is
found in Finn mac Cumaill who is also associated with ravens
and must deal with Goll mac Moma, a one-eyed monster
who bums down Tara.
There are some lexical associations among these west IE
stocks as Odinn’s name derives from *Watdnos ‘raving,
possessed’ and is cognate with Lat vates ‘foreteller, seer’ and
Olr faith ‘ecstatic bard’. The evidence of a “threefold death”
in western Europe also supports the identification of the
priestly figures in the respective pantheons where the Norse
Odinn is associated with death by hanging (he is the hangagod
‘hanging god’) and Roman sources indicate that the Con-
tinental Celts employed hanging in sacrifices to the god Esus
(‘lord’).
There is little evidence for the priest figure in Baltic folklore
other than perhaps figures such as the Lithuanian Velinas
‘ghost, devil’ who is one eyed, prophetic, raging god of the
veles (ghosts) and the Old Prussian Pecullus (Patollo or
Patollus).
See also Comparative Mythology, Cosmogony, Cosmology ,
Eschatology; Pray; Sacrifice. [D.Q.A.; J.PM.]
Further Readings
Dumezil, G. (1948) Mitra-Varuna: Essai sur deux representations
indo-europeennes de la souverainete. Paris, Gallimard
Dumezil, G. (1970) Archaic Roman Rehgon 2 vols. Chicago,
University of Chicago.
Watkins, C. (1995) How to Kill a Dragon : Aspects of Indo-European
Poetics. New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press.
PROFIT see EXCHANGE
PROJECT
*bhar~ ‘projection’. [IEW 108-109 ( *bhar-)\ Wat 5
( *bhar-)\ BK 5 (*bar-/ *bar-)\. From *bhar-ko-. Mir bare (<
*bhar-ko -) ‘spear shaft’, Weis barch ‘spear’, SC brk ‘point’;
perhaps from *bhar-(es)- ‘barley, grain’ we have Olr bairgen
(< *baragen-) ‘bread’, Weis bara ‘bread’, Lat far ‘spelt, grain’,
ON ban ‘grain’, OE here ‘barley’ (> NE barley , i.e. , bere +
— 453 —
PROJECT
ifc‘ly’), Goth bariz-eins ‘made of barley’. It has been suggested
that all of these substantives are derived from a verbal root
*bhar- ‘protrude’ but since all the forms are nominal, it makes
better sense to reconstruct a nominal form ‘projection’ to the
proto-language. The extended form *bhar-es- ‘barley’ may
be based on this root as well.
*men- ‘project’. [IEW 726 ( *men-)\ Wat 41 ( *men-)\ BK
533 (*mun-/*mon-)\. Weis mant ‘mouth, lip’, Lat pro-mined
‘stand out, project’, mentum ‘chin’, Hit meni- ‘face, cheek’,
Av fra-manyente ‘gain prominence’. The close structural and
semantic correspondences over the few languages, so widely
distributed, suggests PIE status.
See also Barley. [M.N.]
PRONOUNS
Personal Pronouns
Personal pronouns for the first and second persons, singu-
lar, dual, and plural, can be reconstructed for PIE. In addition,
it is possible to reconstruct a general reflexive personal
pronoun which might refer back to any person (first, second,
or third) or number. Except for the third person use of the
reflexive pronoun, PIE did not have real third person pronouns
but rather used various demonstrative pronouns (i.e., ‘this’
or ‘that’) when a third personal pronominal reference was
needed. Formally, the first and second person pronouns are
distinctive in that they have independent shapes for nomina-
tive and non-nominative cases (e.g., *hieg and *h\eme- in
the first person singular, *tuh x and *te in the second person
singular, *uei and *nos- in the first person plural, *iuh x s and
*yos- in the second person plural). The presence of *y- in
both the first and second persons plural has suggested to some
that at some very early stage of Indo-European there may
have been a distinction, as there is in many languages, between
a first person plural exclusive (‘we’, i.e., ‘1 and some others
but not you’) whose form would be *ue~, and a first person
inclusive (‘we’, i.e., ‘1 and you’) whose form would be *ne-.
Under this hypothesis, when the inclusive/exclusive
distinction collapsed, the form *ye- was reassigned as both a
first person plural (nominative) and a second person plural
(non-nominative). Such a hypothesis is certainly possible but
by no means certain.
First Person
*hi eg T (emphatic *hieg6m), *hi6me ‘me’ (enclitic *hjme,
emphatic *him£m [< *hime-em\ ~ *himi-ge ) (gen.
*himeme, dat. *him6ghi). [IEW 291 ( *eg-, *eg(h)om ), 702
( Wat 16 ( *eg), 39 ( ♦me-); GI 32 ( *eK'-)\ BK 433 ( *a-
/*9 -)\ . OIr me T, Weis mi (poss. adj. fy^), Lat ego T, me ‘me’
(poss. adj. meus ‘my’, dat. mihi), Venetic eyo T, me^o ‘me’.
Runic ek(a) (< *hieg[6mj) T, ON ek ‘I’, mik ‘me’ (poss. adj.
min ‘my’), OE ic T (> NE I), me (> NE me) ~ mec ‘me’ (poss.
adj. min ‘my’) [> NE mine], OHG ih T, mih ‘me’ (poss. adj.
min ‘my’), Goth ik T, mik 1 me’ (poss. adj. meins 1 my’XGmc
*mek < *h\me-ge), OPrus es ~ as ‘I’, Lith as T, man p ‘me’
(enclitic -nr, poss. adj. manas), Latv es ‘I’, mani ‘me’, OCS
*(j)azu (< *hiegom) T, mg (< *himem ) ‘me’ (gen. mene),
Alb une{< *ug[om]l + -ne) ‘I’, mua (< *h jmem) ‘me’ (enclitic
me), Grk eyco(v) T, ipe ‘me’ (emphatic epeye, enclitic pe,
poss. adj. epog‘ my’). Arm es (< *ec) ‘1’, z-is(< *-ins< *b jeme-
ge?) ‘me’; (gen. im < *hjemos), Hit ug (< Proto-Anatolian
*ug) T, ammuk{< Proto-Anatolian *emu + *-g) ‘me’ (enclitic
-mu), HierLuv (a-)mu ‘I, me’, Lycian amu ~ emu ‘1, me’, Av
azam ~ az ‘I’, ma ‘me’ (gen. ma.na [= /mana/1), OPers adam
‘I’, OInd aham T, mam (< *h]mem) ‘me’ (enclitic ma, gen.
mama, dat. mahyam), TochA nuk (< *-ug?) ‘I, me (female
speaking)’, (enclitic -ni), TochB nas (< *h\me-ge) I, me’
(enclitic -n). Widespread and old in IE. In many stocks there
has been a tendency to replace the nominative forms by old
accusatives (Celtic, Anatolian, Tocharian). Tocharian, for
obscure reasons, has replaced the original *-m- by *-n-. In
Anatolian the vowel *-u- has spread from the second person
singular; the same spread is also to be seen possibly in
Albanian and Tocharian. The second person singular emphatic
*tuh x -om was re-analyzed as *tu-h x om in Indie, leading to
*hieg-h x dm (> OInd aham) rather than *hiegom.
*n6hi ‘we two, us two’, *yhiu6 ‘us two’. [7EW758 (*ne-
- *nd-), 1114 (♦ye-)!. ON vit ‘we two’, okkr ‘us two’, OE wit
‘we two’, unc ~ uncet ‘us two’, Goth wit ‘we two’, ugkis ‘us
two’ (Gmc < *y edu ‘we-two’ and *ph\ue(s) with “hardening”
of the laryngeal to *-k-), Lith mudu ‘we two, us two’ (dial.
vedu ‘we two’), nuodu ‘us two’ (only the latter is an inheri-
tance), OCS ve ‘we two’, na ‘us two’ (gen. naju), Grk vco ‘ we
two, us two’, OInd avam ‘we two, us two’ (gen. avajos), TochB
wene ‘we two, us two’ (rebuilt after the first person plural
with the addition of the productive dual ending -ne).
Widespread and old in IE.
♦yd/ ‘we’ (emphatic *y eidm), *j^sm6 us’ (enclitic *nos)
[IEW 758 (*ne- ~ *nd-), 1114 ( *ue -); Wat 44 ( *nes -), 73
( *we-)\ Gl 254 (*wei-, *mes)\ BK 564( *na-/*na-), 475 (*wa-/
*W9-)]. OIr nl‘ we, us’, Weis ni‘ we, us’, Lat nos‘ we, us’ (poss.
adj. noster), ON ver ‘we’, oss ‘us’, OE we ‘we’ (> NE we), us
(> NE us) ~ usic ‘us’, OHG W7'r ‘we’, unsih ‘us’, Goth weis
‘we’, uns ‘us’ (Gmc *weis< *uei(e)s), OPrus mes‘ we’, mans
‘us’ (gen. nouson), Lith mes ‘we’, mils ‘us’ (gen. mQsy), Latv
mes ‘we’, mus ‘us’ (gen. musu) (Lithuanian and Latvian
accusative [and genitive] from *muns, rebuilt on the basis of
the second person plural), OCS my‘ we’, ny 'us (gen. nasu),
Alb ne(< *nds) ‘we, us’ (enclitic na < *nos), Grk ppeig (Aeolic
appeg) ‘we’, rjpeag (Aeolic appe) ‘us’ (Grk < *psme(s)), Arm
mek‘ ‘we’, z-mez ‘us’ (gen. mer), Hit wes (< *uei(e)s), ‘we’,
anzas (< *nsos with the *-m- lost by dissimilation from the
proceeding *-n-?) ‘us’ (enclitic -nas), Av vaem (= /vayam/)
‘we’, asma ‘us’ (enclitic nah), OPers vayam ‘we’, OInd vayam
‘we’, asman ‘us’ (enclitic nas), TochA was ‘we, us’ (enclitic
-m), TochB wes ‘we, us’ (enclitic -me) (Toch < a conflation of
*uei(e)s and *nos\ enclitic < *nsmos with loss of the first
syllable). Widespread and old in IE. Note that in a central
innovating area comprised of Baltic, Slavic, and Armenian
the expected initial *n- has been replaced by m-, either by
the analogy of the first person singular pronoun or because
— 454 —
PRONOUNS
of the influence of the first person plural verbal endings in
*-273-, or both.
Second Person
*ttih x ‘ thou’ (emphatic *tuhx6m ), *£dye‘thee’ (enclitic *£e,
emphatic *ty&72 [< *tge-em] ; gen. *t6 ye). [ZEWT 097-1 098
(*f0); Wat 72 (*fu-); G1 194 (*t h we-/*t h u)\ BK 102 ( *t[ h ]i /
*t[ h ]e)]. OIr tu ‘thou, thee’, Weis ti ‘thou, thee’, Lat tu ‘thou’,
te ‘thee’, ON pu ‘thee’ (poss. adj. pin ), OE pu ‘thou’ (> NE
thou), pe (> NE thee ) ~ pic' thee’ (poss. adj. pin) [> NE thine ] ,
OHG du ‘thou’, dih ‘thee’ (poss. adj. din), Goth pu ‘thou’,
puk'thee’ (poss. adj. peins), OPrus tou ~ tu ‘thou’, tien ‘thee’
(poss. adj. tais‘ thy’), Lith riTthou’, iavf ‘thee’ (poss. adj. tavas),
Latv tu ‘thou’, tevi ‘thee’, OCS fy ‘thou’, t? ‘thee’ (gert. tebe ),
Alb ti ‘thou’, ty ‘thee’ (enclitic te), Grk av ‘thou’ (with s- on
the analogy of the accusative, etc.; Doric tv ‘thou’), ere (<
*tue) ‘thou’ (enclitic ere), Arm du‘thou’, z-k‘ez(< *tue~) ‘thee’
(poss. adj. k'o [< *tuos\ ), Hit zlg ‘thou’ (with not well-
understood -J-; the -g comes from the first person singular),
tug ‘thee’, Palaic ti ‘thou’, tu ‘thee’, Av tvam (= /tuHam/) ~ tu
‘thou’, Ovam ‘thee’, OPers tuvam ‘thou’, Olnd tvam thou’,
tvam ‘thee’ (Indo-Iranian < *tuhx6m and *tuem), TochA tu
‘thou’, cu ‘thee’ (enclitic -ci), TochB tuwe ‘thou’, ci ‘thee’
(enclitic -c) (Toch < *tuh x om, *teye, *te). Widespread and
old in IE. The difference between nominative and accusative
stems is better preserved in the second person singular than
in the first person singular or in the first and second persons
plural.
*y<5hj ‘ye two, you two’, *uhjy£ ‘you two’. [IEW 513-
514 ( *uis - ~ *y<5s-)]. ON it ‘ye two’, ykkr ‘you two’, OE git
‘ye two’, inc ~ incit ‘you two’, Goth *jut ‘ye two’, igkis ‘you
two’ (Gmc < *inkwis ‘you two’ < *uhiues with the same
substitution of *i- for *u- as in the accusative plural, the
introduction of *-n- from the first person dual, and the same
hardening of *-hj - to -k- as in the first person dual), Lith
judu ‘ye/you two’ (Germanic and Baltic rebuilt on the analogy
of the second person plural), OCS va (< *yohj) ‘ye/you two’
(gen. vaju), Olnd yuvam (< *uhiue-em with y- from the
nominative second person plural) ‘ye/you two’ (enclitic vam,
gen. yuvajos), TochB yene ‘ye/you two’ (rebuilt after the second
person plural with the addition of the productive dual ending
-ne). Widespread and old in IE.
*}uh x s‘ ye’, *usy£~ *sy£ ‘you’ (enclitic *yos). [ IEW 513—
514 ( *iu-)\ Wat 79 ( *yu-)\ GI 254 (*wds)l. OIr si ‘ye, you’,
Weis chwi ‘ye, you’ (Celtic < *su£s), Lat vos ‘ye, you’ (poss.
adj. vester), ON er'we', ydr~ yd(v)ar ‘you’, OE ge ‘ye’ (> NE
ye), eow ‘you’ (> NE you), OHG ir‘ ye’, iuwih ‘you’, Goth jus
‘ye’, izwis ‘you’ (except in Gothic the Germanic nom. has been
rebuilt on the analogy of the first person plural; the acc. comes
from Proto-Gmc *izwis, preserved as such in Gothic but with
the *-z- dissimilated to -d- in North Gmc, to -w- in West
Gmc), OPrus ious' ye’, wans ‘you’ (gen. iouson), Lith jQs'yej
jus ‘you’ (gen.y'Gsy), Latv jus' ye, you’ (gen. jusu), OCS vy' ye,
you’ (gen. vasu) (OCS vyand OPrus wans< *uons with *~ns
on the analogy of the nominal accusative plural ending), Alb
ju ‘ye’ (enclitic ju ~ u)(Alb < *('u)sues?), Grk vgeiq'ye' (Aeolic
vgfieq), vgeaq ‘you’ (Aeolic vgfie), aq>cb (< *s-bhd) ‘ye/you
two’, Arm i-jez ‘you’ (gen jer, the nom. duk' is a pluralization
of the singular du). Hit sumes (< *suues) 'ye, you’, Av yus ~
yuzom ‘ye’, xsma ~ yusma ‘you’ (enclitic vah), Olnd yuyam
‘ye’, yusmSn ‘you’ (enclitic vas), TochA yas ‘ye, you’, TochB
yes 'ye, you’ (enclitic -me)(Toch yas/yes is a conflation of
*iuh x s and *uos\ enclitic -me< *smos). Widespread and old
in IE. In a southeastern group comprising Greek, Indo-Iranian,
and Tocharian, *usue was replaced by *usme by analogy with
the first person plural *rtsme. In Germanic the initial vowel
of *usue was replaced by */- after *iuh x s\ Indo-Iranian tends
to replace it by *iu-. Celtic, Italic, Slavic, Albanian, Greek,
and Anatolian replace the nominative by the accusative while
East Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian) replace the accusative
with the nominative.
Reflexive Pronoun
*s£ye(acc.) ‘-self’ (enclitic *se, emphatic *sy^m [< *sye-
eml; gen. *s£ye). [IEW 882 (*seye-); Wat 67-68 (*s(w)e-)\
GI 2921. Lat se ‘him-/her-/itself’ (poss. adj. suus), Messapic
veinam ‘self’, OHG sih ‘him-/her-/itself’ (poss. adj. sfn), Goth
s 2 - /c‘him-/her-/itself’ (poss. adj. sins), swi-kunps ‘obvious’ (‘self-
known’), OPrus sien ‘-self’ (poss. adj. swais), Lith savf ‘-self’
(poss. adj. savas), Latv sevi ‘-self’, OCS sp ‘-self’ (gen. sebe),
Alb u ‘him-/her-/itself’,Grk e ~ te (< *sye ~ *seye)‘him-/her-/
itself’ (poss. adj. oq [< *syds] ‘his’), Av hva- ~ hava - ‘ones
own’, OPers huwa- ‘one’s own’, Olnd sva- ‘one’s own’, TochA
sni ‘one’s own’, TochB san ‘one’s own’. Widespread and old in
IE. Derivatives include *sue-t- ‘self; one’s own’ in Lith svecias
‘guest’, Latv svess ‘stranger; guest’, OCS svatu ‘relative,
attendant’, Alb me ‘self’, Grk (f)eTrjq ‘relative, friend’; *suedh-
‘be accustomed to’ (< *‘make one’s own’) in Lat sodalis
‘member of an association’, suesco ‘become accustomed;
accustom’, ON sidarr ‘custom, practice, nte’, OE sidu ‘custom,
practice, rite’, OHG situ ‘custom, practice’, Goth sidus ‘custom,
practice’, Grk eGoq ‘custom, habit’, f]Goq ‘accustomed place;
custom, usage; disposition, character’, Olnd svadha ‘inherent
power, habitual state, custom’, TochA sotre ‘mark, sign’, TochB
sotri ‘mark, sign’ (< *suedh-ru- ‘characteristic’).
Interrogative, Relative, and Indefinite Pronouns
We can reconstruct for PIE a wealth of interrogatives,
relatives, and indefinites (i.e., pronouns like ‘someone’ or
‘anyone’), though the details of that reconstruction are not
always clear. Half of the well-attested IE groups (i.e., Celtic,
Balto-Slavic, Greek, Indo-Iranian) have a distinct relative
pronoun, *io-, that is different from the interrogative and
indefinite pronouns which show a shape *k w o-, *k w i-, or
*k w u-. The other half (i.e., Italic, Germanic, Albanian,
Armenian, Anatolian, Tocharian) have no relative pronoun
*io-, using *k w o-/*k w i-/*k w u- in relative functions as well as
for interrogatives and indefinites.
The ^k^-pronouns, whatever their range of meaning, have
a bewildering variety of form. Both *k w o- and *k w i- appear
— 455 —
PRONOUNS
to have existed side by side as interrogatives and indefinites
(and also relatives in our second group of languages) in their
nominative and accusative forms, though they shared a
genitive *k w es(i)o whose form proclaims it a part of the *k w o-
paradigm. Only *k w i- could appear as an enclitic (i.e.,
following and forming a single phonological word with
whatever it is attached to) indefinite, except in Anatolian
where both *k w o- and *k w i- can be found as enclitic
indefinites. In IE itself *k w u- seems to have been restricted to
adverbial functions (e.g., ‘where’) but in Slavic, Albanian, and
Tocharian its role has been expanded.
Whether the relative pronoun takes the shape *k w o - or
*io -, the commonest type of relative clause in the earliest
attested IE languages, and no doubt in PIE itself, is the
correlative relative clause. In such a formation there was a
relative clause (marked by the presence of either *k w o- or
*io- ) followed by a non-relative clause in which the relative
pronoun was echoed by a demonstrative pronoun, e.g., in
English, ‘When he wants the money, then he’ll do the job’.
The result of this neatly balanced syntactic structure was a
substantial number of relative (-interrogative)/demonstrative
pairs or triples, e.g., *k w oti, *ioti , *tdti.
For the following ’“k^-pronouns the glosses should be
taken as interrogative in meaning unless specifically stated
otherwise (e.g., as ‘relative’ or ‘interrogative and relative’). The
*io- forms are exclusively relative in meaning.
*k w 6s‘who\ *k w 6m‘ whom’ (gen. *k w 6s(i)o). [7EW644-
645 (*k y o-); Wat 34 (*k w o-)\ GI 75; BK 324 (*k w [ h ]i-/
*k w [ h ]e-)]. OIr nech ‘someone, anyone’, Weis neb ‘someone,
anyone’ (Celtic < *ne-k w os ), ON hva(r) ‘who’, OE hwa ‘who’
(> NE who), OHG (h)wer ‘who’ (with the vowel analogical
after that of the following word), hwes ‘whose’, Goth has
(masc.) ‘who’, (fern.) ho ‘who’, his ‘whose’, OPrus kas ‘who’,
Lith kas ‘who, what’ (interrogative and relative), OCS ceso
‘whose’. Alb ke (< *k w 6m) ‘whom’ (interrogative and relative),
Grk rov ‘whose’, Arm ov(< *k w os/k w om) ‘who’, ok‘ ‘anyone’,
Phryg Kog ‘whoever’, Av (masc.) kd ‘who’, (fern.) ka ‘who’,
kahya ‘whose’, cahya ‘anyone’s, someone’s’, Olnd kas (masc.)
‘who’, (fern.) ka ‘who’, kasya ‘whose’. The apparent feminine
*k w eh a is probably an innovation in those stocks where it
appears (Gothic, Baltic, Indo-Iranian). Celtic and Italic show
new formations: *k w e-i~ *k w o-i ‘who’ (masc.), *k w eh a -i‘ who’
(fern.) in OIr cla ‘who’, OWels pui ‘who’ (Celtic < *k w ei ), Lat
qutlquae and Osc pui/pai (both interrogative and relative).
Widespread and old in IE.
*k w 6d ‘what’. [IEW 644-645 ( *k y o-); Wat 34 ( *k w o-)\ GI
75; BK 324 (*k w [ h ]i-/*k w [ h ]e-)]. OWels pa ‘what’, Lat quod
‘in respect to which; that, in that’ (conj.), Osc pud ‘that, in
that’ (conj.), ON hvat ‘what’, OE hwaet ‘what’ (> NE what),
OHG (h)waz ‘what’, Goth ha ‘what’, Palaic -kuwat
(generalizing particle), Lydian - kod (generalizing particle),
Av ka ‘what’, Olnd kad ‘what’. Widespread and old in IE.
*k w fs ‘who’. [IEW 644-645 (*k y o-); Wat 34 ( *k w i-)\ GI
139 (*k bo i-)-, BK 324 (*k w [ h ]i-/*k w [ h ]e-)\- Lat quis ‘who,
which one’, Grk rig ‘who’, Hit kuis ‘who’ (interrogative and
relative), Av cis‘who’. Old in IE.
*k w Id‘ what, what one’. [IEW 644-645 ( *k y o-); Wat 34
( *k w i-)\ GI 75; BK 324 (*k w [ b }i-/*k w l h }e-)[ . Lat quid ‘what,
what one’, Osc pid ~ pid ‘what, what one’, OCS cfto ‘what’,
Arm in-c‘ ‘some’, Hit kuit ‘what’ (interrogative), ‘which’
(relative), Av cit (generalizing particle), OPers ciy (generalizing
particle), cid (generalizing particle). Widespread and old in
IE.
*k w 6teros ‘which (of two)’. [IEW 645 ( *k u o-tero-)\ Wat
34 (*k w o-)\ GI 75; BK 324 (*k w l h HVk w l h le-)\. Lat uter
‘which’, ON hvarr ‘which’, OE hwaeder ‘which’ (> NE
whether), Goth hapar ‘which’, Lith kataras ~ katras ‘which’,
Latv katrs ‘which’, OCS koteryji ‘which’ , Grk norepog ‘which’,
Av katara -‘which’, Olnd katara- ‘which’. Widespread and old
in IE. Compare relative *idteros ‘which of the two’.
*k w 6m ‘when’. [IEW 645 ( *k v om)\ BK 324 ( *k w [ h ]i -/
*k w [ h ]e~)[. OLat quom ‘when’ (relative), Lat cum ‘when’
(relative), Goth han ‘when’, OPrus kan ‘when’, Lith (dial.) kp
‘when’, OCS ko-gda ‘when’, Alb ke ‘when’, Av kam ‘how’.
The masculine accusative form of *k w os already indicated
‘when’ in late PIE.
*k w odth a ‘when’. [7EW646 (*k y o-); BK 324 (*k w [ h ji-/
*k w [ b ]e-)[. Lith kada ‘when’, Av ka8a ‘when’, Olnd kada
‘when’. A word of the center and east of the IE world.
*k w 6r‘ where’. [7EW646 ( *k y o-); Wat 34 ( *k w o-)\ BK 324
(*k w [ h ]i-/*k w [ h }e-)]. ON hvar ‘where’, hverr ‘who’, Goth har
‘where’, harjis ‘who’, Olnd karhi ‘when, at what time’. With
lengthened grades: OLat quor ‘why, wherefore’, OE Tivv^r
‘where’ (> NE where). Widespread and old in IE. Compare
*tor ‘there’.
*k w u ~ *k w ii ‘where’. [IEW 647-648 (*k y u-); GI 1381.
OIr co ‘how; where’, MWels cw ‘where’, Lat ubi ‘where’ (by
misdivision of such old compounds as necubi ‘so that
nowhere’ as nec-ubi rather than the more original *ne-cubi ),
OPrus quei ‘where’, OCS kude where’, kuto (< *k w u + so
‘that one’ [with *s- secondarily replaced by *f-]) ‘who’, Alb
kush (< *k w u + so) ‘who’ (interrogative and relative), Grk
7 w- ‘where’, Hit kuwapi ‘where’ (if not < *k w obhi ), Av ku
‘where’, Olnd Ted ‘where’, TochA kus ‘where’ (interrogative
and relative), TochB k u se ‘who’ (interrogative and relative)
(Toch < *k w u + so ‘that one’). From *k w urwt have Lith kur
‘where’, kuris (< kur + jis ‘that one’) ‘who’ (interrogative and
relative), Alb kur ‘where’, Arm ur ‘where’. In one form or
another widespread and old in IE. This set of data and the
previous one show a relative pronoun originally meaning
‘where’ that often enough becomes a generic relative pronoun
that, in turn, is reinforced by some other pronoun.
*k w 6ti ~ *k w 6ti ‘how much, how many’. [IEW 646
( *k y o-u); Wat 34 ( *k w o-); BK 324 ( *k w [ h }i-/*k w [ h je-)[. From
k w oti: Lat quot ‘how many’, Grk Koooq ‘how much, how
many’, noooq ‘of some quantity’, Olnd kati ‘how much, how
many’; from *k w eti : Bret pet der ‘how many days’, Av caiti
‘how many’. Widespread and old in IE. Compare relative *ioti
‘ as much, as many’ and the demonstrative *toti ‘so much, so
many’.
456 —
PRONOUNS
*k w eh a li ‘of what sort, of what size’. [ IEW 646 (*k u a-li-)\
Wat 34 {*k w o-)\ BK 324 (*k w l h ]i-/*k w [ h ]e-)). Lat quails ‘of
what sort, of what kind’, Lith kolei ‘how long’, Grk KqXiKoq
‘how old, how large’. Related, as if from *k w oli , are OCS kohku
‘how large’, kolP how much’. Compare *teh a li ‘of that sort, of
that size’.
?*k w eh a k- ‘of what sort’. OIr each ‘everyone’, Lith kdk(i)s
‘of what sort; any, some; whatever (relative)’, OCS kaku ‘of
what sort’ (cf. kako ‘how?’, tajo ‘thus’, jako(ze) ‘in which
manner’). Possibly a word of the northwest of the IE world.
*k w oihxOS ‘pertaining to whom/what’. [BK 324 ( *k w [ h ]i-/
*k w [ h ]e-)} . Lat cuius ‘whose’, Grk noloq ‘of what kind’, noioq
‘of some kind’, TochA ke ‘whose’. Not widespread but the
geographical distribution suggests considerable antiquity in
IE.
?*k w eh a m ‘how; as’. [IEW 644-645 {*k v o-)\ Wat 34
( *k w o-)\ BK 324 ( *k w [ h ]i-/*k w [ h ]e~) 1 . Lat quam ‘how, in what
way; as’ (cf. tarn ‘so’ and the derivatives quando ‘when, at
what time; at any time; at the time when’, quantus ‘of what
size, how great; as great as ’ [cf. tantus ‘so great’]), Arm k‘an
‘as’, k‘cani ‘how many?’. The apparent agreement of Latin and
Armenian would appear to make this at least a late PIE
derivative. In form this would appear to be a feminine
accusative singular of *k w os but a separate feminine form of
the interrogative pronoun does not appear to be of PIE date
so it is more probable that we have in *k w eh a m some sort of
adverbial derivative.
*l6s/ *idd' who, what, that’ (relative pronoun). [IEW
283 ( *io-)\ GI 188, 339 ( *yo-)\ BK 467 (*ay-, *ya-)\. Gaul
dugiionti-io ‘who serve’ (also in other Celtic languages, though
phonological change has greatly obscured the form), in Baltic
it forms the suffix on the definite form of adjectives, e.g., Lith
geras-is ‘good’, OCS i-zelja-ze ‘he/she who’, also forming the
suffix on the definite form of adjectives, e.g., dobru-ji ‘kind,
good’, Rus dobryj ‘kind, good’, Grk oq/rj/b ‘who, what, that’,
Phryg toq ( vi ) ‘whoever’, Av yd/ya/hyat ‘who, what, that’, OInd
yas/ya/yad ‘who, what, that’. Were it not for its presence in
Celtic, one might think that this pronoun was an innovation
of the center and east of the IE world. However, the fact that
it is present in Celtic makes it almost certain that *ios was
originally pan- Indo-European.
*joteros ‘which of the two’. [IEW 283 ( *io-)\ BK 467
( *ay~, *ya~) ] . Grk (Doric) oxepoq ‘which of the two’, Av yatara-
‘which of the two’, OInd yatara- ‘which of the two’. A word of
the center and east of the IE world. Compare *k w oteros ‘which
of two?’.
as much, as many’. [BK 467 ( * ay-, *ya-)\. Grk booq .
(< *ioti-os ) ‘as many’, OInd yati ‘as many as, as often as’.
Correlative of *tdti ‘so much, so many’. Compare also *k w 6ti
‘how much, how many?’. A word of the center and east of the
IE world.
*i£h a uot(s) ‘as many, as long’. [IEW 283 BK 467
( *ay-, *ya-) 1 . Grk ecaq (Doric doq) ‘as long as’, OInd yavat ‘as
much, as many; as great, as large; as often, as far, etc.’.
Correlative of *teh a uot(s) ‘so many, so long’. A word of the
center and east of the IE world.
*me/o- (interrogative/relative pronoun). [BK 524 ( *mi -/
*me~) ]. Bret ma ~ may ‘that’ (conj.), Hit masi ‘how much,
how many’, TochA mant ‘how’, makte ‘how’, maksu 'who'
(interrogative/relative). The agreement of Celtic, Anatolian and
Tocharian would seem to make this word a very likely
candidate for PIE status.
Demonstrative Pronouns
*so (masc.), *seh a (fern.), *tdd (neuter) ‘that (one)’. [IEW
978 (*so($)}, 1086 ( *to-)\ Wat 62 ( *so -), 71 (*fo-); Gl 336-
338 ( *so/*sdJ *t h o)\ BK 194 (*sa-/*s9-l 103 (l[ b Ja-/*tj h la-)\.
OIr -so/-d ‘this one’, OLat sumJsam ‘this one’ (acc ), Lat is-te/
is-ta/is-tud ‘this (one)’, ON sa/su/pat ‘the; that’, OE se/seo/
past(> NE that) ‘the’, OHG der/die/daz ‘the’, Goth sa/so/pata
‘that (one)’, OPrus stas/sta ‘that (one)’ (with conflation of initial
*s-and t-), Lith tas/ta ‘that (one)’, Latv tas/ta ‘that (one)’, OCS
kuto ‘who’, tu/ta/to ‘that (one)’ (in East Baltic and Slavic t-
replaces earlier s-), Alb ai/ajo ‘he/she’ (< *a + *so/*seh a with
loss of initial *s- and then the addition of a hiatus-filling -/-),
ato/ata ‘they’, Grk 6/q/zo ‘the’, Arm ay-d ‘that’, Hit ta ‘and,
then’, Av hvo (= /hau/ < *so + u)/ha/tat ‘that (one)’, OInd sal
sd/tat ‘that (one)’, TochB se/sa/te ‘such (a one)’. Widespread
and old in IE.
*f<5r ‘there’. [IE W\ 08 7 (*tor)\ Wat 71 ( *io-);BK 103(r^/a-/
*tl h ]a~)\. ON par ‘there’, OE p3£r ‘there’ (> NE there), Goth
par ‘there’, OInd tar-hi ‘at the time, then’. Attested only on
the peripheries of the IE world, it must reflect something old
in PIE. Compare *k w or ‘where’.
*tod£h a ‘then’. [7EW1087 (*to-); BK 103 (t[ b ]a-/*tl h la-)\.
Lith tada ‘then’, Av taSa ‘then’, OInd tada ‘then’ Compare
*k w odeh a ‘when?’ and like it, a word of the center and east of
the IE world.
*tdti ‘so much, many’. [IEW 1087 ( *toti)\ BK 103 (f/^/a-/
*t[ h ]a-)]. Lat tot ‘so many’, totidem ‘just as many’, Grk xoooq
(< *toti-os) ‘so many’. Correlative of *ioti ‘as many’. Compare
*k w oti ‘how much, how many?’.
*teh a Ii ‘of that sort, of that size’. [ IEW 1 087 ( *to-ali-)\ Wat
71 (*to-); BK 103 (t[ h }a-/*t[ h ]a-) ]. Lat tabs' of that sort’, Lith
tolei ‘so long’, Grk rrj/luc oq ‘so old’. Cf. OCS toll ~ toliko ‘so
many’. Compare *k w eh a h ‘of what sort, of what size?’.
*t£h a \fot(s) ‘so many, so long, etc.’. [IEW 1087 ( *to -), BK
103 ( t( h ]a-/*t[ h j9-)\ . Grk recoq (Doric za(f)oq) ‘so long,
meanwhile’, Av ae-tavant ‘so many’, OInd (e-)tavat ‘so much,
so many; so great, so far; etc.’, TochB tot (< *tch a uol) ‘so
much, so many; so great; so far, etc.’ (cf. TochAB kos ‘as much,
etc.’ < *k w eh a uots). The Indo-lranian forms have been rebuilt
as -nt- stems after and *-o- fell together. Correlative of
*ieh a uot(s) ‘as much, as long, etc.’. At least a word of the P1F.
southeast.
*t£h a mot(s) then, at that place’. [IEW 1087 ( *to-)' BK 103
(t[ h Ja-/*tf h j9-)[- Latv nuo tarn ‘from there’, OCS tamo ‘thither,
there’ (cf. kamo ‘whither 7 ’), Grk xfj/aoq (Doric zapoq) ‘then,
thereupon’ (cf. 77 poq (Doric djaoq] ‘at which time, when ). A
word of the center of the IE world.
457 —
PRONOUNS
*£fs ‘this (one)’. | IE W 609-6 10 (*£-); Wat 32 (*Jci-s); BK
241 (*k[ h ]a-/*k[ h ]9-)]. Oghamlr coi ‘here, on this side’, OIr
ce ‘here, on this side’, Gaul kovi ‘here, on this side’, Lat cis
‘on this side of’, OE he ‘he’ (> NE he), OHG her - he ‘he’
(Gmc < *Kis), OPrus schis - sis ‘this (one)’, Lith sis ‘this (one)’,
Latv sis ‘this (one)’, OCS si ‘this (one)’, Alb sot (< *kieh a -
dih x tei ) ‘today’, sivjet (< *kiei-uetes ), simjet (< older and
dialectal simvjet < *kiim-uetesrp ), Myc za-we-te ‘this year’,
Grk orjreg (< *kieh a -uetes ) ‘in this year’, Hit ki ‘this’, kinun
‘now’ (if < *ki-nu-n rather than *ke-nu-n). Perhaps originally
from *ke ‘here’ + *i. In any case, widespread and old in IE.
*hiii (emphatic *hiei6m ) ‘he, this (one)’, *hiih a -‘ she, this
(one)’, *hjid (emphatic *hiid6m~ *hiidih a )‘ it’ (masc./neut.
gen. *hjesjds , fern. gen. *hiesi£has). [1EW 281-283 (*ei-);
Wat 26 ( *i-); GI 253 ( *is/*it ); BK 444 ( V*e)] . OLat eis ‘he’,
Lat is - is/ea/id ‘he/she/it’, OE it ‘it’ (> NE it), OHG ir~ er/iz -
ez ‘he/it’ (fern. gen. ira - era), Goth is/ita ‘he/it’ (masc. gen. is,
fern. gen. izds), Lith /is/ji ‘he/she’, Grk (Cypriot) fv ‘him, her’,
HierLuv is ‘this’, Av ayom ~ aemJlm ‘he/she; this’, OPers iyam
‘she’, OInd ayamliyamlidam ‘he/she/it; this’ (masc./neut. gen.
asya , fern. gen. asy/is). Widespread and old in IE. Originally
the paradigm was based on *hjei- in the nominative and
accusative and *hje- elsewhere. The *hiei- is presumably
*h\e + *i.
*hiiteros ‘(an)other’. Lat iterum ‘again’, Olnd itara- ‘the
other, another’. The geographical distribution suggests some
antiquity in IE.
*hiitfy a (emphatic *hiitha6m~ *h}ith a 6h a ) ‘thus’. MWels
yt- (verbal particle), Lat item ‘also, likewise’, ita ‘so, thus, in
this manner’, Lith (dial.) it ‘as’, Av iSa ‘so’, Olnd iti ‘thus, in
this manner’, ittham ‘thus’, ittha ‘thus; truly’.
*hiidha hert\ [IEW 284-285 ( *i-dha)\ . Olr -id- (infixed
particle), MWels yd- (verbal particle), Lat ibl- ‘there’, Grk
WayEvrjg ‘here born’, Av i8a ‘here’, Olnd iha ‘here’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*h#n- 1 that’. [/EW37 (*an); BK 372 (*an-/*9ti-) J. Olr an-
c/‘here’, Lat an ‘or; whether’, OPrus anga-anga ‘whether’, Lith
ans - anas ‘yon’, an-gu ‘or’, OCS onu ‘he; yon’, Alb a ‘whether’,
Grk «v ‘possibly’. A word of the west and center of the IE
world.
See also Own. [D.Q.A.J
Further Readings
Hamp, E. P (1976) Why syntax needs phonology, in Papers from
the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax , eds. S. B. Steever, C. A.
Walker and S. S. Mufwene, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society,
348-364.
Justus, C. E (1978) Syntactic changes: evidence for restructuring
among coexistent variants. JIBS 6, 107-132.
Klaiman, M. H. (1976) Correlative clauses and IE syntactic recon-
struction, in Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax,
eds. S. B. Steever, C. A. Walker and S. S. Mufwene, Chicago,
Chicago Linguistic Society 158-168.
Schmidt, G. (1978) Stammbildung und Flexion der indogerman-
ischen Personalpronomina. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.
Watkins, C. (1976) Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: problems
and pseudo-problems, in Papers from the Parasession on Dia-
chronic Syntax, eds. S. B. Steever, C. A. Walker and S S Mufwene,
Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society 305-326.
PROSPER
*spehi(i)- be sated, prosper’. [IEW9&3 ( *sp(h)e(i)-); Wat
63 ( *spe-)\. Lat spes'hope’, OE spowan ‘thrive’, OHG spuon
‘thrive, prosper’, Lith sped 1 ‘predict, foretell; be on time’, Latv
speCbe able’, OCS sped ‘thrive, prosper’, Hit ispa(i)- ‘get filled,
be sated’, Olnd sphdyate ‘grows fat, increases’. Cf. the derived
adjective: *sphiros L ± fat, rich’: Lat prosper ‘lucky’, ON sparr
‘sparing’, OCS sporu ‘rich’, Olnd sphira- ‘fat’ l-ph- rather than
the expected *-p- must be because of the affective meaning
of the word). Distribution suggests PIE status.
See a Iso Satisfy . I E . C . P ]
PROTECT
*h a lek- ‘defend, protect’ (pres. *h a l6kse/o- ) [IEW 32
( *aleq-)\ Wat 2 (*alek-)\. OE ealgran ‘protect’, Grk dEegco
‘defend’, Arm araceV tend’, Olnd raksati ‘protect’. Distribution
insures PIE status. From the same root we have the Germanic
words for temple: OE ealh ‘temple’, Goth alhs ‘temple’ (<
^‘protected place’). The Germanic tribes venerated their gods
in the open, in sacred groves (Tacitus, Germania 9) which
required that sacrifices and other homages be set in the midst
of nature which required fencing in the demarcated sacred
area or protecting it through specific rites against hostile forces.
This root was also employed in a similar way in Baltic where
we find Lith alkas ‘holy grove’ or ‘place on a hill where
sacrifices are made’ and Latv elka kalns ‘temple hill’. Here too
belongs Grk aX pa ‘sacred grove’.
*ser- ‘protect’. [IEW 9 10 ( *ser -) ; Wat 58 ( *ser -) | . Lat servo
‘guard’, Lydian karare- (= kat-sare-) (< *-soreie/o~) ‘stand
watch’, sareta- ‘protector’, Av haraiti defends’. The
geographical distribution of the reflexes of this word would
seem to guarantee its PIE status.
See also Cover. I E . C . P |
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
In 1786 Sir William Jones, in a justly famous lecture
delivered in Calcutta, made the observation that:
The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a
wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more
copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined
than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger
affinity, both in the roots of the verbs and in the forms
of grammar, than could possibly have been produced
by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could
examine them all three, without believing them to have
sprung from some common source, which, perhaps,
no longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not
quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic
and the Celtic, though blended with a very different
— 458 —
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
idiom, had the same origin with Sanskrit ; and the old
Persian might be added to the same family, if this were
the place for discussing any question concerning the
antiquities of Persia.
Sir Williams is the first published recognition of the
linguistic entity we now call “Proto-Indo-European” (or in
German Urindogermanisch) . Since then investigators have
sought, on the basis of the data provided by its several
descendants, to reconstruct that “common source”. Two
hundred and some years after Sir William we know a great
deal about Proto-Indo-European though, in the absence of
actual PIE records or, even better, access to a native speaker
or two, our knowledge will always be partial ratTier than
complete. Our partial knowledge is of course subject to
revision, both as new data become available (the discovery of
Hittite and Tocharian at the beginning of this century has
caused numerous revisions to our assumptions concerning
Proto-Indo-European) and as our knowledge about language
in general grows more sophisticated (advancing knowledge
of linguistic typology particularly has suggested new ways of
interpreting the possibilities of Proto-Indo-European).
In the description that follows there is an attempt to outline
what we know about Proto-Indo-European. Given the
limitations on our knowledge, any such description is bound
to be idiosyncratic to a degree and the reader is thus warned
that not everything here is “received knowledge”. Indeed,
probably everything said here would occasion at least some
disagreement from someone though it is perhaps the case, at
the same time, that everyone would see at least a family
resemblance between this description and his or her own
views about Proto-Indo-European.
Phonological Structure of Proto-Indo-European
On the basis of the evidence of the twelve well-attested
stocks of the Indo-European language family, Proto-Indo-
European is traditionally reconstructed as containing fifteen
oral stops, two nasals, one continuant, three or four “laryn-
geals” (opinion is divided as to whether this class of sound
was comprised exclusively of continuants or contained both
continuants and stops), four semi- vowels (or appro ximants),
and five pairs of long and short vowels.
In their traditional symbols (and as adopted in this work)
are the following stops:
Labial
Dental
Palatal
Velar
Labio-Velar
Voiceless
P
t
k
k
k w
Voiced
b
d
g
g
g w
Aspirated
bh
dh
gh
g h
g w h
When the voicing of the stop cannot be determined,
sometimes a capital [P], [T], etc., is used. The dentals had
affricate allophones (symbolized as [t s J, [d s ], and [dh s ]) before
another dental.
Nasals: m n
Continuant: s
The continuant /s/ had a voiced allophone [z] before a
voiced stop, e.g., *sd > *zd. Normally this voiced allophone
is not noted in the Encyclopedia.
Laryngeals: hi, h2, hj, hj
Like the nasals and semivowels, the laryngeals had vowel
and consonant allophones. The vowel allophones are symbol-
ized by a circle under the [h], i.e., h. In combination with
nasals and semivowels it is normally the laryngeal which is
consonantal and the nasal or semivowel which is vocalic.
Semivowels: r, 1 , i, u
It is usually assumed that the nasals and semivowels all
have both vowel allophones Cl, u, f, /, rp, p) and consonant
allophones ( i , u, r, l, m, n). However, it is not certain that the
vowel and consonant allophones, if that is what they were,
were absolutely predictable in late Proto-Indo-European.
Particularly [i] and [u] would appear to be independent of [1]
and [u] . Thus both sets, vowels and consonants, are tran-
scribed separately in the Encyclopedia.
Vowels: i, i u, u
e, e 0,0
a, a
Note that i and u are given here as vowels (as well as the
vocalic allophones of the semivowels) very largely because of
the corresponding long vowels. None of the long vowels was
common in PIE. Most long vowels in the daughter languages
are the result of original vowel plus laryngeal combinations
(e.g., *-ehi~ > *-e -) or by compensatory lengthening (e.g.,
*-ers> *-err> *-er ).
It must be emphasized that the phonological system given
above is the traditional reconstruction. It is, however, not
universally accepted. Particularly controversial are ( 1 ) the
make-up of the stop system and ( 2 ) the number and nature
of the laryngeals. Almost all are agreed that Proto-Indo-
European had three series (or manners of articulation) of stops
and a sizeable number are agreed that Proto-Indo-European
showed five distinct places of articulation (others argue for
only four distinct places of articulation, on which see below).
The three series have traditionally been reconstructed as
voiceless, voiced, and voiced aspirate. Using the bilabials as
examples, we have *p, *b, and *bh respectively. For the first
two series these traditional reconstructions simply recapitulate
the phonetic facts of eight of the well-attested branches of
Indo-European: Celtic, Italic, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Greek,
Iranian, and Indie. (Germanic and Armenian show voiceless
continuants [Germanic] or a mixture of voiceless continuants
— 459
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
The Proto-Indo-European Phonological System and its Outcome in the Major Indo-European Stocks
PIE
Celt
Ilal
Gmc
Balt
Slav
Alb
Grk
Arm
Anat
Iran
Ind
loch
OIr
Lat
OE
Lith
OCS
Alb
Grk
Arm
HU
Av
Olnd
TochB
*P
0
P
ff
P
P
P
P
h~ 0 ~p'~y~w
P~PP
P
P
P
*b
b
b
P
b
b
b
b
P
P
b
b
P
*bh
b
f/b
b
b
b
b
ph
b
P
b
bh
P
*1
t
t
t>
t
t
t
t
t' - d - y
l ~ tt
t
t
t - c
*d
d
d
t
d
d
d
d
t
t
d
d
t ~ IS - 0
*dh
d
Pd
d
d
d
d
th
d
t
d
dh
t ~ ts
*k
c
c
h
s
s
th
k
s~j
k~kk
s
5
k - s
*g
g
g
c
z
z
dh
g
c ~ t
k
z
1
k - s
*gh
g
h
g
z
z
d
kh
j
k
Z
b
k ~ s
*k
c
c
h
k
k
k ~ q
k
zr
i
era
k~kk
k
k
k~s
*g
g
g
c
g
g
g~gi
g
k ~ c
k
g
g
k ~ s
*gh
h
g
g
g
g~gi
kh
?
k
g
gh
k ~ s
*k w
c
qu
hw
k
k
k ~ s
p~t
k‘ ~ h ~ g
ku - kku
k
k
k ~ s ~ k\v
*g w
b
v/gu
cw
g
g
g~z
b ~ d
k
ku
g
g
l
!
*g w h
g
f/u
w
g
g
g~z
ph ~ th
g~I
ku
g
g h
k ~ s ~ kw
*s
s
s
s
s
s
gj ~sb
h - 0 ~ s
h - 0
s
h ~ s ~ s
s ~ s
s ~ s
*i
0
i
gi
j
J
g)
h ~ z
Z ~ 0
y
y
y
y
*u
w
V
w
V
V
V
0
g
w
V
V
w ~ y
*m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
in
m
*n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n - n
*1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
1 ~ r
1
*r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r ~ 1
r
*ip
em
en ~ in
um
im
e
e
a
am
am
a
a
am/am
en
en
un
in
e
e
a
an
an
a
a
an/an
•l
ul
ol
ul
il
il
ul
al
al
al
ara
r
al/al
*r
ri ~ ar
or
ur
ir
Ir
ri - re
ar
ar
ar
ara
r
ar/ar
*i
i
i
i
i
I
i - e
i
i
i
i
i
(y)a/(y)a - a/a
*1
l
l
I
y
i
i
I
i
I
I
i
(y)i
*e
e
e
e
e
e
ja~je
e
• e - (~ a)
e (~ a - i)
a
a
ty)a/(y)a
*e
I
e
£
e
e
0
e
i
e
a
a
(y)e
*0
0
0
at
a
0
a
0
o ~ u (- a)
a ~ a
a
a
e
*0
a
5
0
uo
a
e
6
u
a
a
a
a
*a
a
a
at
a
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
*a
a
a
o
0
a
0
a
a
a
a
a
a
*u
u
u
u
u
0
u
u
u
u
u
u
a/a
*u
u
u
u
u
y
y (-0
u
u
u
u
u
o
*h|
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*h 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o - h
h~hh
0
0
O
*h 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ~ h
h
0
0
0
*h 4
0
0
0
0
0
h
0
0
0
0
0
0
and voiceless aspirated stops [Armenian] where the other
languages show voiceless stops, and they exhibit voiceless
stops where the other languages show simple voiced stops.
Tocharian and Anatolian show voiceless stops for all three
series and are not much help in reconstruction, though
Anatolian preserves the original voiceless stops as fortis or
geminated stops [when between vowels] and distinct from
the lenis or simple voiceless stops that reflect the other two
PIE series.)
The reconstruction of the third senes as voiced aspirates
rests essentially on the evidence of Indie, the only stock to
have voiced aspirates. However, the reliance on Indie in this
case is a little less one-sided than it might appear since the
third series has fallen together with the second in seven of
the well-attested branches (Celtic, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian,
Anatolian, Iranian, and Tocharian) so our evidence for the
phonetic nature of this series is necessarily more limited. In
Germanic and Armenian this series appears as simple voiced
— 460 —
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
Summary of Development of Various Types of PIE Velars (First symbol of a pair is the traditional reconstruction)
PIE
k/k
k/q
Centum
k
k
Satam
tc
k
Albanian (before front vowels)
th
k
Luvian
z (= /ts/)
k
k w
k w
k
s
kw
Note that Albanian /k/ of whatever origin normally becomes f\U (spelled <q>) before remaining front vowels.
stops (Armenian) or voiced continuants (Germanic, at least
originally). In Greek this third series is reflected by voiceless
aspirates and in Italic by voiceless continuants. The fact that
its fate in the majority of Indo-European stocks is to fall
together with the second series does, in any case, suggest
that the two series shared some major phonological feature.
In the last twenty years or so many Indo-Europeanists have
come to doubt the accuracy of these reconstructions because
they lead to an overall phonological system, one having voiced
aspirates but no corresponding voiceless aspirates, that is
otherwise very rare or even non-existent in the attested
languages of the world. They are not unnaturally suspicious
of reconstructing a language that is systematically unmatched
by any other. Several different proposals have been put forward
as possible replacements for the traditional scheme. The
alternative that appears often in the Encyclopedia is that of
Thomas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov (= Gl) who
reconstruct voiceless aspirated stops, voiceless ejective stops,
and voiced aspirated stops (e.g., *p h , *p\ and *b h ) for the
three series. Robert Beekes and others have proposed a system
of *p, *p\ and *p {l where the first is fortis (and voiceless) and
the second and third lenis (and voiced). The editors of the
Encyclopedia take an agnostic stand on the exact nature of
the three series but use the traditional symbols for them, as
do, as a matter of convenience, the majority of investigators,
whatever their personal beliefs about the phonetics underlying
the symbols.
While differing beliefs as to the nature of the three series
of stops are mechanically translatable from one to another,
the difference in opinion as to how many sets of dorsal
consonants to reconstruct is another matter. The older
tradition is to reconstruct three sets: a dorso-palatal set (which
we can represent by its voiceless member *k), a dorso- velar
set ( *k ), and a (dorso-)labio-velar set ( *k w ). Most IE stocks
have reduced this three-way division into a two-way one. The
so-called centum languages (named after the Latin word for
‘hundred’ and comprising Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Greek,
Tocharian) merge the dorso-palatals and dorso-velars but
retain the labio-velars as a distinct set, thus *K, *k, *k w > *k,
*k, *k w . The so-called satam languages (named after the
Avestan word for ‘hundred’ and comprising Baltic, Slavic,
Armenian, Iranian, Indie) lose the labial element of the labio-
velars and thus merge them with the dorso-velars while the
dorso-palatals remain distinct (and appear further palatalized
as affricates or sibilants of one sort or another, e.g., ts, s),
thus *R, *k, *k w > *tc , *k , *k. Since none of these stocks has
more than two sets of dorsals, many investigators have sought
to reduce the PIE dorsals to two sets as well, reconstructing
*k and *k w and taking the relatively rare equation of satam k
and centum k as allophonic variation (many satom languages
do seem to depalatalize *k before resonants), cases of inter-
stock borrowing, or wrong etymologies.
However, it has long been claimed that Albanian preserves
a three-way distinction, at least before front vowels, where
% *k, and *k w appear as th , q (= [/el), and s respectively
(before back vowels PIE *k and ^^both appear as Alb k).
More recently evidence has been presented that Luvian, and
closely related Anatolian languages, also attest to a three-way
distinction in all environments of z = (/ts/), k, and kw
respectively. Thus it is the general editorial practice of the
Encyclopedia to recognize three sets of dorsals, though not
all of the individual contributors have done so. In any case, it
is sometimes difficult to know what should be reconstructed.
If a word is attested only in satam languages with a k, should
we reconstruct a *k or a *k w ? If the word is attested only in
centum languages with a k, should we reconstruct *K or *kl
At times the first ambiguity has been symbolized as *k^ w - but
not consistently and the second kind of ambiguity has been
left largely unacknowledged in any form.
With regard to the reconstruction of the three dorsals we
might further note that, while the palatalization.of dorso-velars
is common (even when not preceding front vowels), the depal-
atalization of palatals is rare. Thus the usual assumption that
in the centum languages the PIE palatals became dorso-velars
is not typologically very realistic.. It is particularly unrealistic
if, as is usually supposed, the centum languages do not
comprise a natural grouping on their own but are simply those
IE groups that did not undergo “satomization". We would
have to suppose then that all the centum languages independ-
ently underwent the rare change of *k to *k. It may make
sense then to think of reconstructing (dorso- velar) *k, (dorso-
uvular) *q , *k w rather than *k, *k, *k w . The satom languages
(Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Armenian) would then show *k,
*q , *k w > *tc, *q, *k w , where the delabialization of *k w
triggered the affricatization of *k, so as to prevent merger of
the two series (under this scenario the two changes that
characterize satom languages would be connected rather than
independent as is the case under the traditional scenario). In
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
all PIE groups the relatively infrequent q-series eventually
became dorso-velar, falling together with original *k in the
centum languages and with *k (from *k w ) in the satam
languages. In Albanian *q became *k only after *k( from *k w )
had also been affricated when before front vowels while in
the Luvian group we find affricatization of original *k( to ts),
dorso-velarization of original *q but the retention of original
*k w .
Knottier than the dorsals is the problem of symbolizing
the PIE “laryngeals”. All investigators are agreed that Proto-
Indo-European had at least one such sound, though its exact
phonetic specification is difficult. Most think that there were
three or four and a few investigators posit even more. Those
who think there are at least three are in agreement that some,
at least, of these laryngeals “colored” an adjacent vowel, that
is, changed an underlying *e to *a or *o. The editorial practice
of the Encyclopedia is to assume four laryngeals and symbolize
them as hi, ^2, /13, and h 4. The second and fourth color an
adjacent *e to *a, while the third colors an adjacent *e to *0.
The first laryngeal causes no coloring. Because it has no effect
on the place of an adjacent vowel, it has been most often
assumed that the first laryngeal was a glottal stop. The second
laryngeal appears, under most circumstances, as h in Hittite
and the third laryngeal also appears as h when word-initial.
The fourth laryngeal appears as h in Albanian when word-
initial before an originally stressed vowel. In all other cases
the laryngeals have disappeared in the daughter languages,
though leaving more or less substantial traces in vowel
coloring, in the lengthening of preceding vowels and in Balto-
Slavic tone and Indo-Iranian syllable division. It is tempting,
given the three series of PIE dorsal stops, to equate laryngeals
two through four with those three series. Thus */i3, because
of its power to round an adjacent *e would be *x w , while */?2
would be (dorso-uvular) and *h 4 would be *x. Most
investigators, however, take “laryngeals” two, three, and four
to have been pharyngeal and/or laryngeal continuants.
At times, in the absence of a Hittite or Albanian cognate,
we cannot tell whether a laryngeal was *h2 or *h 4 In such
cases the symbol *h a is used. In other cases the nature of the
laryngeal is completely unknown and the generic *h x is used.
Some contributors prefer a three-laryngeal solution that
recognizes only the first three laryngeals. The editors have
made substantial efforts to make the usage of these symbols
uniform throughout the Encyclopedia (it is relatively easier
for the reader to translate a four laryngeal description into a
three laryngeal one than vice versa though, for one reason
and another, the translation is not always one to one).
However, consistency in this area is fraught with difficulties
and it is highly doubtful that we have avoided all of them.
The preceding table summarizes the major reflexes of the
PIE consonants and vowels in the twelve well-known daughter
stocks (where it is difficult to say what the “major reflex” is in
a given instance, the common reflexes, each dependent on
some specific environment, are all presented).
Accent
Proto-Indo-European also had a phonemically distinct
accent that might fall on any syllable (cf. Greek zopog slice’,
rojuog ‘cutting, sharp’). In late Proto-Indo-European, that is
Proto-Indo-European immediately before its break-up, this
accent appears to have been one of pitch (as in, say,
contemporary Lithuanian) rather than stress (as in
contemporary English). An accented syllable would have been
pronounced with a higher pitch (or with a rising pitch) and
unaccented syllables with a lower pitch (or with a falling
pitch). Since PIE accented syllables most often contained full
vowels and unaccented syllables did not (e.g., *hies-mi ‘1
am’ compared with *his-mes l we are’), it seems likely that at
some previous time, not too deep in the history of Proto-
Indo-European, the accent was rather one of stress and
unaccented syllables were subject to reduction and loss of
vowels (cf. as in NE prepare vs. [American] prep'ratory ,
[British] prep'rat’ry) . However, reconstructible Proto-Indo-
European certainly did not limit accent to syllables with full
vowels (cf. *u(k w os ‘ wolf’ or *septip ‘seven’), nor were
unaccented syllables necessarily without vowels (cf. the
previous examples or *bheromes‘wt carry’). Syllables with a
full vowel are said to have “full-grade” while syllables without
vowels are said to have “zero-grade”. In addition, under certain
circumstances a syllable might have a long vowel, or
“lengthened-grade”. The zero-, full- and lengthened-grades
provide the basis of quantitative “ablaut”. Full- and
lengthened-grades might have either *-e- or *-o- and that
interchange is called qualitative ablaut.
Different patterns of accentuation were morphologically
important in Proto-Indo-European and it is convenient to
anticipate the discussion of morphology here to outline these
processes. Thus PIE nouns, for which we have fuller evidence
than for verbs (evidence provided by Indie, Anatolian, Greek,
Baltic, Slavic, and traces in Germanic, Iranian, and perhaps
Tocharian), might have the accent fixed on a particular syllable
throughout their paradigm or they might have a movable
accent. In the latter case the accent appeared on different
syllables of the paradigm depending on morphological
conditions. Oversimplifying a bit, the accent was on one
syllable in the nominative and accusative and on a subsequent
syllable in all other cases. There were three mobile patterns:
proterokinetic (“front mobile”), holokinetic (“completely
mobile”), and hysterokinetic (“back mobile”). For convenience
we can symbolize the three possible subparts of a Proto-Indo-
European noun as R (for “root”), S (for “stem-formative”), C
(for “case-ending”). A proterokinetic noun would have the
accent (and a full vowel) on the root in the nominative and
accusative and on the stem-formative in the other cases;
schematically we have nominative and accusative as *eR-S-C,
other cases as *R-eS-C. The holokinetic nominative and
accusative have the accent on the root syllable, the other cases
have accent on the case -ending: thus *eR-S-C and *R-S-eC.
Finally, the hysterokinetic noun has the nominative and
accusative accented on the stem-formative and the accent
— 462 —
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
Accent Types in Proto-Indo-European
Proterokinetic Holokinetic Hysterokinetic Aerostatic
*h a 6 i-u *pdnt-dh2-s *pfr a -t£r *bhreh a -ter
*h a i-ou-s *pnt-h2-os *ph a -tr- 6 s *bhreh a -tf-s
otherwise on the case-ending: R-eS-C and *R-S-eC-.
These patterns can be illustrated by *h a oiu ‘life’, *pontoh2S
‘way’, and *pfr a ter ‘father’. The fixed accent (or aerostatic)
*bhreh a ter ‘brother’ is also given. The accent patterns (in the
accompanying table) are shown by the nominative and
genitive singulars (note that the nominative often lacks any
overt case-ending).
Syntax and Morphology
Languages have basically two choices as to how they signal
relationships of the various constituents of a sentence to one
another: syntactically, i.e. , by the order of the various elements
(e.g., NE “Peter sees Paul” where one knows that is was Peter
who did the seeing because it is the noun in front of the verb
and likewise that it was Paul who was seen because that is
the noun that follows the verb), or morphologically, i.e., by
the form the various elements take in the sentence (e.g., Latin
“Petrus videt Paulum" or “Paulum videt Petrus', or any other
possible order, where one knows that Peter did the seeing
because of the shape it takes, with the [nominative] ending
-us, and Paul was the one seen because of its [accusative]
ending -urn). While most languages use both kinds of signals
to some extent, they certainly differ in the degree to which
the two methods are used. Contemporary English signals
most, but not all, relationships through word order, while
Latin relied to a considerable extent on morphology. All the
other early attested IE languages, including Old English, are
like Latin in this respect and it is certain that Proto-Indo-
European itself relied heavily on morphological markers to
signal intra-sentence relationships as well as many other
things, such as number and gender in nouns and adjectives
or tense, aspect, and mood in verbs.
Syntax
The usual order of a PIE sentence appears to have been
Subject-Object-Verb (SOV), though other orders were
possible, given different kinds of emphasis within the
sentence. In particular, a variant with the verb in first place
was a common way of focusing on the verb itself and might
be found in imperative sentences or where it was desired to
make a contrast between two adjacent sentences explicit
(compare the Hittite sentence akis-ma-as ‘but he died!’ ( akis
= ‘he died’, -ma ‘but’). This situation (namely with usual SOV
order but with VSO as a common variant) is preserved more
or less intact in Old Indie, Old Iranian, Hittite, and the oldest
Latin. Homeric Greek varies between SOV and SVO as the
most frequent word order. In Old Irish sentences with the
verb-initial pattern have been generalized. The oldest attested
Slavic has VSO as its most common word order but by no
means its only one. Likewise, Tocharian, while verb final like
Indie and Hittite, shows signs of having verb initial sentences
as a common possibility at sometime in its prehistory (e g ,
verb forms often have suffixed personal pronoun enclitics
[lyautsa-n ‘he drove me out’] that would be very unexpected
in a verb-final language but which would be normal in a verb-
initial language). The earliest Germanic shows all possible
word orders while becoming predominantly SVO in its later
history (as do Slavic, Greek and the Romance languages)
Baltic and Albanian are predominantly SVO in their earliest
attestations and they remain so.
Typologists set great store by the relative position of
subjects, verbs, and objects because many other word order
sequences within the sentence can be correlated with them,
particularly with the order of verb and object. There is a strong
tendency for OV languages to have postpositions and show
Adjective -Noun, Genitive-Noun, and Relative Clause-Noun
orders, while VO languages have prepositions and show the
opposite orders (N-A, N-G, N-RC). This correlation is by no
means perfect and SVO languages, like modern English,
particularly tend to show mixed patterns like English’s
prepositions, A-N, N-G ~ G-N (“the horn of the car” - “the
car’s horn”), N-RC. Even VSO and SOV languages may be
more or less rigid in the degree to which the verb must be
sentence initial or final and the degree to which the other
orders agree with the general expectations of VSO or SOV
patterns. Japanese and Turkish, for instance, always have the
verb in sentence final position and in all other respects match
the SOV “type”. Hindi, however, while generally SOV in type
is not rigidly so.
The accompanying table shows the usual syntactic word
orders of particular interest to syntactic typologists for the
twelve well-attested branches of Proto-Indo-European. In each
case the earliest attested patterns are the ones given and also
in each case the dominant word order is given for each
category, thus obscuring the difference between a language
where the particular word order is rigid and a language where
other variants are reasonably common. Where two possible
word orders are very nearly equal in frequency both are given
(though, in the absence of good statistical data, the notion of
“very nearly equal in frequency” is not very well defined).
We might note that, if Proto-Indo-European had been a
member of the rigid subgroup of verb-final languages, we
might expect it to have had no relative clauses in the strict
sense at all, but rather preposed participial phrases of some
sort carrying the same information that relative clauses might
carry. This is the situation that obtains, say, in Turkish and
Japanese. Certainly Proto-Indo-European did have participial
phrases; however, it is clear that relative clauses were also
both possible and common. Moreover, the dominant PIE type
of relative clause is quite certain. All early attested languages
retain at least traces of preposed, correlative relative clauses
where the relative pronoun is repeated as a demonstrative
— 463 —
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
Syntactic Types in Proto-Indo-European
Celtic (Old Irish)
VSO
NG
NA
prep
Italic (Latin)
SOV
NG
NA
prep
Germanic (Runic)
SOV
GN/NG
NA
prep
Baltic (Lithuanian)
SOV/SVO
GN
AN
prep
Slavic (Old Church Slavonic)
VSO
NG
NA/AN
prep
Albanian
SVO
NG
NA
prep
Greek
SOV/SVO
NG
AN/NA
prep
Armenian
SVO
NG
AN
prep
Anatolian (Hittite)
SOV
GN
AN
post
Iranian (Avestan)
SOV
GN/NG
AN/NA
prep
Indie
SOV
GN
AN
post
Tocharian (Tocharian B)
SOV
GN
AN
post
pronoun in its expected position in the main clause (e.g.,
‘ who ran the race, to him was given the prize’)- This type is
overwhelmingly the dominant one in Indo-Iranian (in Indie
to this day), Anatolian, and Tocharian. The following sentences
exemplify this pattern in the three oldest attested languages
(examples from Watkins, 1976b): Hittite nu tarhzi kuis dan
pedass-a kuis nu-smas II TUG HlA ERIN me pianzi ‘ now who
wins and who is in second place, now to them two uniforms
they give’, Greek og vvv opicqaxcov navxcov axaXcoxaxa
naitjei, xa ) xode KaXnov ‘who now of all the dancers most
sportively plays, to him this KaXnov (is)’, or Old Indie sa yo
na ujjesyati tasyedam (= tasya idam) bhavisyati ‘he who of us
will win, to him this will be’. In these three cases both topic
and form would appear to be of PIE date. Archaic Latin shows
the same syntactic pattern, turn Satumo films qul primus natus
est, eum necaverunt (Ennius) ‘then who was born first from
Saturn, him they slew’.
Morphology
Just what semantic categories one thinks were signaled
inflectionally in Proto-Indo-European depends in part on one’s
view of the relationship among the various stocks of Indo-
European. As with vocabulary, not all stocks of Indo-European
manifest the same list of inflectional categories, particularly
some have a longer list than others. In general, the earlier the
attestation of the group, the more complex the inflectional
“package”, and that, coupled with the fact that many IE stocks
show a reduction in the amount of inflection they have during
their recorded histories, suggests to investigators that Proto-
Indo-European itself was highly inflected However, there is
one notable exception to the generalization that the earliest
attested branches show more inflectional categories than those
attested later, and that is Anatolian. Anatolian is attested earlier
than any other branch but lacks some of the categories
reconstructible from, say, Old Indie or Greek.
There are two possible explanations for this divergence:
(1) Anatolian separated from the parent Proto-Indo-European
at about the same time as the other branches and has simply
lost some of the categories it inherited from Proto-Indo-
European, or (2) Anatolian separated from Proto-Indo-
European significantly earlier than the other groups and
(some) of the categories that it does not share with them
developed during the period after Anatolian had left but before
any larger break-up of PIE unity Of course, even if the second
scenario is substantially correct, Anatolian could also have
lost certain inherited categories at some time after it separated
from “residual Proto-Indo-European” but before it was
attested.
Noun and Adjective
With this caution in mind, let’s look at the inflectional
categories that are usually reconstructed for the PIE noun
and adjective (categories not found in Anatolian are placed
in parentheses). PIE nouns and adjectives distinguished
— 464 —
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
number, gender, and case. For number there were singular,
(dual), and plural. For gender there were masculine, feminine
(in Anatolian combined with the masculine in a single
“common” gender), and neuter. For case there were (vocative),
nominative, accusative, genitive, ablative, dative, locative (the
latter two combined in Anatolian), and instrumental. It is
worth noting that traces of both dual and a separate feminine
have been claimed for Anatolian.
Gender was inherent in nouns (i.e., any noun was lexically
marked as “masculine”, “feminine”, or “neuter”, though some
nouns could be lexically marked for more than one gender)
but a matter of agreement for adjectives and other modifiers
(i.e., adjectives took special shapes depending on whether
they modified a masculine, feminine, or neuter notin). Much
has been made of gender from time to time from the point of
view of what it may tell about the world view of the speakers
of a language with gender. The answer is probably not very
much. While it is true that the masculine, feminine, and neuter
genders do have an association with sex (e.g., in Indo-
European languages most nouns referring to adult male
humans are masculine, most nouns referring to adult female
humans are feminine), an association which can be exploited
in poetic or other “special” language, the association is not
always absolute (e.g., in both Germanic and Greek diminutive
nouns, whatever the sex of their referents, are neuter) and
the primary use of gender would seem to be demarcative.
The agreement of adjectives and other modifiers with their
head nouns delimits the scope of a particular noun phrase.
When agreement stops, the speaker is inter alia signaling the
end of a noun phrase.
The various case markers signaled the role of the noun
vis-a-vis other elements of the sentence. Thus the nominative
case marked its noun as the subject and the accusative the
direct object (or the goal of a verb of motion, e.g., I went to
Rome). The genitive typically marked some sort of noun-noun
relationship (e.g., the car’s horn), the dative marked the
beneficiary or human goal of some activity (e.g , John gave
Mary the hook), while the instrumental denoted instrument
or association and the other two cases some sort of directional
information (ablative marking the place from, the locative
the place toward or at). The vocative is an exception in that,
as the form used in direct address, it did not show any
relationship with any other part of the sentence. All of the
cases, except the nominative and vocative, could co-occur
with locative adpositions or adverbs to show more complex,
usually, local relationships. The shapes of the singular of an
athematic noun ( *pl) a ter - ‘father’) and a thematic noun
( *hieku-o- ‘horse’), i.e., a root to which the suffix *-e/o- has
been added, are given in the accompanying table:
Neuter nouns differed from this pattern in that they made
no distinction between the nominative and accusative. Thus
*iugom ‘yoke’ acts as both subject and direct object. In all
other ways, however, *iugdm is shaped exactly as *hiekuos
(save, of course, in the place of the accent).
nominative
*pb a ter
*hiekuos
accusative
*ph a lerr]i
*hiekuom
genitive
* pharos
*hjel<uos
dative
*phatrei
*h]ek\idi (< *-oei)
locative
*ph a ter(i)
*hiekuo\
ablative
*pfr a tros
*h\ekuCxi(< *-ovd)
instrumental
*ph- a treh]
*hiekuohi (< *-ochj)
vocative
* plater
* h\e Rye
The plural is less easily reconstructed. There is a tendency
in all IE groups for there to be fewer case distinctions in the
plural than are found in the singular (the vocative is always
identical with the nominative, as is
the ablative with the
genitive). It may be that some of the case distinctions which
are attested for the plural are much later developments than
the corresponding
cases of the singular and less well integrated
into the overall system. It is noteworthy that the Anatolian
languages show many fewer distinctions in the plural than in
the singular (only nominative, accusative, and genitive-dative-
locative-ablative).
nominative
*ph a teres
*hiekuos(< *-oes)
accusative
*ph a terris ?
*hiekuons
genitive
*ph a trom
*hiekuom
dative
*ph a tfmos ~
*h lekijomos ~
*ph a t[bh(i)6s ?
*h iekuoibh(i)os
locative
*ph a t[su
*hiekuoisu
ablative
*ph a trdm
*hiekuom
instrumental
*pfaat[bhi
*h]ekudis (< *-oeis)
vocative
*ph a teres
*h jekijos (< *-oes)
Again the neuter never distinguishes nominative accusative
(for *iugdm the nom.-acc. plural is *iugeh a ).
Finally the dual is even more difficult to reconstruct, though
it seems likely that one form of the nom.-acc. dual for
masculine and feminine nouns was *-eh\ (thus *ph a tereh}
‘two fathers’ or *hiekuohi ‘two horses’) while the neuter
showed *-ih\ (e.g., *iugoihi ‘two yokes’).
Verbs
Reconstructing the PIE verb is a more difficult task than
reconstructing the shape of nouns and adjectives, basically
because the various IE stocks show considerably more
diversity in their verbal systems than they do with their
nominal systems. Since the latter part of the nineteenth
century it has been the general practice to reconstruct a PIE
verbal system which looks very much like that found in Greek
or Indo-Iranian. This system shows two voices (active and
medio-passive), three aspects (“present”, aorist, and perfect),
three tenses (present, past, and future), four moods (indicative,
subjunctive, optative, and imperative), three persons (first,
second, and third) and three numbers (singular, dual, and
plural). While not all of the theoretical combinations of
categories actually occurs (the future only shows up combined
with “present” aspect, the imperative has no first person forms.
— 465 —
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
Verbal Categories of Proto-Indo-European
Mood
Indicative Imperative Optative? (Subjunctive??)
Aspect
“present” aorist
Tense
V present
past
L past
etc.), still the reconstructed verbal system is quite complex,
just as the Greek and Indo-Iranian ones are quite complex.
With the exception of Italic, the other IE branches have signifi-
cantly less complex systems (cf. Germanic with two voices,
no aspects, two tenses [present and past| and three moods
[indicative, subjunctive, and imperative], three persons, and
three numbers) and it has been generally thought that their
relative simplicity was the result of the loss of various PIE
categories and combinations of categories in those stocks.
However, ever since the discovery of Hittite with a similarly
simple system (two voices, two tenses, two moods [indicative
and subjunctive/imperative], three persons, and two num-
bers), the consensus in favor of the fuller model has been
fading in favor of reconstructing something simpler, and more
like that attested in Hittite. The more elaborate, traditionally
reconstructed, system would still be of PIE date, but only
found in the southeastern dialect area of (late) Proto-Indo-
European.
While the older consensus is fading, a new consensus has
not yet developed. The arguments for preferring one system
over another are both detailed and complex and would take
us too far afield to rehearse them here. Thus, the description
that follows should be thought of as one possibility only. We
tentatively assume that PIE had two voices: active and medio-
passive. The latter was used when the subject was seen as
acting for him- or herself, e.g., OInd yajate or Greek Ovezai
‘he offers sacrifices for himself, on his own behalf’. It could
also be used, though probably rarely, as a true passive with
the object of the active verb (the “patient”) transformed into
the subject of the passive verb and the subject of the active
verb (the “agent”) expressed by the genitive, ablative, or
instrumental case (e.g., Grk apxovzai vno pacnXecov ‘they
are ruled by kings’). Proto-Indo-European probably had only
an incipient aspectual distinction: Lhe “present” denoting
activities the speaker saw as on-going or repeated and the
aorist denoting completed activities. The perfect, denoting
actions that had some kind of on-going relevance, though
widespread (seen in lndo-Iranian, Greek, Italic, Celtic, and
Germanic) was probably a late, dialectal, creation of Proto-
Indo-European. As to tense, Proto-Indo-European seems to
have distinguished two, a present and a past. Those two are
universal in IE languages. A separate future arose in most
branches independently, though in Indo- Iranian, Greek, and
Celtic (with traces in Balto-Slavic) it arose from a PIE desidera-
tive formation (one expressing a desire to do something).
Proto-Indo-European also distinguished three persons, first
(speaker), second (addressee), and third (non-participants in
the conversation). These are also universal in IE languages.
Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Greek, Indo-Iranian, and Tocharian
all preserve three numbers (singular, dual, and plural) in the
verb. The other groups do not. However, the Anatolian
languages have a first person plural in -wen which in the
dual- preserving languages would be a dual ending and it is a
reasonable hypothesis at least that -wen should be taken as a
trace of a formerly preserved dual in Anatolian. If so, recon-
structing the dual to Proto-Indo-European seems assured.
Finally, judging the numbers of distinct moods that existed
in Proto-Indo-European is even more dependent on how we
judge Anatolian’s relationship with the rest of the Indo-
European languages. All IE groups distinguish the indicative
from the imperative. There is evidence for a distinct optative
(for wishes or contrary-to-fact situations) in *-i(e)h\-. It
appears in or has left traces in eight groups (Italic, Germanic,
Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Indie, Iranian, and Tocharian). It is pro-
bably PIE in age. A separate subjunctive (for mild commands,
in subordinate clause, for possible events) in *-e/o- manifests
itself in Celtic, Italic, Greek, Indie, and Iranian (and just
possibly in a single trace in Tocharian). If it were IE in age, its
shape would have made it liable to confusion with the
indicative of thematic verbs and we could account for its
disappearance in those groups where it is not found on the
basis of that confusion. However, it is not found, even in
traces, in Anatolian, the one group where the indicative and
subjunctive would not have become confused since simple
thematic verbs are notably lacking in Anatolian. Its absence
in Anatolian is a reasonably strong argument that the
subjunctive in *-e/o- was a late dialect feature of Proto-Indo-
European that had not arisen when Anatolian became
separated from the rest of Proto-Indo-European.
This discussion is summarized in the accompanying
diagram of the verbal categories of Proto-Indo-European. Note
that the categories of aspect and tense were only operative in
the indicative mood in Proto-Indo-European (though they
came to appear in other moods in a variety of ways in some
IE groups).
In addition to these semantic categories, Proto-Indo-
European would appear to have had two conjugations which
were distinguished by different person endings, at least in
the singular. The first conjugation was characterized by the
first, second, third person singular endings *-s(i ),
*-t(i). The second conjugation was characterized by *-h2(c)(i),
*-tti2e(i), and *-e(i). The first conjugation was most often
typified by *-e- as the root vowel in the singular and no vowel
(or a reduced vowel) in the dual and plural (though there
were other vowel patterns). It can be exemplified by the
paradigm for */t jes- ‘be’:
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
Singular Plural
1 *hiesmi 1 *hismes
2 *hjessi 2 *histe
3 *hjesti 3 *hjsenti
The final *-i that appears as part of some of the person/
number markers is in origin a separate particle that empha-
sized the “here and now” nature of what was being said. It is
no doubt originally the same as the *-i that marks the locative
singular of nouns. In any case, otherwise identical endings
but without the final *-i (called “secondary endings” as
opposed to the “primary endings” with *-f) were also to be
found in a variety of uses, particularly with the modal sense
of “is to” or “must” (the so-called “injunctive”) or, when
combined with a preceding particle *h\e , in a past meaning
(called the “imperfect"). This latter combination is found cer-
tainly only in Greek, Phrygian, Armenian, and Indo-lranian,
though it is possible that Baltic, Slavic, and Tocharian also
show traces of it in certain of their past tenses. It may well
have been, then, an innovation of the center and east of the
IE world and not part of the verbal system of Proto-Indo-
European in general.
The second conjugation comes in two varieties: a “basic”
variety without a connecting theme vowel *-e/o- and one with
the connecting vowel. The first subvariety of the second
conjugation often had *-o- as the root vowel in the singular
and no vowel (or reduced vowel) in the dual and plural
(though again there were other vowel patterns possible). It
can be exemplified by *noR- ‘harm, destroy’:
Singular Plural
1 *ndKh 2 ei 1 *n e Rmes
2 *noRth 2 ei 2 *n t Rte
3 *noRei 3 *n e Renti
The second subvariety of the second conjugation, a type
usually called “thematic verbs” (and opposed to the “athematic
verbs” of the other two types), was characterized by the suffix
*-e/o- and by *-e- as the accented root vowel throughout the
paradigm. It can be exemplified by *bher-e/o- ‘carry’:
Singular Plural
1 *bheroh 2 1 *bheromes
2 *bhereth 2 e ? 2 *bherete
3 *bherei 3 *bberonti
Even in Proto-Indo-European itself it would appear that
the thematic type of conjugation 11 had borrowed the
secondary endings (i.e. , those without the final *-i) of the
first conjugation. Thus the imperfect of *bher-e/o- was
*bherom , *bheres, *bheret (or *hje bherom , etc.). The past
of the athematic type of conjugation 11 was apparently
characterized by the addition of *-i- and had yet another set
of endings. The imperfect of *noR- would have been *noR-i-
I 12 U-, *noR-i-s-th 2 e, *noR-i-s, (3rd. pi.) *n e R-i-er(< *-ers) ~
*n e R-i-r-(o)nl.
The medio-passive apparently always had person-number
endings like that of conjugation 11, except with a final *-r
rather than *-i (though the latter came to characterize the
medio-passive in the southeast, namely in Greek and Indo-
lranian).
Singular
1 *bheroh 2 er
2 *bhereth2er
3 *bheror
1 *n e Rh2er
2 *n e Rtb2er
3 *n e Rdr
The athematic type of conjugation 11 appears as such only
in Anatolian, though Tocharian shows the same formation
rebuilt a bit in the direction of conjugation 1. Other IE groups
show even fainter traces of it, rebuilt as the thematic type.
Indeed, outside of Anatolian, the thematic verbs have become
the dominant type in the various IE branches, to the point
that athematic verbs typically remain, if at all, only as a small
subset of irregular verbs such as NE am, is However, at the
same time that thematic verbs are becoming the dominant
type, the person-number endings of conjugation l were
replacing the person-number endings of conjugation 11,
including its thematic type. The accompanying chart indicates
the varying degrees to which the conjugation 1 person-number
endings of the singular have penetrated the paradigm of the
thematic verbs (a plus indicates that the conjugation 1 form
has replaced the conjugation II form; parentheses indicate
that that replacement has happened demonstrably late in the
history of that stock).
Conjugation II endings are most securely presewed in the
(dialectal) PIE perfect. This formation, which signals some
The Association of Conjugation 1 Personal Endings with Thematic Verbs
Celt
Ital
Gmc Balt
Slav Alb
Grk Arm
Anat
Iran
OInd Toch
1
-
-
-
-
+
+
(+)
(+) +
2
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
3
+
+
-+
£+) -
+
+
+
+
— 467 —
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
prior activity that has resulted in an on-going state, in much
the same fashion as the N E perfect tenses (e.g. , “he has come ”,
“she has brought the book”), looks a good deal like the
conjugation II present given above, though without the “here
and now” particle *-i and typically with reduplication. Thus
the perfect to the root *derk- ‘see’ is *dedorkh2e ‘I have seen’
or to the root *ueid- ‘see’ is *uoidh2C ‘I have seen’ (whence
> ‘I know’).
There have been several attempts to match the two conjuga-
tional patterns with some semantic distinction. The earliest
such suggestion was to consider conjugation 11 endings as
originally the markers of the middle voice and conjugation l
endings as the markers of the active. More recently Gamkre-
lidze and Ivanov take conjugation II endings as marking an
inactive (i.e., inanimate) subject in an intransitive sentence
or an inactive object in a transitive one while the conjugation
1 endings marked active subjects in both transitive and intrans-
itive sentences. Robert Beekes, on the other hand, proposes
that the thematic verbs (one set, at least, of conjugation II)
marked the presence of a definite object and athematic verbs
(of conjugation I) marked the presence of indefinite objects.
All such identifications remain most speculative. No stock of
Indo-European distributes the two sets of endings in anything
like the pattern that these hypotheses would require. No doubt
the two sets must have reflected some semantic distinction at
some point, but for reconstructible Proto-Indo-European they
seem to have been merely markers of different conjugations.
Though not attested in Anatolian, the aorist is even more
widely attested in the rest of Indo-European than the perfect
and should probably be reconstructed for late Proto-Indo-
European itself. Aorists were distinguished from presents by
the shape of the stem. If the aorist took the shape of the verbal
root with no additions, the present was distinguished by
reduplication or some derivational suffix. Thus *dehj- is the
aorist shape of a verb meaning ‘give; take’ while *didehj -
represents the present (therefore: *deh3t ~ *hje dehjt ‘he
gave’ versus *dideh3t ~ *hje dideh3t ‘he was giving’). Alter-
natively, it was the present that took the root shape and the
aorist was derived by a suffix, usually *-s-, e.g., *deikt~ *h\e
deikt ‘was showing’ versus *deikst ~ *hie deikst ‘showed’.
Both the aorist and the perfect reflect derived verbs that
became integrated into the verbal paradigm over time. But
Proto-Indo-European had a rich selection of verbal derivatives
besides those that became aorist and perfect. There were a
number of derivatives, for instance, that created “iterative-
intensives” (i.e., derived verbs that focused on the repetition
of the action denoted by the underlying verb or on its unusual
intensity) of one sort or another. Thus we have the derivational
suffix *-eh a - with differing grades of the root vowel in *duk-
eh a - ‘pull (along)’ (Latin e-ducare ‘bring up, rear, educate’,
OE togian ‘tow’, TochA taka- ‘move, agitate; consider’) from
*deuk- ‘lead’, *domh x eh a - ‘subdue, tame’ (Latin domat
‘subdues’, OHG zamot ‘tames’, OInd damayati ‘subdues’), or
*lekeh a - ‘± move vigorously’ (Latv lekaju ‘fly or jump about’,
Grk [Hesychiusj XrfKoto) ‘dance to singing’). A similar meaning
is carried by the suffix *-ie/o- in *klepie/o- ‘steal’ (Grk kXekxco
‘steal’, TochB kalypitsi ‘to steal ) from *klep- lay hand to’.
Another very frequent iterative formation is *-ske/o -, e.g,
*pfk-ske/o- ‘ask, question’ (Olr arcu, Latin posed , OHG
forscon l< *pfk-sk-eh a -], Arm harc‘i, Av parasaiti, Olnd
pfcchati) or *g w rp-ske/o- ‘come’ (Grk pdcncto, Av jasaiti, Olnd
gacchati, TochB kanmask-).
Causatives (i.e., ‘make or have lsomeonel do something’)
were formed by adding *-neu- (plus zero-grade of the root)
or *-eie/o- (plus o-grade) in *hi[neu- ‘cause to move’ (Grk
opvvcn ‘moves, rouses, stirs’. Hit amuzzi ‘moves along, makes
go, stirs, raises’, Av aranaoiti ‘sets in motion’, Olnd fnoti
‘moves, arises’) from *h\or- ‘stand up, rise’; *torseie/o- ‘dry’
(tr.) (Latin torrere ‘dry’, OHG derren ‘dry’, Olnd tarsayati
‘dries’) from *ters- ‘be dry, dry out’ (intr.); or *uoseie/o- ‘clothe’
(OE werian ‘clothe, cover over; wear’, Gothic wasjija ‘clothes’,
Albanian vesh ‘clothe, dress, cover’, Hit wassezzi ‘clothes,
dresses’) from *ues- ‘be dressed, wear’.
Verbs could be derived from nouns or adjectives by means
of certain denominative suffixes. The most common, perhaps,
was *-ie/o- as in *hinomnie/o- ‘name’ (Goth namnjan ‘name’,
Grk ovogaivo) ‘name’. Hit lamniya- ‘name’) from *hidmp
‘name’. The suffix *-eh2- created ‘factittves’ (i.e., ‘make
[somethingl the quality of the underlying noun or adjective’).
Thus from *neuos ‘new’ we have *neueh2- ‘make new’ (Latin
novare ‘make new, renew’, OHG niuwon ‘make new, renew’,
Grk veao) ‘replow’. Hit newahh- ‘make new, renew ). There
was also the suffix *-eh\- which created verbs meaning
‘be(come) the quality of the underlying noun or adjective’ as
in *hirudhehi- ‘redden’ (Olr ruidi ‘blushes’, Lat rube re ‘be
red, blush’, ON roda ‘be red’, OE rudian ‘be ruddy’, OHG
roten ‘be red’, RusCS rudeti se ‘turn red’, Lith rudeti ‘rust,
become rusty’) from *hirudhrds l red’. A verb such as *leukeh}~
‘shine, be bright’ (Lat lucet ‘it is light, it is day’, lucescit ‘it
grows light, day is breaking’, Hit lukkeszi ‘it grows light’),
while presumably originally derived from *Ieuks ‘light’, might
also be taken as a derivative of the verbal root underlying
*leuks and such ambiguity eventually led to the extension of
this suffix to purely verbal derivation as in the late, and
dialectal, *steh2ehj- ‘be standing, remain standing’ (Olr ta
‘is’, Lat stare ‘stand’, OHG stan ‘stand’, OCS stojatl ‘stand’).
Word Formation
Proto-Indo-European also had a rich system of derivation.
As we have seen above, derived causatives or iteratives could
be made from verbs. In addition, adjectives could be derived
from verbs, and verbs from nouns or adjectives. As examples
we might cite *h}6rei L rises, moves’ (intr.) > *hi[-neu-ti ‘sets
in motion’ (tr.) > *hior-es- ‘height’, *temh x -ti ‘it grows dark’
> *temh x -es- ‘darkness’ > *t(e)msh x -s-rd-s ‘dark’ or *h2oh x -
‘burn, heat’ > *h2eh x -ter- ‘fire’ > *h2eh x -tr-iio- ‘chimney’ (>
‘atrium’). Most derivation, like the examples just illustrated,
was done by way of suffixing, but nouns and adjectives might
also make derivatives by a change of accent pattern (e.g., Olnd
kfsna- ‘black’, but kfsna- black antelope’), by ablaut or a
— 468 —
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
change of vowel (e > o, e > e, o > o), or both (e.g., *suekuros
‘father-in-law’ > *suekuros ‘pertaining to the father-in-law’,
later also ‘brother-in-law’, *yodf ‘water’ > *ueddr ‘water
[collective]’), or *hiosu (gen. *hiesu(o)s ) ‘a good thing’ >
*h\esus (gen. *hjsous) ‘good’.
An extended illustration of PIE derivation may help to show
the richness of the system. We can reconstruct, for instance,
a neuter noun *poums ‘(human) body hair’ (which by regular
phonological processes would have had an alternative
pronunciation *p 6 ms ) whose genitive singular might have
been *peums (older?) or *pumsos (newer?). By internal
derivation, i.e., by a change of vowel and/or accent class, was
made the feminine noun *peumos whose meaning was more
or less equivalent to the underlying neuter noun (cf. Latin
pubes ‘pubic hair, Shughni pum ‘down, fluff’). The
relationship between *poums and *peumds would be exactly
the same as that between *yddf and *yeddr above. There
was also a derived adjective *peumds ‘characterized by
*poums (cf. Latin pubes ‘arrived at the age of puberty, adult;
covered with down’) which might itself be nominalized as
‘one characterized by *pdums' (cf. Latin puberes [pi.] ‘adult
men, men capable of bearing arms’ [like French poil ‘body
hair’ and poilu ‘hairy; soldier’], Olnd puman [gen. pumsas ]
‘man, male’). Two later thematicizations of the basic neuter
noun are *pums-o- (Albanian push ‘down, hair, fiber, fur’)
and *pou(m)s-o- (Rus pukh ‘down, fluff, fine hair’). External
derivation, i.e., the addition of morphological material, give
us *pdms-to-s in Av pgsta- ‘skin, especially the hairy skin of
men’, *pou(m)s-ti-s in dialectal Lith paustis ‘animal fur’,
*peumos-neh a - in Olr uamann ‘skin’, and *g-pum£s in Latin
impUbes ‘below the age of puberty, beardless; boy’. (All these
instances of external derivation are language specific though
in each case they represent PIE morphological possibilities.)
*poums is itself a derived s-stem and the *p(e)um- that lies
behind it is seen in *pum-rd-s ‘characterized by *poums’ in
Latin pubertas ‘puberty; growth of body hair; virility’ (and it
is this word that is the source of the -b- found throughout
this word family in Latin), *peum-ehi- ‘be characterized by
*pdums’ in Latin pubens ‘arrived at puberty’ and further in
*peum-ehi-ske/o- ‘become characterized by *poums ’ in Latin
pubesco ‘come to the age of puberty’, and in *pourp-go-on-
‘beard’ in Greek Ttroycav ‘beard’. Finally *p(e)um- is itself
derived from *pu- otherwise seen in *pu-lo-s ‘single hair (of
the human body)’ as in Mir ul ‘beard’, Grk (Hesychius)
KvXiyyeq (pi.) ‘hairs of the body’ or Olnd pulakas (pi.) ‘hairs
bristling from delight or apprehension’.
A somewhat different derivational process than those
illustrated before is the addition of “enlargements” to verbal
roots, e.g., *ten- ‘stretch’ > *ten~s- or *ten-gh- ‘stretch’ or
*h2eh x - ‘burn, heat’ > *h2ehx-s- in *h2eh x s-eh a - ‘hearth’,
*h2^ x s-ter- ‘ember’ (later ‘star’). As in these examples, the
addition of an enlargement often does not seem to have very
large semantic consequences. It is likely that they reflect some
sort of verbal derivational processes that were already obsolete
in the latter stages of Proto-Indo-European that we can recover
by linguistic reconstruction. What might be thought of as a
kind of enlargement, albeit this time as a prefix to the root, is
the so-called “s-mobile” which occurs facultatively before
some PIE roots (cf. the descendants of one such pair in NE
melt and smelt). As with the suffixed enlargements there seems
to be no constant semantic difference between the prefixed
and unprefixed form.
Finally, Proto-Indo-European made extensive use of
reduplication, the partial repetition of (usually) the first
consonant (with a following vowel) of a root. Thus from
*steh2~ ‘stand’ we find *sti-steh2-mi ‘1 stand' or from *k w el-
‘turn’ we have *k w e-k w lom ‘wheel’ (< ‘the turner’). Such
reduplication was particularly common as a characterization
of aspectually “present” verbal stems (e.g., *sti-steh2-mi ‘1
stand’ but *steh2-m ~ *hie steh2~m ‘1 stood up’) and of the
dialectally important perfect ( *de-dorK-e 'he/she has seen’).
Proto-Indo-European was also rich in compound adjectives
and nouns. Particularly common were compounds with a
meaning ‘having X + Y\ e.g., *h2fgi-p(t)h a ios ‘swift -winged’
(Greek odyvnwq [with phonological deformation] ‘vulture’,
Arm arcui ‘eagle’, Av arazifya- ‘eagle’, Olnd fjipya- ‘swift-
winged [of eagles, arrows] ; eagle’), *h]su-menes ‘well-minded’
(Greek evpevffq ‘well-disposed, favorable’, Av humanah-
‘having good thought’, Olnd sumanas ‘well-disposed,
gracious’), or *k w et up-pod- ‘animal’ (< *‘four-legged’) (Latin
quadrupes ‘four-footed; four-footed animal’, Umb peturpurs-
‘four-footed animal’, Myc qe-to-ro-po-pi [instr.l ‘having four
feet’, Greek xexpanovq ‘four-footed; four-footed animal
[particularly cattle]’, Olnd catuspad- ‘four-footed animal’).
Other types of compounds were also possible. For example
the first part of a compound might further specify or limit
the second part as in *uik-potis ‘lord’ (lit. ‘± settlement-
master’) in OPrus waispa tti- ‘wife’, Lith viespats ‘lord (God);
ruler, Albanian zot (< *uikd-pot-) ‘lord’, Av vispaiti - ‘lord’,
Olnd vispati- ‘lord of a house, chief of a settlement or tribe’.
Another type of compound is found commonly in numbers,
e.g.., *ui-(d)kijnih} ‘twenty’ (< *‘two tens’).
See also Indo-European Languages; Reconstruction;
Schleicher’s Tale; Subgrouping. [D.Q.A.l
Further Readings
Language
Baldi, Philip (1983). An Introduction to the Indo-European
Languages. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press
Beekes, R. S. P (1995) Comparative Indo-European Linguistics An
Introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Friedrich, P (1975). Proto-Indo-European Syntax. (Journal of Indo-
European Studies, Monograph 1.). Butte, Montana.
Gamkrehdze, T. V, and V V Ivanov (1995). Indo-European and the
Indo-Europeans. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs,
80.) Berlin and New York, Mouton de Gruyter
Lehmann, W. P (1974). Proto-Indo-European Syntax Austin, Texas,
University of Texas Press.
Lehmann, W. P. (1993). Theoretical Bases of Indo-European
Linguistics. London and New York, Routledge.
— 469
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
Lockwood, W. B. (1969) Indo-European Philology. London,
Hutchinson.
Szemerenyi, O. (1996). Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics.
(Transl. of 4th German ed). Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Watkins, C. (1976a). Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: problems
and pseudo-problems, in Papers from the Parasession on
Diachronic Syntax, April 22, 1976, ed. S. B. Steever, C. A. Walker
and S. S. Mufwene, Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society, 305-
Watkins, C. (1976b); Syntax and metrics in the Dipylon vase
inscription, in Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European
Linguistics Offered to Leonard R. Palmer, eds. Anna Morpurgo-
Davies and Wolfgang Meid, Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprach-
wissenschaft, 16, Innsbruck, Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft der
Universitat Innsbruck, 431-441.
Dictionaries
Bomhard, A. and J. C. Keams (1994) The Nostratic Macrofamily: A
Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. Berlin, New York and
Amsterdam, Mouton de Gruyter.
Buck, C. D. (1949) A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the
Principal Indo-European Languages. Chicago and London,
University of Chicago.
Delamarre, X. (1991) Le Vocabulaire indo-europeen: lexique
itymologique thimatique. Paris, J. Maisonneuve.
Mann, S. (1984-87). An Indo-European Comparative Dictionary.
Hamburg, Helmut Buske.
PokomyJ. (1959) Indogermanisches etymologisches Worterbuch.
Bern and Stuttgart, Francke.
Schrader, O. and A. Nehring (1917-1923) Reallexikon der
indogermanischen Altertumskunde. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter.
Watkins, C. (1985). The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-
European Roots. 2nd ed. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
Przeworsk a. Distribution of the Przeworsk culture
PRZEWORSK CULTURE
The Przeworsk culture is an Iron Age culture (second
century BC-fourth century AD) of south and central Poland
and the west Ukraine. It is sometimes coupled with the more
easterly Zarubintsy culture to represent the culture of the Iron
Age Slavs. There are about forty sites known which include
undefended agricultural settlements with small semi-
subterranean (later surface) dwellings and large cemeteries.
Burial was by cremation in a pit or urn and some burials are
accompanied with weapons. Among those who look to Poland
as the Slavic homeland, the Przeworsk culture shows
continuity with preceding cultures (Lusatian) and insures that
the Slavic homeland was in this territory from whence the
Venedi, one of the earliest historically attested Slavic tribes,
are specifically derived. On the other hand, Germanicists have
argued that the Przeworsk culture was occupied by the Elbe-
Germanic tribes (from where the Vandals or Burgundians
originated) and there are also those who argue that the
Przeworsk reflects both a Germanic and a Slavic component.
See also Slavic Languages; Zarubintsy Culture.
U-PM.l
Przeworsk b. The Grinev plaque
which has been interpreted in
terms of a continuous narrative
describing the origin of a tribe. The
uppermost register depicts a wolf,
then a griffon, a marriage scene, a
ram and then an armed rider.
PUSH
PULL
*deuk- ‘puli’. [IEW 220 ( *deuk-)\ Wat 12 ( *deuk-)\ G1
500 ( *t ’euk h -)\ Buck 9.33). (1) pres. *deuke/o-: Lat duco ‘lead;
fetch; deduce’, ON toginn ‘pulled’, OE (eon ‘puli’, OHG ziohan
‘puli’, Goth tiuhan ‘pull, lead’, Alb nduk ‘pull hair out’, Grk
(Hesychius) devicei ‘considers, reflects’; (2) pres. *duk-eh a ~:
MWels dygaf ‘bring’, Lat -ducarc ‘lead’, ON toga ‘tow’, OE
togian ‘tow’ (> NE tow), OHG zogon ‘puli’, TochA tka- ‘will
stir; will consider’. Cf. ON teygja ‘tie’, OE tiegan (< *doukeie/
o- ) ‘tie’, ON tjda (< *deukeh a -) ‘help’, Grk SaiSvcrcrecjOai
‘rub, drag’. Quite widespread; certainly old in IE. It is
noteworthy that in a number of stocks this word has taken
on cognitive meanings in addition to the original physical
ones. The cognitive extensions may well be of PIE date.
*dhregh- l pu\\, tear (out)’. [/EW257 ( *dheragh -); Wat 15
( *dhragh-)\ Buck 9.33]. ON draga ‘pull’ (borrowed > NE
drag), drog ‘stripe’, OE dragan ‘pull’ (> NE draw), OHG tragen
‘carry’, Lith dirginu ‘stimulate, stir, excite’, Latv dragaju ‘tear’,
OCS drugnpd ‘puli’, Rus dergatl ‘pluck, tear’, doroga ‘way,
journey’, dorozitl ‘hollow out’, Czech draziti ‘make a groove
or furrow; hollow out’. Probably related is Lat traho ‘pull’
though the initial t- and the vowel -a- are a bit difficult. A
word of the northwestern part of the IE world.
*selk- ‘pull’ (pres. *s£lke/o-). [IEW 901 (*selk-)\ Wat 57
( *seIk-)\ G1 106, 595 ( *s°elk h -)- Buck 9.331 . Lat sulcus
‘furrow’, sulcare ‘to plow’, OE sulh ‘furrow, plow’ (> NE
sullow ), Grk eXico) ‘puli’, TochB salk- ‘pull out’. The
geographical extension suggests PIE status.
*h 4 uelk- ‘puli’. 1G1 595] . Lith velkii ‘puli’, Latv v£lku ‘puli’,
OCS v/e/cp ‘puli’, Alb heq ‘pull (out), remove’, Grk taAm( acc.)
~ avXa £ (< *h 4 Uolk - ~ h^lk-) ‘furrow’, Av fravarcaid ‘carries
off’. A “rhyme-word” of the preceding, confined to the center
and east of the IE world.
See also Drive; Plow. [D.Q.A.l
PUNISH see STRIKE
PURE
?*h a idhr6s ‘pure’ (< *‘burned’). [IEW 11-12 ( *ai-dh)\ cf.
Wat 1 (*aidh-)\. Grk idapoq ‘cheerful, glad; pure’, OInd
vidhra- (< vi + idhra -) ‘clean, clear, pure’. A derivative of
*h a eidh- ‘burn’. Possibly a word of the center and east of the
IE world, though it is also possible that we have independent
innovations in Greek and Old Indie.
See also Burn, Clean. [D.Q.A.l
PUS
*puhx€s- ‘putrefaction, pus’. [IEW 848-849 (*ptf-)). Lat
pus ‘pus’, Lith puv£s(i)ai ‘rotten things’, puliai ‘pus’, Latv
puvesi ‘pus’, Grk nvoq ‘pus’, Arm hu ‘purulent blood’. From
*peu(h x )~ ‘stink, rot’. A late word of the west and center of
the IE world.
See also Anatomy; Medicine; Rot; Sick. [D.Q.A.]
PUSH
*(s)teud- ‘push, thrust’ (pres. *(s)tun£d s ti) [ IEW 1033-
1034 ( *(s)teu-d -); Wat 66-67 ( *(s)leu- ); Buck 10. 67], Olr
do-tuit ‘makes to fall’, Lat tunc/o ‘push, strike’, studeo 'strive,
study’, studium ‘zeal’ (borrowed > NE study), ON stauta
‘thrust’, OHG slozan ‘thrust’, Goth stautan ‘strike’. Alb shtyj
(< *studnie/o-) ‘push’, Olnd tudad ~ tundate ‘pushes, strikes,
stings’. Widespread and old in IE.
*yedh- ‘push, strike’. [IEW 1115 (*yet//i-); Wat 73
( *wedh-)\ Buck 10.67; BK 478 (*wad-/*wod-)\. Olr fodh (<
*yodhijo-) ‘weapon’, faiscid ‘presses’, MWels gwascu ‘press’,
OPrus wedigo 'wood-ax’, Lith vedega a kind of ax, Grk
(Hesychius) e'Oei ‘destroys’, coOeo) shove, thrust’, Hit wezz- ~
wiwida- ‘strike, urge’, OInd vadhati 'strikes, pushes, slays’,
TochA wac ‘struggle, battle’, TochB wat- ‘fight’, weta ‘struggle,
battle’, yatwe (< *yedhuo-) ‘whip’. Cf. the derivative *uedhris
in Grk (Hesychius) eOpig ‘castrated’, OInd vadhri- ‘castrated’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*(s)peud- ‘push, repulse; push after’. [IEW 998
( *(s)p(h)eu-d-)\ Wat 64 ( *(s)peud-)\ . Lat pudet 'shames’,
repudium ‘casting off, divorce’, Lith spaudziu ‘press, squeeze,
wring (one’s heart)’, spuded ‘drudge, torment oneself’, spauda
‘(printing) press’. Alb pune (< *pudneh a -) ‘work’, Grk anevSca
‘urge on, hasten; strive after eagerly’, G7rovSp ‘haste, speed;
zeal, pains’, Arm p'oyl 1 { gen. p‘ut'oy, with -V- rather than
*-(-) ‘zeal’, NPers poy ‘haste, speed’. At least a word of the
west and center of the IE world.
*skeubh- ‘push away, push ahead’. [IEW 955 ( *skeub- ~
*skeubh- ~ *skeug-)\ Wat 60 ( *skeubh -); Buck 10.67) . ON
skufa ~ skyfa ‘shove, push away’, OE scufan ~ sceofan ‘shove’
(> NE shove), OHG scioban ‘shove’, Goth af-skiuban ‘shove
away’, Lith skiihti ‘hurry’, skubus 'quick’, OCS skubp ‘pluck,
tear off’. A word of the IE northwest.
*neud- ‘push (away)’. OInd nudati ‘pushes’, TochB niitk-
(< *nud-ske/o-) ‘thrust, push (away); urge’. A dialect word of
the east of the IE world
*telk- ‘push, thrust’. [IEW 1062 {*telegh-)\ Buck 9.21,
10.67; BK 108 (*tl b ]aiy-/*t( h JoE-)\. Olr to/e 'blow', Weis lalch
‘fragment, flake’, Lith dlkd be tame’, OCS tluko knock’, Rus
tolkati ‘push, shove’, lolokno ‘crushed oatmeal’. A word of
the northwest of the IE world.
*reudh- ± push back’, [cf. IEW 869 ( *rcudh -) ; Wat 55
( *reudh-)\ VW 409 1 . NE rid (< Proto-Gmc *rudjan) , Av raod-
‘hold at a distance, check, impede’, OInd rudh- check,
restrain, hold back’, TochAB rutk- (< *reudh-ske/o-) 'move;
remove, take off’. The Germanic and Tocharian forms, though
differing in morphology, reflect “eventive” derivations, ± to
pushback/move into a checked state’, from the non-eventive
meaning preserved in Indo-lraman.
?*ureg- press, oppress' [IEW 1181 (*yrqg-)l. Lat urged
(< *urgeie/o-) ‘press, oppress’, ON reka ‘avenge, punish;
rescue’, OE wrecan ‘avenge, punish; rescue' (> NE wreak),
OHG rehhan ‘avenge, punish; rescue’, Goth wrikan perse-
cute’. It is not certain that the Germanic and Latin words
— 471 —
PUSH
belong together. If they do, then we have evidence for a late
western dialectal word in IE.
See also Press. [D.Q.A.l
PUT
*dhehi - put, place’ (pres. *dhidhehiti). [IEW 235-236
( *dhe-)\ Wat 13 (*dhe-)\ G1 21 {*d h e-)\ Buck 12.12; BK 70
( *diy-/*dey-)\- From the present *dhldhehiti : Grk rWryAi
‘sets’, Av dadaiti ‘puts, brings’, OInd dadhali ‘puts, places,
lays’, TochB tattarn ‘will put, place’; other, newer presents are
reflected in Lai facere ‘do’, -dere in ab-dere ‘take away’, con-
dere ‘build, found, establish’, credere ‘believe’ (< *Kred-dhehi-
‘put one’s heart’), OE don ‘do’ (> NE do), OHG tuon ‘do’, Lith
deti ‘lay’, OCS deti ‘lay’, Arm dnem (< *dhehi-ne/o -) ‘put,
place’. Hit dai (< *dhehi-i-ei ) ‘puts, lays’, lezzi{< *dhehi-ti )
‘says’, tittiya - (< *didhiie/o-) ‘establish’, tittanu- 1 set up’, Lycian
tadi ‘puts, places’, TochAB ta- ~ tas- ‘put, lay’. Most of these
latter presents are built on the analogy of the aorist stem
*dhehj- seen, as aorists, in Arm ed ‘put, placed’, OPers ada
‘put, placed’, Olnd adhat ‘put, placed’ (< *hiedhehjt).
Widespread and old in IE; the PIE verb for putting and placing.
*stel- ‘put in place, (make) stand (up)’. [IEW 1019-1020
( *stel-)\ Wat 66 ( *stel-)\ G1 101 ; Buck 12.12]. ON stjtplr 1 stem,
stalk’, stallr(< *slolno - ) ‘stall’, OE stela ‘stalk, support’, steall
‘standing place, position, stall, stable’ (> NE stall), stellan (<
*stolneie/o - ) ‘put, place’, OHG staV standing place, position,
stall’, stellen ‘set up, establish’, OPrus stallit ‘stand’. Alb shtjell
‘fling, toss, hurl’, Grk oreXXco ‘make ready, fit out with; send,
dispatch’, Olnd sthalam ‘eminence, tableland; ground, earth;
dry land’ (with the initial consonant cluster influenced by
stha- ‘stand’). Compare the further derived form seen in OLat
stlocus ‘place’, Lat locus ‘place’. Widespread and old in IE.
?*dheig w - (or *dheihxg w -l ) ‘stick, set up’. [IEW 243-244
(*dheig u -)\ Wat 15 ( *dhlg w -)\ . OLat fivo, Lat flgo ‘(af)fix,
fasten, drive in, attach, erect’, OE die ‘trench, moat’ (> NE
dike), MHG tich ‘pond, pool; dam, embankment’, Lith dlegiu
‘prick; plant, sow’, dygstu ‘germinate, sprout’, Latv diegt
‘prick’. It is not certain that all these words belong together;
particularly problematic are the Germanic words for semantic
reasons. If they do belong together, we have evidence for a
word of the northwest of the IE world.
See also Put in Order; Stand. [D.Q.A.l
PUT IN ORDER
*tag- ( *tehag-l) ‘set in place, arrange’. 1 IEW 1055 ( *tag-)\
Wat 69 (*tag-)\. Lith su-togti ‘get married; ally oneself with’
(< *‘arrange oneself with’), Grk rdooco (< *tag-ic/o -) ‘put in
order, line up, arrange’, rdypa ‘ordinance, command’,
(Thessalian) rayog' commander, ruler, chief’, Parth tgmdr ‘±
commander’ (\.e.,/tagma-dara-/ ‘command-giver’), TochA (pi.)
tassi ‘chiefs, commanders’, TochB tas ‘commander’ (Toch
< *tagius). At least a word of the center and east of the IE
world.
*iet - ‘put in the right or natural place’. [IEW 506-507
(*ier-)]. OIr Itu ( DIL at(t)u) (< *ietu-tut~) ‘thirst’, Weis add-
iad ‘longing’ (the Celtic shows a meaning such as ‘want the
right or natural place’), SC jatiti se tlock together’, Av yateiti
~ yatayeiti ‘puts oneself in the right or natural place’, Sogd
py'l- ‘adorn’, Olnd yatate puts oneself in the right or natural
place’, TochAB yat- ‘decorate, adorn’ (< *‘± put into the right
place’; cf. Lat ornare ‘to adorn’ < *ordinare), yetwe ‘jewel,
decoration’, yat- ‘be capable of (intr.); have power over; tame
(tr.)L Though preserved only on the margins of the IE world,
it is clearly old.
*mhj-‘put in order’. \ IEW 59-60 (*re-dh-)\ BK 595 ( *ra -
ay-/*ra-ay-)\. Lat reor ‘count, calculate’; *rohi~dh~. Olr rad-
‘say’, MWels adrawS 1 recount’, Av rad- ‘prepare’, Olnd radhnoti
‘achieves, prepares’; *rohi-dh-eie/o- (causative): ON roeda
‘talk’, Goth rodjan ‘talk’, OCS raditi ‘take care of, concern
oneself over’. The connection of the Latin form here is
uncertain. Otherwise, the root is fairly well attested to PIE.
*sem- ‘put in order, put together’ [IEW 902-905
( *sem-)\ Wat 57 ( *sem-)\. ON semja (< *somhxCie/o-) ‘put
together, put in order, unite’, Olnd samayati ‘puts in order’,
TochB sams- (< *sem-s-e/o- ) ‘count’. Presumably a verbal
derivative of *sem- ‘one, a unity’. Sufficiently widespread to
be plausibly PIE in date.
See also Leader; Put! {D.Q.A.l
— 472 —
QAWRIGHUL culture
The Qawrighul culture (or, in Chinese the Gumugou
culture) is a late Bronze Age culture of Xinjiang, China, which
provides a possible candidate for the ancestor of the
Tocharians. The culture, which dates to c 1800 BC, is situated
in Xinjiang in the barren uplands along the Konchi (Peacock)
river. It is almost exclusively known from its cemeteries, the
best attested being the eponymous site of Qawrighul where
forty-two burials were recovered.
The tombs are divided into two types. The first comprised
shaft graves which included evidence of wooden planking
and, on occasion, wooden poles erected on the eastern and
western ends of the chamber. The deceased were in the
extended position, heads to the east. They were wrapped in
woolen fabrics and bore felt hats. Twigs of ephedra were
discovered on the chest. Grave goods included stone imple-
ments, bone ornaments, antler awls, wooden basins and
bowls; there was no evidence of ceramics although there were
some traces of metal (copper or bronze). The second type of
burial, so far exclusively confined to males, consisted of shaft
graves that had been surrounded by concentric circles of poles
and others poles radiating out to form what have been
interpreted as solar symbols. The differences between the two
types of burials have been variously explained as status
differences within the same culture or as chronologically
separate cultures, the second type reflecting a somewhat later
population.
Economic remains retrieved from the tombs suggest an
economy which at least included wheat (handfuls of which
were placed in baskets near the head of the deceased),
domestic sheep/goat, horses; deer and fish remains are also
noted.
Qawrighul Distribution of the Qawrighul culture.
The preservation of the bodies ranges from poor to incre-
dibly good with a number of desiccated “mummies”, which
had been naturally preserved in the arid sandy conditions.
— 473 —
qAwrighul culture
Both the evidence of the skeletons and that of the mummies
indicates a Europoid population. Burials in tombs of the first
type have been likened to those found in the Afanasevo culture
of the Yenisei-Altai region while those in the second type
have been associated with the Andronovo physical type. The
employment of timber circles about the tomb has also been
linked to the Andronovo practice of surrounding tombs with
stone circles. Similar burials have been recovered from several
other sites with dates ranging all the way up to the first
millennium AD.
A Europoid population with connections with those of the
Eurasian steppe provides one of the most likely archaeological
candidates for the Proto-Tocharians although, it must be
admitted, the specific cultural links (as opposed to those based
on the evidence of physical type) are few and until settlements
of this culture are excavated and the full range of material
culture has been recovered, the origins, chronological range,
and true significance of the Qawrighul culture must remain
speculative.
See also Afanasevo Culture; Andronovo Culture;
Tocharian Languages. (j.P.M.l
Further Readings
Chen, Kwang-tzuu and E T. Hiebert (1995) The late prehistory of
Xinjiang in relation to its neighbors. Journal of World Prehistory
9, 243-300.
Mair, V (ed.)(1995) The mummified remains found in the Tarim
Basin. J/ES 23, 281-444.
QUAIL
*Uortok w - ‘quail’. [IEW 1180 ( *uortoko-)] . Grk opzvt;
‘quail’, Olnd vartaka- ‘quail’. At least a late IE isogloss. The
only other potential comparison is Arm lor ‘quail’ which may
be related to Grk Xapoq ‘gull’.
The quail is one of the commonest game birds and flies
seasonally in great flocks aiding its capture by nets and other
means.
See also Birds; Gamebird. (J.A.C.G.]
QUEEN see KING
QUERN
*g w rdi a -v-on- ~ *g w 6rh a -n-u-s (gen. *g w fhandus) quern’.
[7EW477 ( *g IJ f-nu-)\ Wat 25 ( *g w er9-)\ GI 599 ( *k v rau -),
770; Buck 5.57; BK 345 (*k w ur-/*k w or-)\. From *g w reh a -
u-on-\ OIr brau ( DIL bro ) (gen. broon ) ‘millstone, quern’,
Weis breuan ‘quern’, Olnd gravan- ‘stone for pressing the
soma’; if TochB karwene ‘stone; (coll.) rock’ belongs here it
reflects *g w fh a -u-on-en -; from *g w erh a -n-u-: ON kvern
‘quern’, OE cweom ‘quern’ (> NE quern ), OHG quim ‘quern’,
Goth asilu-qalmus ‘donkey-mill’, OPrus gimoywis ‘quern’,
Lith gima ‘millstone’, (pi.) gimos ‘quern’, Latv (pi.) dzirnus
‘quern’, OCS zruny ‘quern’; Arm erkan ‘quern’ is ambiguous
as to its exact PIE antecedents. From *g w er(h a )~ ‘heavy’.
Though the exact PIE preform is difficult to reconstruct (why
some reflexes show extensions *-u-n- and others *-n-u- is a
mystery), there seems a strong likelihood that there was a
PIE word more or less of this shape with this meaning. Given
its plausible derivation from a PIE ‘heavy’, it is difficult to see,
as GI argue, this word as a borrowing from Proto-Semitic
*gum- ‘threshing floor’, which seems distant semantically
anyway.
Querns were a regular accompaniment of the Neolithic
tool-kit which emerged in southwest Asia by the ninth
millennium BC. The term is usually applied to the larger lower
stone, generally flattened with a concave surface, the metate
of New World archaeologists, while a second stone held in
the hand (the mano of American archaeological terminology)
was used as a rubber or grinding stone. Querns are found
wherever an economy required the necessary technology to
process plants, particularly domestic cereals, but also wild
seeds and they emerge in the archaeological record prior to
the domestication of the earliest strains of wheat and barley.
Grinding seeds was not their only function, however, and on
occasion they are found in contexts where they would have
been employed in the grinding up of substances such as ocher
as a coloring agent. Querns are ubiquitous across Neolithic
Eurasia and provide no indication as to the location of the
earliest Indo-Europeans. In addition to their economic
importance, they are also found in cultic contexts in southeast
Europe, for example, where shrines included the remains of
querns, rubbing stones, female figurines and even ovens
suggesting ritual preparation of grain.
See also Agriculture; Grind; Tool. [D.Q.A., J.PM .]
Further Reading
Makkay, J. (1978) Mahlstein und das rituale Mahlen in den
prahistorischen Opferzeremonien. Acta Archaeologica 30, 13-
36.
QUIET
*hierhi- ‘quiet, at rest’. (/EW338 (*em-), 864 (*rem-);
Buck 12.191. (1) *hierhi-m- ‘to rest, support’: OIr fo-ruimi
‘set, lay’, Weis araP quiet, calm, gentle’, Goth nniis ‘rest’, Lith
rimti ‘to be calm’, Latv ramas ‘still’, Grk eprjpog ‘lonely,
solitary’, Av ramayeiti ‘calms down’, airime ‘quiet’, Olnd
ramate ‘stays still, calms down’; (2) *hirehj-ueh a - ‘quiet, calm,
rest’: ON ro ‘calm’, OE row ‘calm’, OHG roa ~ ruowa ‘calm’,
Lith rova ‘calm’, Grk epcoq ‘quiet’. While the precise form
and details are not yet clear, some form of this root (with two
different suffixes) can be posited for PIE. The semantic field
here seems to be associated with the “absence of motion"
rather than “silence”.
*k w eihi- ‘rest, quiet’. \1EW 638 (*/c y em-); Wat 33
(*k w ei9-)\G 1 205 ( *k ho eiH-/*k bo ieH-) y Buck 12.19], Lat quies
‘quiet’, ON hvild ‘quiet’, OE hwil ‘while, time’ (> NE while),
OHG (h)wila ‘while, time, hour’, Goth Iveila ‘while’, OCS
pokojl ‘peace, quiet, rest’, Arm han-gist ‘rest, quiet’, OPers
siyati- ‘comfort’. A further development with a suffix attests
*k w iieh i-tos: Lat quietus ‘quiet’, Av syata- happy’. Some
— 474 —
w
QUIET
proposed connections such as TochA sat ‘rich’, TochB sate
‘rich’ are questionable on semantic grounds; Lith kelena(s)
‘short period of time, a while’ may rather be < kelti ‘to move’
and OInd cira- ‘long(-lasting)’ < cinoti. Still the remaining
forms could warrant positing a PIE root, built on *k w eihi- L to
rest comfortably’.
*(s)tel- ‘be still, quiet’. [IEW 1061-1062 (*t el-)\ Wat 66
( *stel-)\ . Olr tuilid ‘sleeps’ , ON stilla ‘to still, soothe’ , OE stillan
‘to still’, stille ‘still’ (> NE still), OHG stillen ‘make still’, stilli
‘still’, Lith tyla ‘quiet person’, stilus ‘quiet, silent’, Latv stilt
‘become quiet’. OCS tilejg ‘decay’ is unclear but could belong
here. Only attested in the northwest.
*t(e)h 2 u-s- 1 quiet’. [IEW 1056-1057 (*taus-)\ Buck 12.19],
Olr toe ‘silently, still’, Mir tai (< *tausos) silent’, Lith tausytis
‘to die down, become quiet (of the wind)’, Rus tusiti
‘extinguish, quench’, Olnd tusntm ‘quiet, silent’. To these may
possibly be added Hit tuhuss(i)ye- to look on inactively’. Cf.
also Olr taue ‘silence’, Weis taw silence’. Swed tyst ‘silent’
(OSwed thyster) has been connected here, as well as OPrus
tusnan ‘quiet’, Av tusni- ‘still’. Distribution suggests a good
case for PIE antiquity.
?*lenos(*lehinos ) ‘?quiet’. [IEW 666 (*/e-no-)k Lat lenis
‘soft, mild’, Lith lenas ‘quiet, slow’, Latv l£ns ‘quiet’, OCS lend
‘lazy’. This set is limited to the northwest and may reflect
parallel developments from an underlying verbal form
*lehi(i)- ‘to leave’, but even there the meaning of the Latin
form differs. At any rate, at best a northwestern dialectal term.
See also Silent. U C.S. ]
475 —
R
RAIN
*suhx- ‘rain’. [IEW 912 ( *seu -); Wat 58 ( *seua-)\ GI 586
(*seu-)\ Buck 1.75]. OPrus suge ‘rain’, perhaps Alb shi (<
*suh x -\ but *gji is expected < *suh x -) ‘rain’, Grk vei ‘it rains’,
Vetog ‘heavy rain’, TochAB su-, swas- (< *suh x (s)- ) ‘it rains’,
TochA swase ‘rain’, TochB swese ‘rain’ (Proto-Toch < *suhx~
o-so-1 ). Hit heu- ‘rain’ cannot be derived from this root.
Although suggested, there is no reason to connect *s(e)uhx~
‘to rain’ with *seu- ‘to press; juice’, i.e., ‘rain’ as a substance
pressed out by an agent deity; all forms are formally and
semantically distinguished. Distribution supports PIE status.
*h 2 Vers- ‘rain’. [JEW 81 (*uer-s-); Wat 77-78 (*wers-)\
Gl 587 ( *wers-)\ Buck 1.75; BK 382 ( *haw-/*hdw-)] . Mir
fras (< *hiufsta) ‘shower’, Grk eeporj ~ epcrri ‘dew’, (caus.)
ovpeo) (< *hiuorseie-) ‘urinate’ < *‘make rain’, Hit warsa (<
*h}Uors-) ‘rainfall’, Av aibi-varsta - ‘rained upon’, OInd varsati
‘it rains’, varsa - (< *hpie/ors-om ) ‘rain’. Greek points to an
initial *hi- (in ovpeco it was regularly lost before -o-). The
nouns are either recent or point to a root noun *hiue/ors ~
*hmrs~. The Old Indie verb shows that *hiuers- is a root, so
connection with OInd var(i) ‘water’ is impossible while
connection with vfsan- ‘male’ < ‘semen’ is impossible as it
had no initial laryngeal (cf. Grk epcrrfv, aporjv). Distribution
assures PIE status.
*h a eghlu- (gh- 7 ) ‘rain’. [IEW 8 ( *aghl(u)-)\ BK 388 ( *hag-/.
*hdg-)\. OPrus agio ‘rain’, Grk ax^iig ‘fog, cloud’. The root
would appear to be *h a egh- with the suffix -lu- (or -el-7).
These forms appear to be isolated; connection with Arm
al]amul]-k“ darkness’ is difficult.
*Qbh(ro/ri)- ‘rain’. [JEW 316 ( *nebh-)\ Wat 46 ( *ombh -
ro-)]. Lat imber (gen. imbris) (< *nbh-ri-) ‘shower’, Arm amb
(< *pbh- 7 ) ‘cloud’, Av apra- ‘cloud’, OInd abhra- ‘rain-cloud’.
Although sometimes cited, Grk og/ipog ‘rain’ does not fit here
as *mbh > Grk flip; nor does Grk ctfppoq foam’ belong because
of the difference in meaning. The root probably derives from
*nebh- ‘cloud’.
*dhreg- ‘rain or snow lightly, be bad (of weather)’, [cf. IEW
251-252 ( *dher3-gh-)\ . Lith drengti ‘rain lightly, be slushy’,
dregnas ‘wet, damp’, atdregis ‘thaw’, d'irgti ~ dirgti ‘become
wet, slushy, sleety’, Latv dregns ‘wet, damp’, drggs ‘thaw’,
TochA tarkar ‘cloud’, TochB tarkar ‘cloud’ (Toch < *dhreg-r-
U-); with new full-grade *dherg- ~ *dhorg-\ Mir derg 1 red’ (<
*‘dark’), OE deorc ‘dark’ (> NE dark), MHG terken ‘make
dirty, defile’, Lith dergti ‘be slushy, sleety; soil, make dirty,
abuse’, darga ‘rainy weather, bad weather of any sort’, ORus
padoroga ‘± stormy weather’. The reference to dark, cloudy,
wet weather would seem to be old. Formally and semantically
newer are the Germanic and Celtic references to darkness or
dirt. At least a widespread dialect term in late PIE. +
*mregh-' rain softly, drizzle’. [JEW738 ( *meregh-)\ . Latv
merguot ‘rain softly’, marga ‘soft rain’, Czech mrholiti ‘drizzle’,
Rus morostiV drizzle’ , Grk fipexco wei, rain, overflow’, ppoxv
‘rain’. A word of the central part of the IE world. +
??*bandu- ‘(rain) drop’. ( IEW 95 (*band-)\ Wat 4
( *band -)]. Olr bannae ‘drop’ (from British?), MCorn banne
‘drops’, MBret banne ‘drops’, OInd bindu- - vmdu- ‘drops,
globule, spot’. The root should be rejected. The OInd bindii-
has been supposed to replace *bandu- after indu-, which itself
lacks etymology. Rather, the variant vmdu- suggests a non-IE
origin for this word. Moreover, the connection between the
Old Indie and the Celtic words is too uncertain as is also the
putative Illyrian Bmdus (nver god) and the Lat Ions Bandusiae.
The roots *suh x - and *h iuers- are undoubtedly the PIE
words for ‘rain’. Their distribution, with the exception of
Greek, is mutually exclusive but both words are widespread
across the IE stocks. GI have suggested that *suh x - was the
477
RAIN
earlier form which was replaced because it was subject to
taboo avoidance but this is purely speculative. Both words
may well have existed in PIE and denoted slightly different
concepts. If the semantic distinction in Greek is original, then
*suhx- should have indicated ‘heavy rain’ and *hiuers- ‘light
rain’.
See alsoC loud; Dew; Water; Wet. [R.S.PB., D.Q.A. + ]
RAISE see LIFT
RAVEN see CROW
RAW
*h 2 omds ~ *h 2 omds ‘raw, uncooked’. l/£W 777
(*omo-s); Wat 46 (*om-)]. OIr om ‘raw’, Weis of 1 raw’, Grk
(bfiog ‘raw, uncooked’, Arm hum ‘raw’, Khot hama- ‘raw’,
NPers xam ‘raw’, OInd ama- ‘raw, uncooked’. The exact PIE
form may be in doubt (the short vowel of Celtic and the long
vowel elsewhere is not explained) but the geographical
distribution of its attestation assures its PIE status.
See also Cook. {D.Q.A.]
RAZOR
*ksurdm ‘razor’. [IEW 585-586 ( *ksu-ro-)\ cf. Wat 30
( *kes-)\ Buck 9.23; BK 243 (*k[ h ]as-/*k[ h ]9s-)]. Grk %vpov
‘razor’, Olnd ksura- ‘razor’. A word restricted to the southeast
of the IE world. A derivative of *kseu- ‘rub, whet’ (cf. Lat
novacula [< *ksneueh a -tleh a -] ‘razor’, Grk £ vco ‘shave, rub’,
OInd ksnauti ‘whets, sharpens’).
Archaeologically identifiable copper razors appear in Egypt
and Mesopotamia between 3000 and 2500 BC and by the
end of this period they are also known in Cyprus. Before
2000 BC there are copper razors in Crete and the Cyclades
and copper razors are also known in the Harappan culture.
The razor is mentioned by Homer in a figurative sense, i.e.,
‘on a razor’s edge’, and bronze razors are found in male graves
of the Mycenaeans. The razor begins to appear in central
Europe only after 2000 BC. A late PIE isogloss between Greek
and Indo-Aryan is not easily accommodated by such archaeo-
logical evidence since it would be difficult to draw the
ancestors of both Greeks and Indo-Aryans into a scheme of
migrations that provided them with a common origin only
after 2500 BC. On the other hand, copper and bronze knives
are known from a much earlier period and these may have
provided suitable technological ancestors for the cognate set.
For example, in the Yamna and Kemi Oba cultures of the
Pontic-Caspian region copper knives with wide rounded
blades similar to later razors are known from c 3000 BC
onwards.
See also Hair; Knife; Sharpen; Tool. [D.Q.A., J.PM ]
RECONSTRUCTION
The mutual relationship of the various Indo-European
languages is established by comparative linguistics or “recon-
struction”, an analytical technique which looks for systematic
relationships in phonology, morphology, syntax, and seman-
tics. A comparison of the three senes of words in the accom-
panying table provides a brief phonological example.
On the basis of these series, one uncovers a systematic
relationship where the initial sound might be expressed: Olr
b, Lat f, OE b, Alb b, Grk (p \ph\ , Arm b, Av b, OInd bb. This
relationship is so systematic that it is predictable. For example,
if one were to seek a cognate in Latin of OInd bhurja- ‘a kind
of birch’, one would expect to find an initial f, which one
does find in famus ‘ash’, or b in OE, hence beorc ‘birch’. The
cumbersome relationship (b = /=b=b = pb=b=b = bb) can
be expressed in shorthand by labeling the sequence as PIE
*bh where the asterisk indicates that the form is reconstructed
and not attested in any actual (Proto-Indo-European) text.
The same process reiterated for the following vowel and
second consonant allows us to reconstruct the whole verb
root for ‘bear’ as *bher-. Similarly we can reconstruct
bhreh a ter- for ‘brother’ and *bhruh x s for (eye)brow’ (where
the *h s represent “laryngeal” sounds attested in part in the
Anatolian languages and in Albanian).
It is of course necessary that our reconstruction be com-
patible with what we know about language in general. Our
confidence in the exactness of the reconstruction is heightened
if it matches a structure commonly found in attested languages
while our confidence is decreased if the reconstruction does
not match any attested language. We should note that many
linguists doubt the phonetic reality of *bh precisely because
the traditional reconstruction of *p, *b , and *bh for Proto-
Indo-European with an aspirated voiced stop (bb) but no
corresponding aspirated voiceless stop (pb) is otherwise found
or is at least excessively rare. These typological considerations
have led various investigators to reconstruct *ph (glottalized)
*p \ and *bh (or some other set) rather than *p, *b , and *bh.
However, another constraint on reconstruction is the require -
— 478 —
RECONSTRUCTION
Selected Cognates among the Indo-European Languages
Old Irish
biru ‘bear’
bra thair ‘brother’
brOad brows'
Latin
Zero ‘bear’
frater ‘brother’
Old English
bere ‘bear’
bropor ‘brother’
bru ‘brow’
Old Church Slavonic
berp ‘take’
bratru ‘brother’
Albanian
bie ‘bear(s)’
Greek
(pepco ‘bear’
(pprircop ‘member of phratry’
6(ppvg eyebrow’
Armenian
berem ‘bear’
elbayr ‘brother’
Avestan
baraiti ‘bears
bratar- ‘brother’
br\ r at- ‘eyebrow’
Old Indie
bharati ‘bears’
bhratar- ‘brother’
bhrQ- ‘eyebrow’
Tocharian B
param ‘bears’
procer ‘brother’
parwane ‘brows’
merit that reconstruction allow for the most economical
derivation of the attested languages from the reconstructed
one. Perhaps inevitably these two constraints do not always
point in the same direction. The traditional reconstruction of
*p, *b , and *bh allows a very simple derivation of the attested
forms: most branches preserve *p and *b unchanged, a
majority merge *b and *bh by losing the aspiration of the
latter. Old Indie is assumed to have kept the original situation
unchanged (save by the addition of a new pti) while Italic
and Greek must be assumed to show devoicing and then early
(Latin) or late (Greek) change of voiceless aspirates into voice-
less continuants. Only Germanic and Armenian show more
extensive restructurings. Any alternative reconstruction shows
a much more complex “mapping” onto the attested languages.
These considerations aside, systematic correspondences
between related languages exist because language is rule-
governed behavior and thus change in language is also regular.
It was the realization that sound change was, indeed, regular
in the middle nineteenth century that made possible the
“reconstruction” of Proto-Indo-European (and of course other
proto-languages that have left attested descendants). Proto-
Indo-European has become its attested descendants by the
change of existing rules or the addition of new ones. That it
has more than one attested descendant results from the fact
that different groups of speakers have changed and added
different rules (e.g., in our example, addition or loss of aspira-
tion, addition or loss of voicing, etc.). Linguistic reconstruction
provides the tool for tracing the earlier history of language
back through time. It is dependant on comparison and the
greater number of languages that can be employed in that
comparison, the greater the precision of the reconstruction.
A possible analogy to language change lies with the
evolution of sport, another rule-governed behavior. Soccer,
rugby, football (both American and Canadian) are all the
descendants of an English and Irish ball game played largely,
though not exclusively with the feet. This “Proto-Football”
has become the several independent games currently attested
by the addition of new rules. Just as with language, a family
tree (indicated in the accompanying diagram) can be drawn
up (only certain rule differences are noted).
As with any analogy, this one gets messier the more one
pushes it. In particular, the evolution of football differs from
the evolution of language in that football has clearly grown
more complex in the course of its evolution; “Proto-Football”
had fewer rules than any of its descendants. Language, on
the other hand, would seem to be much the same as far as
complexity goes as far back as we can reconstruct it in any
detail (say about 10,000 years).
The Family Tree of Football
“Proto-Football”
Soccer
[feet-only]
“Proto-Rugby”
[feet and hands]
Rugby
[scrum; no forward pass]
“Proto-North American”
[definite possession; forward pass]
Canadian Football
[110 yd. field;
5 pt touchdown]
American Football
[100 yd. field;
6 pt. touchdown)
479 —
RECONSTRUCTION
Often enough the various innovations that occur to a
language are not interconnected and they could have happen-
ed in any order. However, when they impinge on one another,
we can reconstruct their relative chronology. An example from
the history of Slavic will illustrate the possibilities. In the
development of Proto-Indo-European into attested Slavic, all
original s’s were retracted to x when preceded by r, u, k, or i
(the so-called ruki-rule), thus, Pre-Slavic *peiseh a tei\o pound’
becomes Proto-Slavic *peixatei and, with further changes,
attested OCS pichati. Also during the development of Proto-
Indo-European into Slavic all PIE palatal stops become sibi-
lants, thus *K, *g, *gh became s, z, and z respectively. Thus
PIE *Rosneh a ‘pine’ becomes Rus sosna where, it should be
noted, original *k and *s have become identical. However,
PIE *peikeh a tei ‘to write’ became Proto-Slavic *peisatei
(attested OCS pisati ) rather than **peixatei (attested **pixati).
Such an outcome can only be explained if the ruki-rule
occurred first and was over and done with by the time *k
was becoming s. On the other hand, one should note that
both original -5- and -s- from *-k- combine with *-i- to give
-s-, e.g., OCS sluso ‘I hear’ from PIE *klousidm and OCS
proso ‘I ask’ from PIE *prokiom. The simplest explanation
for this phenomenon is that this latter rule came after both
the ruki-rule and the change of palatal stops to sibilants.
The underlying presupposition of linguistic reconstruction
is the regularity of change. However, there are other forces at
work in language change. Particularly we need to take into
account the actions of analogy whereby various closely related
words may influence one another to preserve, say,
morphological regularity at the expense of phonological
regularity. As an example we might cite the history of OE
sadol ‘saddle’ and cradol ‘cradle’ whose regular plurals were
sadolas and cradolas respectively (all of these words stressed
on the first syllable). Sometime in Old English short vowels
in open syllables (i.e. , when followed by a single consonant
and then a vowel) were lengthened when those syllables were
both stressed and the next-to-the-last in the word. Thus we
had something like sadol and cradol , but sadolas and cradolas.
Further regular phonological changes would have resulted
in NE cradle, pi. *craddles, and *sadle , pi. saddles. What we
find, then, in the history of English the plural of cradle has
been analogically remade on the basis of the singular (a very
common analogical change) while in the case of saddle it is
the singular that was remade on the basis of the plural (a
distinctly rare analogical change).
Another source of historical irregularity is borrowing
among different dialects of the same language. OE haV whole,
well’ regularly becomes NE whole (the w- is an unetymological
spelling) in the south of England, the dialects which provide
the basis for modem standard English. In the north of England
and in Scotland OE hal becomes with equal regularity hale.
Because standard English has also accepted hale into its voca-
bulary we now have the “regular” whole and the “irregular”
hale. One of the recurring problems in historical recon-
struction of Proto-Indo-European, or any other language, is
detecting and accounting for this kind of “internal'’ loanword.
This problem is by no means confined to reconstructing
linguistic history. Our reconstruction of the “football family-
tree” above shows a nonlinguistic instance of this same kind
of borrowing between related branches. Though the presence
of the forward pass is reconstructed tor “Proto-North-
American”, in actual fact the innovative forward pass first
appeared in American football and was only later adopted
(i.e., borrowed) by Canadian football. Reconstructing the
forward pass to “Proto-North-American” is a natural conse-
quence of the theory and practice of reconstruction but does
not reflect historical reality.
Linguistic reconstruction leads us to a linguistic system
that is not firmly tied to anything in time or space. It is an
abstraction; it simply expresses a form for which no further
linguistic laws need be invoked to account for the cognates
attested in the various Indo-European languages. The
reconstructed language differs from a real (i.e., attested)
language in significant ways, particularly in that it does not
show the social and geographical variability that is the
hallmark of any attested language. Like all languages, a recon-
structed one such as Proto-Indo-European was constantly
changing. However, there are no independent means available
to the linguist to suggest that the reconstructed form *hher-
‘carry’, for example, might be assigned to 2500 BC, 4000 BC,
or 1 0,000 BC. Nor can we determine that *bher- was contem-
poraneous with *bhreh a ter- ‘brother’ or *bhruh x s ‘brow’.
Still, for all its limitations, linguistic reconstruction is a
powerful tool for understanding the history of related
languages. Practiced with increasing sophistication over the
past hundred years or so on the Indo-European languages, it
has provided a very detailed picture, admittedly not always
quite in focus, of Proto-Indo-European phonology, morph-
ology, syntax, and, most importantly in the context of this
Encyclopedia, of its vocabulary.
See also Indo-European Languages; Proto-Indo-European;
Schleicher’s Tale; Subgrouping; Time-Depth. ID.Q.A.l
Further Readings
Anttila, R. (1972). An Introduction to Historical and Comparative
Linguistics. New York, Macmillan.
Beekes, R. S. P (1995). Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An
Introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York, Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Bynan, T. (1977). Historical Languages. (Cambridge Textbooks in
Linguistics.) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hock, H. H. (1991). Principles of Historical Linguistics. 2nd ed.
Berlin and New York, Mouton de Gruyter.
Lehmann, W (1992). Historical Linguistics. 3rd ed. London and
New York, Routledge.
RED
*hjreudh~ (bright) red’. [IEW 872-873 ( *reudh-) ; Wat
55 ( *reudh -); Gl 616 ( *r(e)ud h -), Buck 1 5.661. From
)
f
)
1
k
t
t
-
l
1
— 480 —
RELEASE
*hjroudhds we have OIr ruad ‘red’, Weis rhudd ‘red’, Lat
rufus ‘red’, Umb rofu ‘red’, ON raudr" red’, OE read ‘red’ (>
NE red), OHG rot ‘red’, Goth raups ‘red’, Lith raudas ‘red’,
Latv rauds ‘red’, OCS mda ‘metal’ (< *‘copper’), Rus rudyj ~
mdoj ‘blood-red, red-haired’, Av raoidita - ‘red’, Olnd loha-
‘reddish’, rohita- ‘red’; from *hjmdhrds we have Lat mber
‘red, ruddy’, Grk epvOpog ‘red’, MPers Luhrasp (< *luhra-
asp < *h irndhro-hjekuo-) ‘red horse’, Olnd mdhira- ‘red’,
TochA rtar ‘red’, TochB ratre ‘red’. The most widely attested
color word in Indo-European, ‘red’ is securely reconstructed.
An o-grade adjective, attested in Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic,
Slavic and Indie is a non-productive form in the northwest
and its preservation in Indie points to its status as the earliest
form, with later innovations; the zero-grade with r-suffix is
found widely dispersed in Italic, Slavic, Greek and Tocharian.
The Indo-lranian suffix *-ita- is common among color
adjectives and may be an innovation in that branch.
*hjelu- ‘dull red’. [JEW 302 ( *el-)] . OHG e/o ‘yellow’, Av
aumsa- ‘white’, Olnd amsa- ‘reddish, golden’, aruna- ‘reddish,
golden’. A second term for ‘dull red’ is preserved in only
Germanic and Indo-lranian, but the wide geographical
separation indicates Indo-European status.
*ic(5unas‘red’. [IEW 594 ( *k ou-no-s)] . Mir cuanna ‘lovely’,
Weis cun ‘lovely’, Rus sunica ‘wild strawberry’, SC sunica
‘raspberry’, Olnd sona - ‘red’. It is not at all certain that the
Celtic forms belong here, being very divergent semantically.
The Slavic and Old Indie give evidence for a word of the
center and east of the IE world.
See also Color. [M.E.H., D.Q.A.J
REED
*h a er- ‘reed’. [IEW 68 ( *aro-m )]. Lat harundo (with
secondary h -) ‘reed’, Grk dpov ‘arum’, Khot ara- ‘reed, rush’.
Distribution indicates PIE status for this word.
*nedds ‘reed, rush’. [IEWT59 ( *nedo~) ]. Lith nendre ‘reed’,
Latv nasp (< *nadsli-l) ‘reed’, Arm net ‘arrow’, Luv natatta-
‘reed’, NPers nai ‘reed’, Olnd nada- ‘± reed’. Old in IE. The
Armenian meaning reflects the widespread use of certain kinds
of reeds for the making of arrowshafts.
*trus- ‘reed, rush’. [IEW 1097 (*tms-)}. Lith tr(i)usis ‘reed,
horse-tail’, trausis ‘horse-tail ( Equisetum arvense)', Latv tmsis
‘reed, rush, horse-tail, juniper’, OCS trust! ‘reed’, Rus trost!
‘reed, cane’, SC trs (< *truso-) ‘reed’, Grk dpvov (< earlier
*tmho- < *tmso-) ‘reed, rush’. At least a word of the center
of the IE world.
reed, rush’. [IEW 513 ( *ioi-m-)\ . Mir ain{< *ioin)
‘rush’, Lat iuncus(< *ioiniko-) ‘rush’, iunipems ‘juniper’, ON
einir (< *ioiniio-) ‘juniper’. The phonological connections
suggested here are impeccable but the semantic connection
between ‘reed’ on the one hand and ‘juniper’ on the other is
not at all obvious, though precisely that semantic equation is
made in Latv trusts ‘reed, juniper’ in the previous entry.
?*g(h)re]}om reed, rush’. Av grava- ‘reed’, TochA km ‘reed’,
TochB (pi.) karwa ‘reeds’. Only attested in two neighboring
stocks. If this represents a case of borrowing rather than
common inheritance, the borrowing must be very early
?*don- ‘reed’, [cf. IEW 187). Latv duonis reed’, Grk 86va£,
‘reed’. The apparent, partial, agreement between Baltic and
Greek is tempting. Perhaps a late dialect word of the center
of the IE world.
5ee also Juniper; Plants. I D Q . A . ]
REINS
*h 2 ensijo/eh a - ‘reins’ [LEW 48 ( *ansi-)\ . OIr (pi.) eis(s)i ~
eis(s)e ‘reins’, Myc (pi.) a-ni-ja reins’, a-ni-jo-ko ‘charioteer’
(lit. ‘reins-holder’), Grk (pi.) rjvia ‘reins’ (Done evict), fjvioxog
‘charioteer, one who governs’, f/viov bit’. Olnd nasyam nose-
cord (of a draft-ox, etc.)’ may belong here if the form of the
word has been influenced by *h x nas- ‘nose’. Almost certainly
related to *h 2 enseh a - ‘handle’ and probably to the family of
Hit hassu- ‘king’ (< *‘controller’). In any case, the exact
equivalence in form and meaning of the Greek and Irish words
is strong evidence that this word, with this meaning, is of PIE
antiquity.
See also Handle; Horse, King; Tool; Wagon. [D.Q.A.I
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1995) Howto Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European
Poetics. Oxford, Oxford University Press
RELEASE
*selg- release, send out’. [ IEW 900-90 1 ( *selg- ); G1 602
( *selk ’-)] . OIr selg ‘hunt’ (< *‘releasing of dogs’), sleg (<
*s\geh a -) ‘spear’, OWels in-helcha ‘hunting’, OE he-sylcan
‘deprive of strength’, MHG selken ‘dnp’, Av harazaiti releases,
sends out’, Olnd sfjati ‘releases, throws, pours’. Though not
widely attested the geographical pattern of those attestations
would seem to assure PIE status for this word.
*TerK- ‘release, allow’. [ VW 503], Hit tama- (< *tarkna-)
‘let, release, permit’, TochAB tark - (pres, tarkna-) ‘let go, allow;
emit; stop, desist’. Though attested only in Hittite and
Tocharian, the pattern of those attestations assures PIE status.
*leuhx~ release, cut off’. [IEW 68 1-682 ( *Ieu-)\ Wat 36-
37 ( *Ieu-)\ Buck 1 1.341. Lat luo ‘loose, free, pay off’, ON Iyja
‘beat, wear out’, Goth lun ‘ransom’, Lith hautis ‘cease, stop,
discontinue’, Grk Xuco ‘release, free’, Xvxpov ‘ransom’, Olnd
lunati ‘cuts (off)’, lavitram sickle’, TochAB lu- ‘send’. From
*leus- we have ON losna ‘get free’, lauss loose’ (borrowed >
NE loose), OE for-leosan ‘lose’, los ‘loss’, leas' ivee from, loose,
wanting’, OHG far-hosan ‘lose’, Ids free, untied’, Goth fra-
liusan 1 lose’, fra-lusnan ‘be lost, perish’, /a us ‘free, empty’, Alb
lesh ‘wool, hair’ (< *‘that which is cut off’). Widespread and
old in IE. The basic meaning of this root is ‘untie’ which sur-
vives in Greek where the verbal adjective Xmog means ‘which
can be untied’ and corresponds to Lat (so)lutus < solvd ‘untie’
(< *se-Iuo). From the concept of untying’ we also get that of
‘release’ (buying back for a ransom, e g., Grk Xvzpoopai
‘ransoms’).
IDQ.A.i
481 —
REMAIN
REMAIN
*men - ‘remain, stay’ (pres. *mimne/o-). \IEW 729
(*men-); Wat 41 ( *men -); BK 520 ( *man-/*m9n -)]. OIr
ainmne ‘duty’, Weis amynedd ‘duty’ (Celtic < *an-memeh a -),
Lat maned ‘remain’, Grk fievco ‘stand fast, remain; await’,
/ii/ivco ‘stay, tarry; await’, Arm mnam ‘remain, expect’, Hit
mimma- (< *mimne/o- ) ‘refuse’, OInd man- ‘delay, stand still’,
TochAB mask- (< *mp-ske/o-) ‘be(come)’. Widespread and
old in IE. Probably distinct from *men- ‘think’ though there
have certainly been secondary associations such as we find in
Arm mnam ‘remain’ and ‘expect’.
See also Leave. [D.Q.A.l
REMAINS
?*(hieti)loik w os remains’. [7EW 669-6 70 ( *loik v o-s)\ Wat
36 ( *leik w -)] . OCS otlekQ ‘remains’, Grk Xoinoq ‘remains’,
OInd atireka- ‘remains’. Cf. *lik w tds in Lat relictus ‘remains’,
Lith liktas ‘remains’, OInd rikta- ‘empty, free’. All from *Ieik w -
‘leave’; it is possible that they are all independent creations in
the various stocks that have them. Perhaps more significant
is the agreement of Germanic, e.g., Goth twa-lib, and Baltic
(Lith) dvy-lika , both ‘twelve’ from * ‘two-left (over)’.
See also Flotsam; Numerals (Teen Formation). [D.Q.A.l
REMEDELLO CULTURE
Copper Age/Early Bronze Age (c 3300-2500 BC) culture
of northern Italy. The culture is primarily known from its
cemeteries in the Po Valley such as Remedello where over a
hundred graves were excavated of an estimated three hundred.
Burials were in the flexed position on the left side (with faces
to the north-east) or, occasionally, extended position, although
there is also some evidence of the redepositing of remains
after the body had been exposed. The burials were made in
simple pit graves which were in some instances aligned in
rows. They were rich in flint arrowheads (up to eleven in a
single grave), daggers, and stone axes. Metal objects included
copper axes, daggers and halberds. The culture also yielded
two silver objects (i.e., a pendant and pin), some of the earliest
silver in western Europe. The pottery found was associated
with female burials. There are few settlements known, some
hilltop enclosures. The culture exhibits many similarities, at
least in metallurgical types, with cultures north of the Alps
and east in the Aegean and Anatolia, but these derive from so
many different sources that it is difficult to postulate a single
point of origin. In the “Kurgan solution” to the IE homeland
problem, the presence of weapons in the graves and hilltop
settlement are all regarded as traits of warlike IE communities.
Claims of horse remains from the Remedello culture have
also been made although their context is not secure. Even
without the specifics of the Kurgan theory the evidence for
the Remedello culture’s contacts outside of the region has often
been seen to reflect a migration of a foreign population into
northern Italy. Others, however, have chosen to see the
prestige metal artifacts as evidence of exchange relations or
the spread of a. cult package as the territory of the Remedello
Remedello b. Bronze dagger; c. Flint arrowhead; d. Silver
hammer-head pin; e. Silver pendant.
— 482 —
RESIDENCE
culture is largely congruent with the distribution of Beakers
in northern Italy.
See also Beaker Culture; Gaudo Culture; Italic Languages;
Rinaldone Culture. (J.PM.l
REMEMBER
*(s)mer- ‘remember, be concerned about’. \1EW 969
( *(s)mer-)\ Wat 62 ( *(s)mer-)\ . OE muman 'worry, mourn’
(> NE mourn), OHG momen ‘worry about, mourn’, Goth
maurnan ‘worry about’, Lith mereti ‘worry about’, Grk
pipipva ‘thought, care, anxiety’, papxvg ‘witness’ (< *‘one
who remembers’), Av maraiti ‘observes’, Olnd smarati
‘remembers, longs for’; with reduplication of one sort or
another; OE mimorian ‘remember’, Lat memoria ‘remem-
brance’, Grk peppcripo) ‘worry about’, Arm mormok‘ ‘care’.
Widespread and old in IE.
See also Forget. [D.Q.A.]
RESIDENCE
Before modern western and urban societies, with few
exceptions, husbands and wives are generally found to live
with one another in a nuclear family in which there was a
small range of options concerning the rules of postmarital
residence. Over two-thirds of the ethnographic examples
surveyed practice virilocal (or patrilocal) residence where a
woman marries out of her own family and goes to live with
her husband’s family. This is regarded as the general residence
pattern for PIE society on both historical evidence, i.e., this
is the pattern of residence that one encounters almost
invariably in the ethnographic record of the IE stocks from
their first appearance in the historical record, and it is argued
linguistically, i.e. , PIE *h 2 uedh(hx )- ‘to lead (away in marriage)’
is the common term for the marriage of a male in PIE which
indicates that he is leading his wife away from her family. The
combination of patrilineal descent with patrilocality will result
in the close co-operative association of males (father, brothers,
sons) in a communal (joint, extended) family.
The second most frequently found resident pattern is
matrilocality which occurs in some 13% of the ethnographic
record examined. It is not a creditable pattern for PIE not
only because of the lack of any historical or lexical evidence
in its support but also because there is a total non-correlation
between patrilineality, which is also ascribed to PIE, and the
matrilocal residence system. Other options are bilocality,
where couples may live with either parent (frequent enough
now where there are major housing shortages in the larger
towns of the former Soviet Union); neolocality, the establish-
ment of a new residence for the couple away from either
family; or avunculocality where residence is taken up with
the mother’s brother (with again an almost total correlation
with matrilineality). Although the avunculate has occasionally
been proposed as a PIE institution, there is no evidence for it
since one of its mam features, the juridical and rather stern
relationship between ego and mothers brother, is contradicted
by all of our data concerning the relationship between ego
and mother’s brother in early IE societies Moreover, as the
avunculate is an institution of a matrilineal society (where
the brother of the woman is expected to oversee the
inculturation of the son rather than the biological father who
is on a different descent line), this further contradicts the
evidence of IE practices. Finally, avunculocality is so seldom
encountered in the ethnographic record that its ascription to
PIE is unlikely for this reason alone.
The residential system reconstructed for PIE society has
occasionally been employed in discussions of the IE homeland
and dispersals, particularly with reference to Neolithic
societies of eastern Europe. Marija Gimbutas long argued that
the nature of Neolithic societies in Anatolia, southeastern
Europe (and further in central or Danubian Europe) was
“matrifocal”, i.e. , it combined matrilineal descent, matrilocality
and an ideological focus on the female aspects of reproduction.
All of these features, she argued, were in stark contrast to the
Indo-Europeans who were patrilineal and patrilocal. For this
reason, the Neolithic societies of most of Europe were
excluded as potential representatives of PIE society which
she sought in the steppe lands of the Ukraine and south Russia.
She also outlined the dispersal of these IE societies across
Europe at the end of the Neolithic in her “Kurgan solution”
to the homeland problem.
There is, in fact, so far no valid way that a kinship system
or residential patterns can be read “on the ground”, i.e., from
the purely archaeological record. Attempts have been made
to correlate ceramic design elements with matrilocality in
prehistoric pueblos of the American Southwest but these have
been subject to criticism and such techniques have not been
employed in Eurasia on sites relevant to the early Indo-
Europeans. Nevertheless, Gimbutas’ model has received some
support from other archaeologists such as Ian Hodder who
have suggested that the houses of Neolithic southeast Europe
are almost exclusively associated with what are presumed to
be either female activities or female items, e g., food
preparation, cooking, textile preparation, figurines (the
overwhelming majority of which are iemalc), while male
associated activities are not found within houses but rather
outside, primarily receiving ideological representation in
cemeteries, e.g., metal tools, axes. Hence Hodder, employing
the structuralist framework of Levi -Strauss, assigned the house
and its contents to the “female” and “cultured” (which he
designated “domus”) and the outside world (here “agrios”) to
the male.
From the perspective of descent reckoning the subsistence
basis may also suggest something of the residential and descent
patterns. In southeast Europe the primary Neolithic subsist-
ence would appear to be based on hoe agriculture of domestic
cereals supplemented by stock-raising and some hunting. Of
the various subsistence patterns, this would be the closest to
that obtaining for the majority of matrilineal and matrilocal
societies. Conversely, matrilineal and matrilocal societies are
rarely found associated with plow agriculture or pastoralism.
The direct correlation between the type of mixed agriculture
— 483 —
RESIDENCE
practiced in southeast Europe and Anatolia and matrilocal
residence and matrilineal inheritance, however, is simply not
possible since there are far more patrilineal societies than
matrilineal in the ethnographic record and the majority of
horticulturists are actually patrilineal (c 41%) or bilateral
(32%) rather than matrilineal (21%). It is far easier to conclude
that both plow agriculture and pastoralism (economies we
assign to PIE) are likely to be patrilineal or bilateral than it is
to presume that the early farmers of Anatolia and southeast
Europe must have been matrilocal and matrilineal although
this is entirely possible. Finally, the plow spread through
Europe by the fourth millennium BC and a shift to plow
agriculture, which presumably drew the male deeper into the
cereal-based economy, could be expected to stimulate an
indigenous development of patri-based societies irrespective
of their earlier forms.
See also Kinship; Marriage. Q.PM ]
Further Readings
Gimbutas, M. (1991) The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco,
Harper.
Hodder, 1. (1990) The Domestication of Europe. Oxford, Blackwell.
RESIN see SAP
REST see QUIET
RESTITUTION see COMPENSATION
RETURN HOME
*nes- ‘return home, return to a favorable state or place’
(pres. *n£setor~ *ninstdr). [IEW 766-767 (*nes-); Wat 44
( *nes~); Gl 664 ( *nes-); Buck 1 1 .251 . OE ge-nesan ‘be saved’,
nerian ‘heal, save’, OHG gi-nesan ‘be saved’, nerren ‘heal, save’,
Goth ga-nisan ‘be saved’, nasjan ‘rescue’, Grk veopcci ‘return
home’, vfo(o)ogou (< *ni-ns-omai ) ‘return home’, Av asta-
(< *ns-to-) ‘house, dwelling’, OInd nasate ‘unite with,
approach’, nimsate ‘they touch with the body, kiss’, asta-
‘house, dwelling’, perhaps also in TochA nasu ‘friend’. (TochA
nas- ‘be’ and TochB nes- ‘be’, sometimes put here, belong
rather with *hjes- ‘be’.) The geographical spread and the exact
(double) morphological agreement of Greek and Old Indie
assure the PIE status of this word.
[D.Q.A.]
REVILE see INSULT
REWARD
*lau- ‘benefit, prize’. [/£W655 ( *lau-)\ Wat 35 ( *lau-)\ GI
644 (*lau-)]. Olr log ~ /uag‘reward, prize’, fo-lud ‘substance,
essence; property, wealth’, Weis golud ‘riches’ (the latter two
< *hiupo-lauto-), Lat lucrum (< *lutlom ) ‘gain, benefit’
(slightly pejorative), ON laun ‘reward, recompense’, OE lean
‘reward, recompense’, OHG Ion ‘reward, recompense’, Goth
laun ‘reward, credit’ (Gmc < *launom). The original sense
may have been wealth or benefit that was obtained through
some special action rather than regular work, a sense still
preserved in compounds such as Goth sigis-Iaun ‘the prize of
victory’ which expresses one’s winnings in a horse race. In
Greek we find an enlarged *Iau-s- in dtTioXavo) (< *-Iausd )
‘enjoy the benefit of’ and perhaps the same is to be seen in
Goth lausjan ‘collect (money)’ (if this is a different verb than
lausjan ‘free, rescue’). A word of the west and center of the IE
world. Not connected with this word are Grk XeiG ‘booty’ or
OInd lot(r)am ‘booty’ (only lexically attested and then a
Sanskritization of Mind lotta- [whence ultimately by
borrowing comes NE loot ] from loptra- ‘booty’).
*h 2 elg w ha/eh a - ‘payment, prize’. [IEW 32-33 (*alf#h-)\
Wat 2 ( *alg w h-)\ GI 818-819 (*ol^°-/*l^°-)\ Buck 1 1.78].
OPrus algas ‘wage’, Lith alga ‘payment, salary, soldier’s pay’,
Grk dXtpfi ‘earnings’, dXcpavco ' get a price, make a profit’, Hit
halkuessar ‘produce, supplies (for cultic use)’, Av arajah-
‘value, price’, arajaiti ‘is valued’, OInd argha- ‘value, price’,
arhant- ‘dignity’. In Buddhist terminology OInd arhant-
‘dignity’ became the technical word for the achievement of
the highest rank in the Buddhist system of values. Distnbution
indicates PIE status. The Indo- Iranian form was borrowed
into the Uralic languages, e.g., Finnish arvo ‘price’, Hungarian
ar ‘price’. In Benveniste’s study of the semantics of this word,
the Greek cognate in Homer regularly indicates obtaining the
price desired for the sale of a person such as a prisoner of war
or a slave while the OInd arh- refers to the value placed on a
human being, never an object. This suggests that the term
may originally have been associated with the transfer of human
beings.
*misdhds reward, prize’. [/EW746 ( *mizdho-)\ Wat 43
( *mizdho-)\ Buck 11.78], OE med ~ meord ‘reward, pay’,
OHG meta ‘wages’, Goth mizdo ‘recompense, reward’, OCS
mizda ‘reward, wages’, Grk picrOog reward, wages’, Av mizda-
‘reward, gift’, OInd midham ‘competition, contest, prize’.
Distribution indicates PIE status.
See also Army; Booty; Fear; Wealth. (D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society , Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami.
RIB see BREAST; ROOF
RICH
*hisu-dhhi~6nos ‘rich, well-off’ (< *‘well-placed'). Grk
evOeveco ~ evOriveco ‘thrive, flourish’, evOiveia ‘prosperity,
welfare, supply’, OInd su-dhana- ‘rich’, ni-dhana- ‘poor’. A
southeastern innovation of late PIE.
See also Wealth. [D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Parvalescu, A. (1988) Skt. sudhana ‘rich’ and Grk eutheneia
‘prosperity’ and their cognates. IF 93, 46-51.
Watkins, C. (1979) NAM.RA GUD UNU in Hittite: Indo-European
poetic language and the folk taxonomy of wealth, in Hcthitisch
— 484
R1NALDONE CULTURE
und Indogermanisch, eds. E. Neu and W. Meid, Innsbruck, Insti-
tut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck, 269-288.
RIDE
?*reidh- ‘ride’ . [ IEW 86 1 ( *reidh -) ; Wat 54 ( *reidh-) ; Buck
10.66]. Mir nadaigid ‘rides’, Weis rhwyddhau ‘hurry’, ON
rtda ‘ride’, OE rldan ‘ride’ (> NE ride), OHG rltan ‘ride’. A
dialect word limited to the far west of the IE world.
See also Carry; Go; Horse; Wagon. [D.Q.A.]
RIGHT
*deEsinos ~ *deksiu6s ~ *deRsiterds right’. [IEW 190.
( *deks-)\ Wat 11 ( *deks-)\ GI 686 (*t’e^-s-)\ Buck 12.41;
BK 131 (*t’ak[ h ]-/*t' 9 k[ h ]-)\. Olr dess ‘right, south’, Weis
dehau ‘right, south’, Lat dexter (< *deksiteros) ‘right’, OHG
zeso ‘right’, zes(a)wa ‘right hand’, Goth talhswa ‘right’, Lith
desinas (< *deksinos ) ‘right’, desini ‘right hand’, OCS desnu
(< *deksinos) ‘right’, Alb djathte (< *deksio- + later -re) ‘right’,
Myc de-ki-si-wo{< *deksiijos) ‘right’, Grk Se^iog(< *8e£if6g)
‘right’, Se^itepog ‘right’, Av dasina- ‘right’, Olnd daksina-
‘right, south’ (< Indo-Iran *deksinos). Wide distribution
indicates PIE status.
The term is clearly associated not only with ‘right hand’
but also ‘south’, indicating that the early Indo-Europeans
literally “oriented” themselves, i.e., in establishing the cardinal
directions, they stood facing east with their right hand to the
south and their unpropitious left to the north.
*h 3 iegtos ‘right’. [IEW 855-856 (*reg-), Wat 54 ( *reg-)\
Gl 654 (*rek’-)\ BK 591 ( *rak '-/*r9k. -)] . Olr recht ‘law,
authority’, Lat rectus (adj.) ‘right’, ON rettr ‘right, law, legal
claim’, retti ‘direction’, retta ‘rule, land’, OE riht ‘right’ (> NE
right), OHG reht ‘right, justice’, Goth ralhts ‘right’, raihtis
(adv.) ‘indeed, rightly’, Grk opeicvog ‘stretched out’, Av raSta-
‘right, straight.’ From *h 3 reg- ‘stretch out, straighten’ with
derivatives meaning ‘to direct in a straight line, just right’.
The distribution of both the nominal and adjectival forms
suggest IE status.
As with words for ‘left’, the term for ‘right’ has a wide sphere
of semantic connotations that derive from the PIE period and
have been remodeled and renewed through the various IE
stocks. In general, the oppositions established on both
linguistic and behavioral grounds indicates that the right
(hand) is to be associated with males, patrilineal descent
reckoning, aerial (as opposed to chthonic) rituals, orientation
(south or east), healthiness, strength, correctness, and order.
Thus, in addition to the examples provided above, these
notions continue in the later IE languages, e g., OE swip
‘strong, mighty’ but comparative swidre ‘right (hand)’.
See also Cosmology; Direction; Extend; Honor;
King, Left; Take. [A.D.V.]
Further Reading
van Leeuwen-Tumovcova, J. (1990) Rechts und Links in Europa.
Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.
RINALDONE CULTURE
The major Copper Age/early Bronze Age (c 3500-2500
BC) culture of Tuscany was the Rinaldone culture. It is known
primarily from its small cemeteries which number about forty
sites. These may comprise simple pit graves, cave burial or
interment in a rock-cut tomb. The eponymous site of Rinal-
done yielded about a dozen burials in rock-cut tombs, interred
on their left sides with faces to the east. Grave goods included
flint blades, arrowheads, stone battle-axes, and occasionally
pottery. Metal artifacts were relatively abundant in the
Rinaldone burials and comprised triangular daggers, awls and
axes. The Rinaldone culture has been frequently regarded as
intrusive in Italian archaeology and in the “Kurgan model” of
IE expansions, the Rinaldone culture has been associated with
the coming of the Indo-Europeans to Italy. Horse remains
(i.e., a pit at Le Cerquete-Fianello revealed the beheaded
remains of a horse associated with the burial of dogs), stone
and copper weapons, and a possible suttee burial have all
been found. The evidence for suttee is suspected for one of
the twenty-five graves at the site of Porte San Pietro where a
man was found accompanied by a copper dagger, copper ax,
stone battle-ax, flint points and an antler implement. Nearby
was the burial of a woman with a vase, bead-necklace, and
copper pin. Such evidence has been elicited to support the
— 485 —
RINALDONE CULTURE
notion of warlike, patriarchal IE-speaking invaders. A marked
increase in brachycephalic (broad-headed) skulls has also been
noted. Even if the culture were intrusive (and recent arguments
have emphasized local developments rather than migrations),
its linguistic identification still remains problematic in that
the Rinaldone culture occupied the same territory historically
ascribed to the Etruscans who are regarded by most linguists
as a decidedly non- IE-speaking population.
See also Gaudo Culture; Italic Languages;
Remedello Culture. fJ-PM.]
RING
*anos(= *h a eh a enosG ‘circle, ring’. [/EVV'47 ( *ano-)\ Wat
3 {*ano-)\ Buck 6.371 . Olr ainne' ring, circuit’, Lat anus ‘ring;
anus’, anulus ‘finger ring’, Arm anur ‘necklace, ring’. Not
everyone would agree that the Armenian word belongs here
but the meaning is certainly what we expect of a cognate. A
probable word of the west and center of the IE world.
Archaeologically, rings are ancient in the prehistoric record
and may have been made out of organic material such as
bone or metal such as copper, bronze, gold or silver, the latter
by the third millennium BC and in many cases much earlier.
The metal rings found on Copper and early Bronze Age sites
have been variously identified as finger rings, earrings and
hair rings.
[D.Q.A.J
RIVER
*h 2 eb(h)~ ‘river’. [IEW 1 ( *ab-)\ G1 578 ( *Hap h -); Buck
1.36]. Olr ab (gen.) abae (< *aba) ‘river’, Weis afon ‘river’,
OBrit Afioq name of Humber in Ptolemy’s Geography , Lat
amnis ‘river’. Hit hapa- ‘river’, Palaic hapnas ‘river’, Luv
hapa/i- ‘river’. That the Anatolian words belong here cannot
be regarded as certain. Germanic river names in -a pa (e g.,
OHG - affa ) are too uncertain as evidence for PIE and may
rather be non-IE; similarly Latv Abava (river name). Nor does
this set include Olnd ap - ‘water’ which is formally and
semantically different. The word may be little more than an
Italic-Celtic isogloss with some possibility of greater antiquity
*deh a nu- ‘river’. [IEW 175 ( *danu-)\ BK 83 ( *dan -/
*dan-)]. Weis Donwy(< *Dane/ouios ) (river name), Celt (in
Lat) Danuvius ‘Danube’, Av danu- ‘river’, Oss don ‘river’
(whence the name of the river Don and element in Dnieper,
Dniester, Donets), Olnd danu ‘drops’ or ‘gift’ Another possi-
bility is that we have *dhdnu - (with difficult lengthened grade)
‘river’ represented by the Celtic and Iranian words and that
this is a derivative of *dhen- ‘flow’ otherwise seen in OPers
danu vatiy ‘flows’, Olnd dhan vati ‘moves fast, rushes’, TochAB
tsan- ‘flow’ with other derivatives in Lat tons ‘spring’ and TochB
tsehe ‘stream’. The latter proposal’s distribution of forms more
strongly suggests PIE status.
*dreijentih2 (river name) [IEW 205 (*druyem-)l. Gaul
Druentia (river name), WRus Drywiaty (lake name), Olnd
Dravanti (river name). From *dreu- ‘run’ suggesting the
‘running’, apparently an epithet applied to river names.
*sTeu-men- ~ *srou-mos ‘flowing, streaming (in river
names)’. [IEW 1003 ( *sreu-men-)\ Wat 64 (*sreu-); Buck
1.36]. Olr sruaim ‘river’, ON siraumr ‘stream’, OE stream
‘stream’ (> NE stream), OHG stroum ‘stream’ (< Gmc
*strauma-), Lith sr(i)aumuo ‘rapid flowing’, Latv straume
‘rapid flowing’, Rus strumenl ‘brook’, Thracian ErpUpcov (river
name), Grk pevpa' flow, river’. These words are derived from
*sreu- ‘flow’ and indicate ‘(the act of) flowing, streaming’
which has only secondanly been taken up in several languages
to indicate ‘stream, river’.
?*adu- ‘river’. [IEW 4 (*ad(u)-)[. Venetic Adua (river
— 486 —
ROAD
name), Germ Attel (river name), Latv Adula (river name),
Thracian Atlas (river name), Av adu ‘canal’, OPers Adukanaisa-
(? name of a month). This entire set is constructed from river
names whose mutual connection is much too uncertain to
demand a common IE root; it should be rejected.
?*ak w elieh a ‘river’. [Del 178]. LalAquilo (river name), Lith
Akele (river name), Thracian ’Ayekov (river name). To be
rejected for the reasons set out above.
?*alontoseh a nvef. [Del 178], Italian Alento (river name),
Germ Elz (river name), Lith Alanta (river name), Dacian
AXomaq (river name), Iran Alanta (river name). To be
rejected for the reasons set out above.
?*nedih a - ‘river?’ [IEW 759 ( *ned-)\ BK 556 ( *nat’V
*nat’-) 1. OInd nadf- ‘river’. Other river names such as Grk
Neda in Arcadia, Nedcov in Messenia are probably non-IE
rather than Illyrian while connections with names such as
Thracian N botch; (river name) and NHG Nette is no mone
than a guess. The posited underlying root *ned- ‘roar’, thus
the ‘roaring (one)’, is limited to OInd nadati ‘it roars’, hence
this word may have been an epithet for naming a river but
such a conclusion is hardly required.
?*h 3 eust-(i)o- ‘estuary, river mouth’. [IEW 785 (*6us-);
Wat 46 (*os-); Gl 714 ( *ois-/*oHs-/ous-t h -)[ . Lat ostium
‘mouth of river’, Lith uostas ~ uosta ‘river mouth, harbor’,
Latv uosts ~ uosta ‘harbor’, Rus ustije ~ usti ‘river mouth’.
The analysis here is quite problematic. The Baltic and Slavic
words cannot be derived from the word for ‘mouth’ found in
OInd Ss~ ‘mouth’ but they can be cognate with OInd ostha-
‘lip’ through a nominative plural (e.g., OCS usta ‘mouth’ <
lips’), which gives a root *ous-. Baltic uo- is unclear as is the
acute accent in Lithuanian. The Latin word may continue
*ous- or be derived from os ‘mouth’ although in the latter
case it would not be cognate with the words in Baltic and
Slavic. A late dialectal term in some European stocks.
See also Flow; River Goddess; Run. [R.S.P.B.]
RIVER GODDESS
There are two categories of river goddesses in Indo-
European. The first is indicated by a linguistically cognate set
of names derived from PIE *deh a nu- ‘river’, while the second
is exclusively confined to Indo-Iranian goddesses.
A PIE *deh a nu- is supported by OInd Danu, mother of
Vjtra, the arch-withholder of the heavenly waters; Irish Danu,
mother of the Tuatha De Danann; and Welsh Don. With
gender-switching, the goddess became Greek Danaus, father
of the Danaids, who, after killing their husbands on their
wedding nights, were condemned to eternally carrying water
in a sieve; and great-great grandfather of Danae, mother of
the hero Perseus who saved princess Andromeda from a giant
female sea-monster. Cognates without personification include
the Slavic (borrowed < Iranian) rivers Don, Dnieper (< *Danu
apara ‘river to the rear’), and Dniester (< *Danu nasdya ‘river
to the front’); the Scythian Tanais\ the Central European
Danube ; and smaller bodies of water: Lithuanian Dunojus,
‘Large Stream’; Latvian Dupavas, ‘Small River, Stream’.
Although linguistically cognate, it is difficult to support a
common mythologem or discern a set of common themes
that would permit the reconstruction of a personalized
*Deh a nu- to PIE. Rather, we may have merely a
personalization of the concept ‘river’ in a number of IE groups.
The second major type of IE river goddess can be seen in
the OInd Sarasvati and Iranian Anahita. Sarasvati was goddess
of music, poetry, and eloquence. She is the goddess most
frequently invoked in the ftgveda. She was a transfunctional
goddess: she brought wisdom (RV 6.49.7); she also guided
‘all works of devotion’ (RV 6.3. 12) and she caused all prayers
to succeed’ (RV 6.3.8). She fulfilled the martial function as a
‘defeater of enemies’ (RV6.61.7, 2.30.8). Just as virtually every
Indo-European goddess, Sarasvati represented the third
function, as bestower of fortune and abundance (milk, melted
butter, sweet water [RV 9.67.321), beautiful gifts (RV
1.164.49), and she was ‘fortune-bearing’ (RV 7.93.6), thus
personifying good fortune considerably earlier than Sr!
Laksmi. Further, she was called ‘best mother’ (RV 2.41. 16),
and she set the seed in the womb (RV 10 1 84 1-2). She was
wife of Brahma.
See also Goddesses; River; Transfunctional Goddess.
[M.R.D.J
Further Readings
Dexter, M. R. (1990) Reflections on the Goddess *Donu. Mankind
Quarterly 31 , 45-58.
Lommel, H. (1954) Anahita-Sarasvati, in Asiatics. Festschrift
Friednch Weller, ed. J. Schubert, Leipzig, Harrassowitz, 405-
413.
ROAD
*hi€itp~ *hi 6 itdr (gen. *hiitnds ) ‘way, road’. [/EW294-
295 (*i-ter); Gl 41; Buck 1071-1072; BK 442 ( *ay-/*.iy -) [ .
Lat iter (gen. itineris ) ‘a going, walk, way’, Hit itar' a going’,
TochA ytar ‘road, way’, TochB ytarye ‘road, way’. Although
not richly attested, the cognates are widely distributed and
the archaic heteroclitic declension strongly suggests PIE status.
Cf. also Lith eismi ‘way’, Grk oigoq ‘stripe, course (of a song)’,
OInd ema- ‘way’, TochA yme ‘road’, TochB ymiye ‘road’, all
derived by some suffix in -m-. From *hjei- ‘to go’
*p 6 ntoh 2 s( gen. *ppth 26 s) ‘(untraced) path’ [ 1F.W 808-
809 ( *pont(h)a x -), Wat 49 ( *pent-), Gl 49 ( *p h pt h -H-)\ Buck
1071-1072], Olr aitt (< *pdthni-) ‘place, ?crossing-place of a
river’, Lat pons ‘bridge’, OPrus pintis ‘way’, OCS pptf ' way’,
Grk novxoq ‘sea’ (< *‘path through the sea’), Kcnoq ‘path,
stride’, Ttareo) ‘step’, Arm hun ‘ford’, Av pants (gen. paOo)
‘road’ (from Iranian come OE prefj ‘path’, OHG pfad ‘path’),
OInd panthas (gen. pathas) ‘path, (as yet untraveled) route’
From *pent- ‘find one’s way’.
*p 6 rtus (gen. *pft 6 us) ‘passage way’. [IEW 817
( *per-tu-), Wat 50 (*per-); Gl 580-581; Buck 7.22; BK 69
(*p[ h }ar-/*pl h ]or-)}. OWels rit lord', Gaul mu- ‘ford’, Lat
portus ‘harbor’, porta ‘city gate’, ON fjprdr ‘estuary’, OE ford
‘ford’ (> NE ford), OHG furt ‘ford’, Illyrian Nau-portus( place
487
ROAD
name, presumably ‘Boat Passage’), Av porotu- ‘ford, bridge’,
Hu-poraOw-a - ‘Euphrates’ (< ‘± that which is good to cross’),
Oss furd ~ ford ‘large river, sea’. From *per- ‘go across’.
Distribution suggests PIE status.
*sentos ‘way, passage’. [IEW 908 ( *sento-)\ cf. Wat 58
( *sent-)\. OIr set ‘road’, Weis hynt ‘way’, ON sinn ‘time’, sirmi
‘way, company’, sinna ‘travel’, OE sip ‘way’, sidian ‘go, depart,
travel, wander’, OHG sind ‘way, side’, sindon ‘go, depart,
travel, wander’, Goth sinps‘ time’, Arm 9nt‘ac‘ ‘way, passage’,
TochA sont(< *sentu-) ‘street’. From *sent- 1 go’. If these words
are not independent creations, the distribution suggests PIE
status.
*stighs ~ * st6igho/eh a - ‘path’. I IEW 1017-1018
( *st(o)igho~), Wat 65-66 ( *steigh -); GI 155; Buck 10.721.
From *stlghs : ON stig ‘step’, OHG steg ‘plank, footbridge’,
OCS stidza ‘footstep, street’, Grk ariyog ‘row, line’, oxiyeg
(pi.) ‘series’; from *stdigho/eh a -: OHG steiga ‘step, way’, Goth
staiga ‘way, path’, Alb shteg ‘ path' , Grk oroi^og‘row, line’. Cf.
also ON stigr 1 footpath’, OE staEger ‘stair, staircase’ (> NE stair).
Formations of the west and center of the IE world. From
*steigh- ‘step (up), go’.
?*yegh}eh a - ‘track, road’ (< * ‘capable of carrying passen-
gers’). [IEW 1 1 18-1120 ( *uegh -), 1123-1124; Wat 74
{*wegh-)\ Gl 627 ( *wegh-)\ Buck 10.71; BK 301 (*wag y -/
*W9g y -)]. Lat via ‘way, highway, road, path, street’, Lith vezi
‘rut, track; trail’, Latv veza ‘track’. Possibly a word of the west
and center of the IE world, possibly independent creations in
the two stocks attesting this development. The underlying
adjective is seen in OInd vahya- ‘fit to be borne’ and, nominal-
ized with different meanings in ON vigg ‘horse’, OE wicg
‘horse’, Av vazya- ‘burden, load’. Other nominalizations of
*uegh- ‘move, travel by vehicle’ with similar meanings are
*ueghos in OIr fecht ‘trip’, ON vegr ‘way’, OE weg ‘way’ (>
NE way), OHG weg ‘way’, Goth wigs ‘way’, and *ueghnos in
TochA wkam ‘way, manner’, TochB yakne ‘way, manner’.
Pathways or routes of passage have probably existed before
the emergence of anatomically modern humans. Artificial
constructions are attested at least since the Neolithic in those
areas of Eurasia where conditions have permitted the survival
of archaeological evidence for trackways. These may occur
within settlements, i.e., streets, which can be deduced from
the gridlike plans of villages in southeastern Europe or the
remains of wattled walkways along lakeside settlements in
central and western Europe. In western Europe where wetland
conditions have preserved organic materials, brushwood and
wattled trackways are known across bogs from the fifth
millennium BC onwards and by the Iron Age timber corduroy
roads suitable for the movement of vehicles are encountered
north of the Alps while stone reinforced roads are one of the
major achievements of Roman civilization.
See also Find One’s Way; Go; Ride. [A.D.V]
Further Reading
Benveniste, E. (1954) Semantic problems in reconstruction. Word
10, 252-264.
ROAR
*reu- ‘roar, howl’. [/EW867 (*reu-); Wat 54 (*reu-)]. Eat
rumor ‘rumor, common talk’, ON rymja ‘roar’, OE reon ‘cry’,
OCS rovQ ~ revQ roar’, Grk cbpvopai howl’, OInd rauti ~
ruvati ‘roars, bellows’. Sufficiently widespread to guarantee
its PIE status.
?*ned-‘± roar’. [/EW759 (*ned-); BK 556 (*natV*not'-)\.
Thracian Neozoq (river name), Grk Ne8a (river name), Av
nad- ‘insult’, OInd nadati ‘sounds, cries, roars’. Only attested
as a verb in Indo-Iranian. If the river names in the Balkans
belong here, it suggests that this word may have existed in
the center as well as the east of the IE world.
See also Howl; Murmur; Noise; River; Thunder. ID.Q.A.l
ROD see POST
ROE (DEER) see DEER
ROE (FISH-EGGS) see FISH
ROOF
*K rdpos ‘roof’. [IEW 616 ( *krdpo -); Wat 33 ( *krdpo-)\
Buck 7.281. Mir cro ‘hovel, stall’, OHG rafo ‘rafter, beam’ (none
of the attestations of this word is sufficiently early that the
lack of a spelling *hr- is significant), NHG (dial.) rafe ‘rafter,
beam’, rafel ‘overhanging eaves; sideless lean-to’, OCS stropu
‘roof’. A lengthened-grade form, *kropos , is to be seen in ON
hrof‘ shed under which ships are built or kept’, OE hroE roof,
ceiling; top, summit’ (> NE roof), Dutch roe/ ‘deckhouse,
cuddy (of a barge)’. Apparently restricted to the NW of the IE
world.
*hirebh- ‘cover with a roof’. [IEW 853 ( *rebh-)-, Wat 53
( *rebh-)\ Buck 7.28; cf. IEW 866 ( *rep-)\ Wat 54 (*rep-)|.
ON raf{< *hirebhom) ‘roof’, OHG himi-reba ‘skull’ (< *‘brain-
roof’), Grk epeqxo ‘cover with a roof, thatch; wreathe with
garlands’, opo(pfi ‘roof, ceiling’, opoq>og ‘thatch’, possibly Khufi
raw] (< Proto-Iranian *rabaka-) ‘plank’. If the Iranian word
belongs here, which seems likely, then we have evidence for
something that was widespread and old in IE. If the Iranian
word does not belong, then we have evidence only for a word
of the west and center of the IE world. Also probably belonging
here are ON raptr'rafter’, OE raefter ‘rafter, beam’ (> NE rafter),
MDutch rachter ‘rafter’ (as if) from PIE *hirobh-tro-. Compare
also ON rif' rib, ridge’ (borrowed in NE reef), OE nbh ‘rib’ (>
NE rib), OHG rippa ‘rib’ (Gmc ‘rib’ < *hirebhio-, possibly by
dissimilation from *hirebhro-l), and OCS rebro ‘rib’, Rus
rebro ‘rib’ (Slavic ‘rib’ < *h irebhro-; possibly by assimilation
from *hirebhio-1). The semantic shift in Germanic and Slavic
whereby ‘ribs’ are seen as the roof, or perhaps as the rafters,
of the body is noteworthy.
*(s)t€ges- ‘roof’. [IEW 1013-1014 ( *(s)tegos-)\ Wat 65
(*(s)feg-); Buck 7.28; BK 135 ( *t 'aq'-/*t ’9q'-)[ . OIr tech ~ teg
‘house’, OWels hg'house’, Grk (aheyog'rooi, house, mansion’,
OTEyr\ ‘roof, ceiling; roofed area, room’; (pi.) house, mansion’,
rsyog ‘roof; covered hall, chamber’. Though nominal
derivatives in *-es- were productive in late IE, the agreement
— 488 —
ROSSEN culture
t
I
of Celtic and Greek may demonstrate that this particular
derivative was a part of the PIE vocabulary. Other formations
include: Lat tectum ‘roof’, tegula ‘roof-tile’, ON pak ‘roof’,
OE paec ‘roof’ (> NE thatch), OHG dah (< *togom) ‘roof’,
OPrus stogis ‘roof’, Lith stdgas ‘roof’, OInd st(h)ag- ‘cover’.
From *(s)teg- ‘cover’.
All words for the roof of the house derive from the concept
‘cover’ and provide no indication as to either the shape or the
composition of the PIE ‘roof’.
See also House. IA.D.V}
ROSSEN CULTURE
Successor to the Linear Ware culture in western Europe
c 4500-4000 BC, Rossen sites are known from northwestern
France across southern and central Germany to eastern
Switzerland. They continue some of the main features of the
earlier Linear Ware culture such as enclosed settlements and
long houses (now trapezoidal). Village settlements clearly
practiced mixed agriculture. Cemeteries are known near
settlements and include both flexed and supine burials.
The Rossen culture provided a substantial background to
the expansions of the Neolithic both to the British Isles and
possibly also into northwest Europe. Within the “Neolithic
solution” to the IE homeland problem it is seen as a PIE society
while the “Kurgan solution” views the Rossen culture as having
its roots firmly set in the indigenous non-IE populations of
the Linear Ware culture. Nevertheless, Marija Gimbutas has
argued that the Rossen culture experienced some of the earliest
— 489 —
ROSSEN culture
IE influences from the east. These would include the occa-
sional presence of semi-subterranean dwellings, typical for
the steppe cultures but intrusive in the Rossen region, pottery
decorated with solar symbols, and fortified hilltop settlements.
These arguments are not widely accepted.
See also Kurgan Tradition; Linear Ware Culture. [J.PM.]
Further Reading
Gimbutas, M. (1992) The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco,
Harper, 364-366.
ROT
?*g w eidh- ‘be foul, purulent’. [/EW46 {*g?eid(h)-)\ BK
334 ( *k’ w iy-/*k* w ey -)] . ON kveisa ‘boil, whitlow’, MLG quese
‘blood blister’, OCS ziduku ‘sap-filled, juicy (of plants)’, Grk
Seiocc ‘slime, filth’. A possible word of the west and center of
the IE world.
See also Fresh, Pus; Sap; Smell. [D.Q.A.l
ROUGH
*kreup- ‘rough’. [VW 2071. ON hrjufr ‘crude, rough’, OE
hreof ‘crude, rough, leprous’ (> NE rough), OHG hriob
‘leprous’, g(e)rob‘ fat, clumsy, undistinguished’ (> NHG grob ),
Lith kraupus ‘dreadful, rough; timid’, TochA karpi ‘common,
raw, rough’, TochB karpiye ‘common, raw, rough’ (Toch <
*krup(i)ios). The distribution suggests PIE status.
See also Skin Disease. [D.Q.A.l
ROW
*hierh j- ‘row’. (/EW338 (*era-); Wat 1 7 {*ero-)\ Gl 582
( *erH-/*reH -)]. OIr raid ( DIL raid) ‘rows’, ON roa ‘row’, OE
rowan ‘row’ (> NE row), MHG ruejen ~ ruegen .‘row’, Lith
iriii ‘row’. Cf. the derivative *hierhiter- ‘rower’: Grk epExqq
‘rower’, OInd aritar- ‘rower’. Geographical distribution makes
this word a sure candidate for PIE status.
See also Boat; Oar. [D.Q.A.]
RUB
*bhes- rub’ (pres. *bhtbhesti , *bhs-6h a -ti) . [IEW 145-
146 ( *bhes-)\ Wat 8 ( *bhes-)\ GI 134 (*b^es-)i. Alb fshij
(< *bhs-in-ie/o~) ‘sweep, wipe, brush’, Grk y/Sro~ y/afco 1 rub’,
Olnd babhasti ‘chews thoroughly, masticates, devours’, psati
‘chews, swallows’. Also here may belong various words for
‘sand’: Lat sabulum, OE sand (> NE sand), OHG sant, Grk
i j/dpiioq. Not widely attested but the geographical distribution
of those attestations would seem to be sufficient, along with
the morphological identity of the present formations in Greek
and Old Indie, to assure PIE status. The semantic link between
‘rub’ and ‘sand’ may be explained by the widespread use of
sand in prehistoric societies as an abrasive for boring holes or
polishing the surface of stone objects.
*ter(i)~ ‘rub, turn’. [IEW 1071-1072 (*fer-); Wat 70
(*tera-); Gl 152 ( *t h er-H-)\ Buck 9.31; BK 95 ( *t[ h ]ary -/
*t[ h l9rT-)\. Lat tero ‘rub’, Lith irinu ‘rub', Latv trinu ‘rub’,
OCS firp'rub’, Grk refpco 1 rub’. A word of the west and center
of the IE world. Cf. Lat lener{< *tereri) ‘delicate’, Grk xepvq
‘delicate, weak’, xepqv ‘delicate’, Av taumna- ‘young, delicate’,
Olnd taruna- ‘young, delicate’.
*treu(hx)- ‘rub away, wear away’. [ IEW 1073 ( *treu~), Wat
70 ( *terd-)\ Buck 9.31]. Certainly or probably from *treu-:
OE prowian (< *troueh a ~) ‘suffer’, prawan (< *treue/o-) ‘turn,
twist’ (> NE throw), OHG druoen (< *troueh ir ) ‘suffer’, Lith
truneti ‘putrefy, rot, decay’; from *treuh x -: Lith truneti ‘putrefy,
rot, decay’, OCS tryjQ (< *truh x ie/o~) ‘rub’, Grk xpvo) (<
*truhxie/o~) ‘rub down, wear out’. An enlargement of the
previous entry. A word of the west and center of the IE world.
*merd- ‘± rub, scrape’. [IEW 736-737 ( *mer-d-)\ . Lat
mordeo ‘bite’, Olnd mfdnati ~ mradate ~ mardayati ‘rubs’,
TochAB martk- (< *m[d-ske/o-) ‘shave (hair)’ (< * ‘scrape away'
< *‘rub away’). Some would add here OE smeortan ‘hurt,
smart’ (> NE smart), OHG smerzan ‘hurt, smart’. With or
without the Germanic words, we have relatively few
attestations but these are in a geographical distribution that
virtually assures PIE status.
See also Pierce; Sand [D.Q.A.l
RUFF (FISH) see CARP
RULE
*tkehi- ‘rule’ < *‘take hold of a piece of land’. [IEW 626
(*kpe(i)-),Wat 71 ( *tke-)\ GI 127; Buck 19.3 1 1 Grk Kxdopai
‘procure’, Kxeava{< *kte(w)ar) ‘property, goods' (cf. Myc ki-
ti-me-na ko-to-na ‘land allotment’), Av xsayati ‘have power’,
Olnd ksayati ‘possess, rule’, ksatra- ‘authority, power, rule’,
ksatriya- ‘ruling’ (< Indo-Iran *ksa - < PIE tkeh /-). In the zero-
grade, possibly Grk kxi^o) ‘establish, found’, Myc ki-ti-je-si
‘clear, bring into cultivation’. Cf. also OPers (< Median)
xsayaOiya ‘king’ > NPers sah ‘king, shah’. Along with Olnd
ksitl- ‘residence’ and para-ksit - ‘living in the neighborhood’,
the Greek form suggests that the underlying meaning
pertained to ‘the procurement of a piece of land’ > ‘possess’ >
‘rule’. A lexical isogloss in late Indo-European, i.e., Greek,
Indo-Iranian.
*p6tietoi ‘rule, is master’. [IEW 842 ( *poti-), cf. Wat 52
( *pot-)\ GI 661 ( *p b ot h -)\. Lat potior'am master’, Av pai&yeite
‘rules’, Olnd pa tyate ‘rules’. A denominative verb from *potis
‘head of house, master’. At least of late PIE status.
*Ual- ‘be strong, rule’. [IEW 1 1 1 1-1 1 12 ( *ual-)\ Wat 73
(*wal-)\ GI 655; BK 487 ( *wal-)[ . OIr fal-n- ~ fol-n- ‘rule’,
flaith ‘rulership’, Weis gw/ac/‘rulership’, Gaul -valos personal
name element, ON valda ‘rule’, OE wealdan ‘rule’, wieldan
‘govern’ (> NE wield), OHG waltan ‘rule’, Goth waldan ‘rule’,
OPrus (acc.) weldisnan ‘inheritance’ (acc. pi.) waldnikans
‘kings’, Lith valdyti 1 rule, possess’, Latv valdiF rule’, OCS vladq
‘rule’, TochA wal ‘king’, TochB walo ‘king’ (Toch < *uleh a nts
‘ruling’), TochAB wlaw- ‘control’. Distribution assures PIE
status.
See a Iso FIand ; Leader | E . C . P ]
— 490 —
RYE
RUN
*bheg w - ‘run’ (pres. *bhig w e/o-) [IEW 1 16 ( *bhe g 0 -); Wat
6 ( *bheg w -)\ Buck 10.51], Lith begu ‘run, flee’, La tv bpgu
‘run, flee’, bfga ‘flight’, OCS bezp ‘flee’, Rus begu ‘run, flee’,
Grk (pefiogou ‘flee’, (pofiog ‘flight, fear’, (pofieco ‘put to flight,
scare off’, Hindi bhagna ‘flee’, bhaga ‘running’. With the late
Indo-Aryan cognate, distribution suggests PIE status.
*dreh a - ‘run’ (pres. *didreh a ti). \IEW 204 ( *dra-)\ Buck
10.46; BK 157 ( ^ur-Z^or -)]. ON titra ‘tremble’, OHG
zittaron (< *di-dreh a -) ‘tremble’, Grk dc7toSiSpdffKco ‘run
away’, (aorist) e'Spav ‘ran’, Olnd dr&ti ‘runs, hastens’. Not
widely attested but its geographical distribution guarantees
PIE status.
*drem- ‘run’. [/EW204 ( *drem-)\ Buck 10.46]. OE trem
‘footstep’, Grk (aorist) dpapeiv ‘run’, dpogoq ‘course’, Olnd
dramati ‘runs about’, TochB rmer(< *dremor-) ‘swift’. Again
sparsely attested but with a geographical distribution that
assures its PIE status. Ultimately related to the previous entry
(cf. *g w em-~ *g w eh a - ‘come’).
run, flow swiftly’ (pres. *t6ke/o~). [IEW 1059-1 060
(*fek y -); Wat 69 ( *tek w -); G1 578 {*t h ek ho -)\ Buck 10.32,
10.46, 10.51], Olr teichid ‘flees’, Bret techet ‘flees’, Runic
pewaz ‘servant, vassal’, OE peow ‘servant’, OHG deo ‘servant’,
diu ~ diuwa ‘maid(servant)’, Goth pius ‘servant’, piwi
‘maid(servant)’ (Gmc < *tekuos , *tekijlh a - ‘runner, go-for’),
Lith teku ‘run, flow (of water), rise (of sun)’, Latv teku ‘run,
flow’, tekeju ‘keep running’, OCS tekp ‘run’, tekajp'mn about’,
Rus teku ‘flow’, Alb ndjek ‘follow’, Av tacaiti ‘runs’, Olnd takti
‘hurries’, takva- ‘hastening, swift’. Cf. TochB cake (< *tekes-)
‘river’. Wide-spread and old in IE.
*dheu- run’ (pres. *dh6ue/o- ) [IEW 259-260 (*dheu-)\
Wat 14 (*dheu-)\ Buck 10.46; BK 145 ( *d y aw-/* d y 9wd] . Grk
Oeco ‘run’, 6oog ‘swift’, MPers dawtdan ‘run’, Olnd dhavate
‘runs’, dhavati ‘runs, streams, flows, glides’, dhautl - ‘spring,
stream’. Possibly belonging here, with semantic specialization:
ON dpgg' dew’, OE deaw ‘dew’ (> NE dew), OHG tou ‘dew’.
If the Germanic words belong here, then we have good
evidence for PIE status of this word; if they do not then we
have a word confined to the southeast of the IE world.
*reth 2 - ‘run’ (pres. *r€th. 2 t/o-) . [IEW 866 ( *ret(h)-)\ Wat
54 ( *ret-); GI 622 ( *ret h -)\ Buck 10.46; BK 605 ( *rat[ h ]-/
*rat[ h ]-)]. The underlying verb is preserved only in Celtic:
Olr rethid ( DIL reithicT) ‘runs’, Weis rhedaEum\ Cf. the wide-
spread derivative *roth 2 eh a -'~ *rdth 20 s: Olr roth ‘wheel’, Weis
rhod ‘wheel’, Lat rota ‘wheel’, OHG rad ‘wheel’, Lith ratas
‘wheel’, (pi.) ratal wagon’, Latv rats ‘wheel’, (pi.) rati ‘wagon’,
Alb rreth (< *roth 2 ikom ) ‘ring, hoop, tire (for a carriage)’, Av
ra6a- ‘chariot, wagon’, Olnd ratha- ‘chariot, wagon’, ratharyati
‘rides in a wagon’ (and also Late Lat birotis ‘two- wheeled’,
Lith dviralis ‘two-wheeled’). An old PIE word for ‘wheel’
which, by a natural metaphor, has come to mean ‘wagon’ or
more particularly ‘war-chariot’ in a number of stocks.
*tregh - ‘run’. [IEW 1089 (*t ragh-): cf. Buck 10.46]. Olr
traig(< *traghet-) ‘foot’, Weis froec/Toot’, ON jbnel/ ‘servant’,
OE pr&gan (< *treghe/o-) ‘run’, prag ‘(space of) time, season’,
OHG drigil ‘servant’ (< *‘runner, go-for’), Goth pragjan' run’,
SC trag ‘trace’. A word of the northwest of the IE world. The
notion of ‘servant’ as ‘runner, go-for’ is also seen in the
descendants of *tek- and *dhregh-
*dhregh-‘ run’. [/EVV273 ( *dhregh-)\ Wat 15 ( *dhregh-)\
Buck 10.46; BK 84 (*dar-/*dar-)[. Olr droch ‘wheel’, Lith
padrozti ‘go or run away, scamper away’, Latv drazu run fast’,
Grk rpexco 1 run’, tpoxog ‘wheel, rpcoxdccorun, gallop’, rpoxig
‘servant, runner’, Arm durgn (< *dhrdghon -, with metathesis
in the first syllable) ‘potters wheel’ (Baltic would appear to
reflect *dregh- while Armenian reflects *dregh-, Celtic and
Greek are indifferent). Except for the different manner of
articulation of the initial consonant this word is identical to
the previous one and found in the west and center of the IE
world. The two words must be related in some way, if only by
mutual influence, but it is not clear how.
*dhen- run, flow’. 1/EW249 ( *dhen-)\ Wat 13 (*dhen-)\
Gl 578 ( *d h en-)\ BK 83 (*dan-/*dan-)\ . Lat fons ‘spring’,
OPers danuvatiy ‘flows’, NPers danldan ‘hasten, run’, Olnd
dhanvatE runs, flows', dhanayati' runs, sets in motion’, TochAB
tsan- ‘flow’, TochB tsene ‘influence’. Reasonably widespread,
certainly of PIE status.
*Kers~ ‘run’. [ IEW 583-584 ( *kers-)\ Wat 30 ( *kers-)\ Buck
10.46], Olr carr ‘vehicle’, Weis car ‘vehicle’, Lat curro
(< *kfse/o-) ‘run’, currus ‘wagon’, cursus ‘course’, MHG hurren
‘hasten’, Grk emKovpoq ‘running for help’, TochA kursar
‘league; course, path’, TochB kwarsar ‘league; course, path’.
Perhaps belonging here are ON bross ‘horse’, OE hors ‘horse’
(> NE horse), OHG hros horse’. Sufficiently widespread to
he a good candidate for PIE status.
See also Flow; Horse; River; Turn; Wagon; Wheel. ID.Q.A ]
RYE
*rughis rye ( Secale cereale) 1 . | IEW 1 1 83 ( *urughio-), Wat
79 ( *wrughyo -); GI 568 ( *wrug^yo-). Buck 8.45] . ON rugr
‘rye’, OE ryge ‘rye’ (> NE rye), OSax roggo ‘rye’, OHG rocko
‘rye’ (the latter two from *rughnon- ), Lith (pi.) rugial ‘rye’,
Latv (pi.) rudzi ‘rye’, OCS rQz! ‘rye’, Rus rozl ‘rye’. Confined
to the northwest portion of the IE world, we have a late
dialectal IE innovation, perhaps a borrowing from some
unknown substratum language. Attempts to link this series
with Thracian ppi^ot ‘emmer-wheat, rye’ and its modern con-
tinuation Bulg brica ‘(type of) summer grain’ are unconvincing.
*h a 6reh a ~ ‘± ryegrass’. [IEW 16 (*ai-ra)\. Latv a ires
!ryegrass’, Grk (pi.) aipai ‘weeds in wheat, ryegrass’, Olnd
eraka ‘sedge’ (from which a mat could be woven). Sufficiently
widespread to be considered of PIE date. Here is one of the
very few examples of a word which survived because of its
negative economic importance — a plant that interfered with
the growth of more important plants. As the earliest attest-
ations of rye in Europe tend to be as weeds mixed with the
remains of wheat and barley, the lexical agreement between
Greek and Baltic suggests that this word might have been
quite old. Rye, either wild or domestic, is not generally found
in ancient India which may account for a shift in the semantic
491
RYE
field of the word.
The distribution of cognate terms for ‘rye’ is hardly surpris-
ing as this cereal is specially appreciated in northern temperate
climates since it is able to grow on the sandy soils of the
north and withstand the effects of cold winters far better than
wheat. The wild predecessor of domestic rye ( Secale mon-
tanum ) was probably confined to the region of eastern Turkey
and Armenia. Neither it nor domestic forms of rye are well
known on Neolithic sites, its earliest domestic appearance
occurring in the early Neolithic of Turkey. Grains of rye have
been claimed for Neolithic sites in Europe but generally rye
would appear at best to have been a weed accompanying
wheat and barley crops rather than domesticated in its own
right. The earliest certain evidence for the domesticated rye
tends to be from the Bronze Age (central Europe) and it is
known here and in eastern Europe, including the Caucasus,
from the Bronze Age onwards. An indication of its rise in
importance in the north can be seen from Poland where only
6% of the Neolithic sites yielding seed remains exhibit- rye
while 57% do so by the Iron Age. In any event, it is likely that
the word spread among the ancestors of the northwest IE
stocks during the Bronze Age or, possibly, as recently as the
Iron Age.
See also Agriculture; Grain. [D.Q.A, J.RM ]
s-
SACRED
*sakros ‘holy’. [JEW 878 ( *sak-)\ Wat 55 ( *sak-)\ GI 702
{*sak h -)\ Buck 22.19]. Lat sacer ‘sacred’, sacerdds ‘priest’ (<
*sakro-dhdt-s ‘one who makes holy’), TochA sakar ‘blissful,
happy; blessed, auspicious’, TochB sakre ‘blissful, happy;
blessed, auspicious’. Cf. Lat sancid ‘hallow; establish a law’,
sanctus ‘sanctified’, Umb Sancus (a divinity), Hit saklai- ‘rite,
custom’. Although sparsely attested, distribution suggests PIE
status. On the basis of the Latin and Hittite, the basic meaning
of this word would relate to the world of ritual where
something was made sacred.
*\feik- ‘consecrate; forbid to (= separate from) human
contact’. [JEW 1128 ( *ueik-)\ Wat 75 (*weik-)', Gl 704
( *weik tl -)\ Buck 22.42-43; BK 510 ( *wuy-ik[ h ]-/
*woy-ik[ h ]-)] . Lat victima ‘sacrificial victim’, ON vigja
‘consecrate’, ve ‘temple’, OE weoh ‘relic, sacred image’, (fern.)
wicce ~ (masc.) wicca ‘witch’ (> NE witch), OHG wlhan
‘consecrate’, wih ‘holy’, Goth weihan ‘consecrate’, weihs 1 holy’,
Lith viekas ‘life force’, Av ava-vaek- ‘exclude; seek out’, OInd
vinakti ‘select out, sift’. Distribution indicates PIE status.
*K\/en(to)~ ‘holy’. \IEW 630 ( *£yen-fo-); Wat 34
( *kwen-)\ GI 702 ( *k h wen-t h o-)\ Buck 22.19]. ON husl
‘Eucharist’, OE hus(e)l ‘sacrifice; Eucharist’, Goth hunsl
‘sacrifice’, OPrus swenta- (place name element), Lith sventas
‘holy’, OCS svpftf ‘holy’, Rus svjatoj ‘holy’, Av spanta- ‘holy’.
Perhaps also Hit kunna- ‘right, correct’, TochB kants- (if <
*kuntio-) ‘± right, correct, firm’. Originally *‘swollen (with
force)’ from *keu(hi)~ ‘swell’; cf. also Grk KVpiog ‘lord’, Av
sura- ‘strong’. Widespread and old in IE.
*noibhos holy’. \IEW 760 ( *noi-hho -)]. OIr noth ‘ holy’,
OPers naiha- ‘holy’. From *nei- ‘be excited’. Sparsely attested,
but the geographical distribution suggests PIE status.
*seup- ‘pure, what is taboo for humans’. Umb supa ‘viscera
of sacrificed animal', Hit suppa- ‘flesh or viscera of sacrificed
animal’, supp-i- ‘pure’. Although attested only in two stocks,
cognates between Italic and Anatolian suggest considerable
IE antiquity.
*ueh a tis ‘god-inspired’. [IEW 1113 ( *uat- ); Wat 78
(*wet-); GI 734 ( *wat h -)\ . OIr faith ‘prophet’, Weis gwawd
‘poem’, Gaul ovazeig ‘those performing sacred rites and
investigating natural phenomena’, Lat vatcs seer, prophet’,
ON odr ‘raging’, odr' poetry’, Odum Odinri, OE wod ‘raging’
(> early NE wood ‘insane, mad’), wod ‘sound, song, zeal’,
weding ‘insanity’, Woden ‘Odinn’ (cf. Wedens-d;eg
‘Wednesday’), OHG fer-wuot ‘raging’, wuot ‘violent emotion,
rage’, Wuolan ‘Odinri, Goth wods demon-possessed', Av api-
vataite 1 inspires’, OInd api-vat- ‘inspire’. One should note for
Germanic that one of Odinn’s attributes was that of mspircr
of poetry (as well as the inspirer of battle-rage). The meaning
shown by Gothic reflects a change in perspective brought
about by Christianization. Widespread and old in IE.
Another major concept involved with the sacred is ‘whole-
ness’ which may be seen in *kuen(to)- where its derivation
from *keu(hi)- ‘swell’ also indicates ‘fullness, complete’ and
a similar connotation can be found in *hjeuges- ‘fullness of
sacred power’.
According to Emil Benveniste, the concept of the sacred
generally required a number of different terms in each IE stock
that reflected an opposition between the positive aspect of
the sacred, i.e., the inherent power of divinities, and the
negative aspect or taboo, that which was forbidden to human
society to touch. These positive:negative oppositions can be
found in Italic, e.g., Lat sacersanctus '(intrinsic) sacredness,
something outside the world of humankind, (explicit)
sacredness created and defended by humans’, in Grk iepog
dyiog 1 holy, divine: devoted to the gods, sacredness defended
— 493 —
SACRED
by humans’; and Av spanta-: yaozdata- ‘(intrinsic) holiness:
put into the state required by the cull’. Although many of
these terms have cognates in other IE languages, there is no
overall consistency in their valence and he saw no evidence
of a single PIE term that embraced both the positive and
negative aspects of ‘sacred’. Calvert Watkins, however,
observes that *seup- might at least provide a reconstruction
for the negative aspect, i.e., taboo. In the Iguvine tablets where
Umb supa appears, the contexts indicate that it is something
taken from a victim which may be cooked on a fire and then
offered to the gods but not consumed by humans. Similarly,
the use of Hit suppa- indicates that it is something sacrificed
to the gods but not consumed by humans or, as one tablet
(KUB XXX 10 Vs. 1 3) puts it explicitly: “what is sacred ( suppi )
to my god (and) not right for me to eat”. Watkins suggests
that *seup- reflects the negative aspects of the sacred and
forms the second half of a PIE *sak-:seup-.
Harriet Lutzky has suggested that there was an underlying
system in PIE thought for expressing the concept of ‘sacred’
which involved three elements: a conceptualization of the
‘sacred’ as something ‘set apart’, the mediating act of ritual,
and the concept of the sacred as ‘wholeness’ or ‘integration’.
The first component may be seen in the terms deriving from
*sakros and *peik -, both of which Lutzky associates with the
verbal roots *sek- ‘cut’ and *peik- ‘separate’, suggesting that
the ‘sacred’ is to be understood as something apart from
ordinary life. But there is also the. suggestion that *sakros
also indicates ‘to bind in contract’. She also suggests the
possibility that *uei- ‘twist, bind’ may underlie *ueik- in which
case both of these words would be bipolar with meanings of
‘separate’ and ‘bind’ conjoined. To this might be added the
words for order *jey(e)s- where she sees an underlying *ieu-
with meanings of both ‘separate’ and ‘bind’.
See also Comparative Mythology; Force; God; Goddesses;
Law; Poet, Sacred Drink. I E . C . P. , J . P. M . ]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami Press.
Dumezil, G. (1969) Idees romaines. Paris, NRF-Gallimard.
Lutzky, H. (1993) On a concept underlying Indo-European terms
for the sacred. JIES 2 1 , 283-301 .
Watkins, C. (1975) The Indo-European word for ‘tabu’, in Indo-
European Studies 11, ed. C. Watkins, Cambridge, Harvard
University, 332-342.
York, M. (1993) Toward a Proto-Indo-European vocabulary of the
sacred. Word 44, 235-254.
SACRED DRINK
The words for alcoholic beverages that may be
reconstructed to PIE would appear to be restricted to ‘mead’
and ‘wine’; however, there is one further term that appears to
designate specifically a drink consumed by the gods.
*Q-mf-t6s ‘un-dying’. \IEW 735 (*p-mpto-)\ Wat 42
( *mer -); G1 722 (*p-mr-l h o-)}. Grk apfdpoxoq ‘immortal,
divine’, apfipooia ‘ambrosia, food of the gods’, Av anusa-
‘epithet of deity’, OInd amfla- ‘name of deity’. Dialectally
restricted to the IE southeast.
Ambrosia Cycle
Although most if not all early IE peoples shared similar
ideas concerning a sacred beverage, the concept of spiritual
elation or increased military prowess induced by alcohol is
so widespread that most parallels within IE ritual and
mythology tend to be regarded as generic rather than a genetic
PIE inheritance. The single major attempt to postulate a PIE
myth concerning a sacred drink, what is known as the
“ambrosia cycle”, was both proposed and later rejected by
Georges Dumezil. He suggested that the various IE stocks
had inherited a common myth involving a drink that endowed
immortality which a trickster figure attempted to steal for
mankind but failed, thus condemning humans to eventual
death and insuring that only the gods remained immortal.
The concept of this sacred drink of immortality, according to
Dumezil, persisted all the way into Christian mythology such
as the quest for the Holy Grail. Although Dumezil came to
reject his own theory, the “cycle of the mead” has been re-
examined byj. Oosten, again as an inherited IE myth. Oosten
emphasizes a number of parallels: 1) in both Indie and Norse
mythology, the sacred drink is prepared from the sea (in the
Mahabharata the amfta is prepared from the sea, in the Norse
Hymiskvida , the sacred drink is found as a consequence of a
banquet hosted by the Sea god and in other tales the sea is
regarded as the home of “ale”; 2) in the Indie version, the sea
is stirred by Vasiuki, an enormous serpent who serves as a
churning rope, in the Norse myth the Midgard-serpent is
caught as part of the search for the magic caldron; 3) in the
Indie myth both gods and demons must co-operate in
preparing the sacred drink; in the Norse myth, both gods
and giants (the Norse equivalent of demons) must work
together to find the mead; 4) in both traditions the two parties
fall out over the sharing of the sacred drink with the gods
ultimately victorious as they deprive their enemies of the dnnk
and also of immortality; and 5) the contest for the mead is
socially a contest between paternal relations that compete
against each other while sharing is performed between affines
and maternal relations.
Indo-lranian Tradition
In ancient India the sacred drink is soma , which according
to Vedic texts, was first pressed, then filtered, after which it
might be mixed with water, milk, butter or barley. Soma was
critical to Vedic sacrifice and after being offered, the remaining
portion was consumed by the priest. Soma was deified as the
‘master of plants’ and over a hundred hymns of the Rgveda
are dedicated to Soma, the third most invoked deity. In ancient
India, soma was very much distinguished from sura , an
intoxicating liquor which might be distilled from a variety of
substances, rice (rice-brandy), molasses and the madhuka
flower all being cited. Sura was given, for example, to the
— 494 —
SACRED DRINK
H 1 '
warrior deity Indra by Namuci to incapacitate him although
it provided Namuci himself with enhanced power ( RV
12.7.3.1). Similarly in the Mahabharata. (3.121-125) the
demon Mada ‘drunkenness, intoxication’ is created to induce
Indra to admit the Asvins to the divine sacrifice. The
consumption of sura by the three Aryan classes was forbidden
in the “Law of Manu”. Like Soma, this liquor was also deified
as a goddess, Sura, who is identified as the consort of Varuna.
The third alcoholic drink of ancient India was ampta, literally
‘immortal’ from a- ‘un’ and mpta ‘dead’ which is cognate with
the Greek ambrosia (cf. also Grk veKTccp ‘nectar, drink of the
gods’ which some would derive from *nek-tph 2 ‘death-
overcoming’ |/£W 762, 1074; Gl 723 ( *Hnek h -t h rH-)\ BK
557 (*nik[ h ]-/*nek[ h ]-)}). It is a celestial beverage, often
likened to rain in the Vedic texts although the Atharvaveda
(4.35,6) suggests that it was distilled from rice. Its remit was
to bestow immortality to the gods but it occasionally seems
to cross with soma in terms of application.
In ancient Iran the cognate of Soma is the deity Haoma
(deified haoma , the drink), which is also pressed and dispels
death. Zara0ustra attacked its abuse by the clergy who got
drunk on it (Yasna 48.10); suggestions that the Avesta also
indicates that haoma was ingested, then passed as urine, and
redrunk to enhance its potency, a practice to be found among
Siberian shamans, would appear to be unfounded.
The botanical identification of soma/haoma ( *sauma-) has
been much discussed. One recent popular theory suggested
by Gordon Wasson was that on the basis of descriptions in
the Vedas, it was to be identified with fly-agaric ( Amanita
muscaria ), a poisonous but hallucinogenic toadstool which
grew on the roots of the birch tree. The case for such an
identification rested on the absence of description in the Vedas
for the parts of a flowering plant, e.g., roots, branches, seeds,
hence a fungus might be suspected. It was also said to grow
in the mountains as is the case for the fly-agaric. The fly-
agaric also accommodated the descriptions of soma to be
found in the Vedas. These arguments, however, have been
regarded as unpersuasive since the Vedas do not describe the
plant but rather the pressed juice or the deity, i.e., they lack
any meaningful description. References to mountains might
also be interpreted as simply recalling soma’s lofty origins.
David Flattery and Martin Schwartz have proposed a differ-
ent theory where they emphasize that the Iranian evidence
should be paramount. As *sauma is an Indo-lranian word, it
is far more likely that the original *sauma is to be found in
Iranian territory rather than Indo-Aryan since the staging area
of indo-lranian migrations was from the north. They argue
that the only widespread source of a psychoactive drug was
the harmel or wild rue ( Peganum harmala ), a bushy-shaped
plant with stems from one to two feet high. Harmel has long
been known in Iran and neighboring territories for its pharma-
cological product, harmel ine. The same drugs found in harmel
are also known in certain South American cultures where
their use parallels that attested in Indo-lranian religion, e g,
it is employed in ceremonies guided by religious specialists,
Sacred Drink a. Togolok with ritual structure; b Ritual complex
(enlarged from center of [a] with evidence for the preparation
of a ritual drink).
it induces “visions” which are interpreted as a higher plain of
reality, and it can accommodate the various descriptions in
the Avesta and later Iranian tradition. It also has apotropaic
uses, i.e., as an incense, and it is the only incense plant in
Iran that also has psychoactive properties.
This suggestion has now been overtaken by archaeological
evidence from Bronze Age Central Asia. Here, in a number of
urban complexes of the BMAC (Bactrian-Margiana Archaeo-
logical Complex), there have been discovered rooms for
religious rites which included traces of ephedra and hemp,
both of which have been discovered with paraphernalia for
the preparation of a (hallucinogenic or intoxicating) beverage.
Ephedra, which occurs in some forty species across Eurasia,
appears as a bush consisting of a series of leafless stems. The
stems contain ephedrme (in various amounts depending on
the species) which raise blood pressure, stimulate metabolism
and heart muscle contraction, and increase perspiration.
Ephedra is often named after some derivation of somaAiaoma
among the modern Indo-lranians from north India to Central
— 495 —
J
SACRED DRINK
Asia, e.g., Nepali somalata , Baluchi hum, NPers horn. Some
now argue that the ritual consumption of soma/haoma may
have originated in these Central Asian towns in the Bronze
Age and was then carried further south by the migration of
the Indo-Iranians.
The certain identification of the botanical referent behind
*sauma is still open and the plausibility of some of the above
suggestions warns that there may have been considerable
mutability in what various Indo-lranian populations
themselves understood as *sauma.
Other IE Traditions
Other than the Greek ambrosia which grants immortality
and may be regarded as a widespread folkloric motif, there is
a hint at the tri-functional division of beverages in the xoij,
the libation in honor of the dead. Here the sacred drinks were
honey (priest), wine (warrior), and milk (shepherd or farmer).
In Norse mythology it is mead that occupies the place as
sacred drink and offers interesting parallels with the Lndic
evidence. In both India and Norse mythology the “War of the
Foundation” is concluded with an intoxicating drink. In India,
the hostilities cease with the creation of the monster Mada
who is subsequently dismembered into four parts — drunken-
ness, womanizing, gambling and hunting. At the end of the
war of the /Esir and Vanir, the combatants symbolize their
friendship by both spitting into ajar and out of this spittle is
created Kvasir who is virtually wisdom incarnate. He is killed
by two dwarves but they mix his blood with mead to create a
special drink which is subsequently stolen by Odinn. A
possible parallel in Irish folklore is Finns theft of a drink
from the well of Bee mac Buain, otherwise the well of wisdom.
There is a marked difference in the attitude of the ancient
Indian and the Norse in that the latter believed that alcohol
(mead) grants wisdom and the gift of poetry while these gifts
were reserved for soma in India where the drinking of alcohol
was frequently despised. It should be emphasized that while
the Arya of Old India consumed soma like their Iranian
cousins, madhu ‘mead’ was the primary ritual drink of the
Dasas whom some would regard an earlier wave of Indo-
Aryans who may have preserved better some of the more
ancient IE beliefs.
One further major comparative theme between India and
western Europe concerns the horse sacrifice associated with
the installation of a king. In India, the ritual was the
asvamedha, the first element meaning ‘horse’ and the second
deriving from *maddhos ‘drunk’ (or *meidhos ‘strength’)
while its structural counterpart among the Celts appears in
names such as Epomeduos ‘horse-mead/ritual beverage’ or
simply *Medua, e.g., the Irish Medb.
See also BMAC, Bee; Ferment; Hemp; Honey; Horse;
Horse Goddess; Juice; Poppy; Wine. Q.PM.l
Further Readings
Dumezil, G. (1924) Le feslin d’immortalie: etude de mythologie
comparee indo-europeenne. Paris, Annales du Musee Guimet.
Flattery, D. S. and M. Schwartz (1989) Haoma and Harmahne
Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California.
Nyberg, H. (1995) The problem of the Aryans and the Soma: the
botanical evidence, in The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia.
ed. G. Erdosy, Berlin and New York, Walter de Gruyter, 382-
406.
Oosten, J. (1985) The War of the Gods: The Social Code in Indo-
European Mythology. London and Boston, Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Puhvel, J. (1987) Comparative Mythology. Baltimore and London,
Johns Hopkins University.
Sherratt, A. (1987) Cups that cheered, in Beil Beakers of the Western
Mediterranean, eds. W Waldren, R. Kennard, BAR International
Ser, Oxford, 81-106.
Wasson, G. (1968) Soma: Divine Mushroom of Immortality. New
York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
SACRIFICE
*h a ed-bher - ‘sacrifice’. Olr ad-opair ‘sacrifices', OWels
aperth ‘animal sacrifice, offering, prayer, Umb arsfertur ~
arsfertur (< *ad-bher-tdr ) ‘priest’; cf. also Av fra-harotar- '±
sub-priest’, Olnd pra-bhartar- ‘one who brings, presents’, pra-
bhfti- ‘offering’, pra-bhp- ‘bring, offer; (middle) praise’. The
underlying structure of these comparisons is the use of PIE
*bher- ‘carry, bear’ in the sense of ‘make an offering’ which is
lexically best attested in the western part of the IE world but
which, as the Indo-lranian words suggest, may have still
greater antiquity.
*dh a epnom (or *dapnoml ) ‘sacrificial meal’. [ IEW 176-
177 ( *dap-)\ Wat 10 ( *dap-)\ GI 606 (*t’aHp h -)]. Lat daps
‘sacrificial meal’, ON tafn ‘sacrificial animal’, Grk dandvri
‘ostentatious expenditure, consumption’, Arm tawn ‘feast’. Hit
w tappala- ‘person responsible for court cooking', Toch A tap-
‘eat’. From *dh a ep- ‘apportion’, i.e., a ‘sharing out’ of a
communal feast. Widespread and clearly old in IE.
*tolko/eh a - ‘sacrifice, sacrificial meal' 1 IEW 1062
(*telek-)]- Lith talka ‘collective assistance; feast after such
work’, Latv talka ‘collective assistance by neighbors to help
someone out; a feast following such work', Rus toloka ‘after-
work feast’, TochA talke ‘sacrifice’, TochB telki sacrifice’.
Though found in only three stocks, it would appear that we
have in this word something of at least late PIE status.
The *dh a epnom would appear to have been a meal offered
after a sacrifice. In Latin contexts it seems that this meal was
not offered directly to the gods but rather was a large and
ostentatious feast which one held at great expense after a
consecration. Emile Benveniste has illustrated how both Latin
and Greek contexts emphasize the ostentatious expenditure,
e.g., Grk SanavGcvco ‘spend’, Sanav p ‘ostentatious expendi-
ture’ and Lat damnare ‘to condemn, inflict a damnum
(< *dapnom)\ i.e., an ‘injury’ where the underlying semantic
development here has emphasized the damage one must
endure in making such an expenditure. These concepts of
magnificent feast, ostentation, conspicuous consumption and
their reciprocal negative impact on one’s income are all remini-
-496
SALMON
scent of the anthropological concept of the potlatch. Here, an
individual wishing to achieve heightened social status under-
took a great feast to which he invited his neighbors and,
particularly, his rivals in social esteem. Through the con-
spicuous “wastage” of his own goods, the host humiliated his
rivals (who would be required to match his accumulation
and expenditure of goods to challenge him) and also empha-
sized his social prominence. It has often been argued that
through such acts, often requiring the mobilization of one’s
kin group in the preparation of the feast, societies became
increasingly more stratified and complex as the “big men”,
those who had both the ambition and the kinship-based links,
began increasingly to organize societies under their own
direction.
The ritual of sacrifice in IE tradition has been regarded by
Bruce Lincoln as a re-enactment of the IE cosmogonical myth,
i.e. , the sacrifice of an animal (or occasionally a human)
recreates the first sacrifice which established the physical and
moral components of the universe. Thus, in the Aitareya
Brahmana (2.6), the victim is dismembered with the feet lying
to the north, back to the sun (the sun was created from the
eye of the primeval giant), the breath to the wind, flesh to the
earth, etc. In this way, the sacrifice “makes whole” an ever
depleting universe.
See also Cosmogony; Horse; Horse Goddess; Worship.
[E.C.P., D.Q.A., J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, University of Miami, 61-63, 484^-86.
Lincoln, Bruce (1986) Myth, Cosmos and Society: Indo-European
Themes of Creation and Destruction. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard
University Press.
Puhvel, J. (1978) Victimal hierarchies in Indo-European animal
sacrifice. American Journal of Philology 99 , 344-362.
SALMON
*l6ks (gen. *l e ksds ) large anadromous salmonid, salmon
(-trout) ( Salmo salar and/or Salmo trutta)'. [IEW 653
(*lak-so-s)-, Wat 35 ( *laks-)\ G1 454 ( *lak h s-)\ . ON lax
‘salmon’, OE leax ‘salmon’, OHG lahs ‘salmon’ (< Proto-Gmc
*lahsa-), OPrus lasasso (< *loksokieh a ~) ‘salmon’, Lith lasis
‘salmon’, Latv lasis ‘salmon’ (Lith and Latv < *loksi-) y Lith
lasisa (< *loksikieh a -) ‘salmon’, Rus lososV salmon’, Arm losdi
‘salmon trout’, Oss laesaeg ‘salmon trout’ (Slavic and Iranian <
*loRsoko-) y TochB laks (< *l e ksi-) ‘fish’. Perhaps also to be
seen in VulgLat *locca ‘loach’ (> French loche ‘loach’). An
Old Indie cognate has also been claimed in laksa ‘lac’. The
presumed semantic development is ‘salmon-colored’ >
* ‘reddish’ > ‘lac’. There is nothing phonologically or morpho-
logically problematic with such a derivation, though the word
may also be derived from rag- ‘dye’. (Certainly not connected
is laksa - ‘goal’ or laksa- ‘hundred thousand’,) Whether OInd
laksa- belongs here or not, *loks- is clearly of PIE date. The
fact that the word for the larger salmonid has become the
general word for ‘fish’ in Tochanan, a language spoken in a
region totally devoid of any salmonids, suggests that, whatever
the exact referent in PIE, it was ecologically and/or economic-
ally pre-eminent.
Under the assumption that it referred only to the Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) , whose range is the North Atlantic, Baltic,
and the rivers draining into them, the presence of this word
in PIE was used as a strong argument (the “Lachsargument”)
that the PIE speakers must have originally inhabited some
portion of the North European plain Richard Diebold has
shown that the anadromous varieties of Salmo Trutta Uabrax
and caspiensis), salmon trout native to the Pontic and Caspian
seas and the rivers draining into them, makes a better candi-
date as the semantic referent for *loks. These fish regularly
achieve lengths of over a meter and weights on the order of
50 kg. Diebold argues that this fish was the original referent
and that the linguistic ancestor of the Germans, Balts and
Slavs extended this word to also include the Atlantic salmon
(Salmo salar) when they moved north into its territory. Diebold
suggests that the Proto-Indo-Europeans divided the salmonids
into two main categories: 1) the large anadromous salmonid
(Salmo trutta ) and 2) the smaller, presumably non-anadro-
mous ‘brook trout’.
The other salmonids — the huchen (the second largest of
the salmonids after the Atlantic salmon), the char and the
grayling — are widely found over Eurasia but examination of
their names in various Indo-European languages reveals no
patterns to suggest deep linguistic inheritance. Diebold has
suggested that the most likely reason the various IE stocks
had to create new words for all of the other salmonids is that
they were not known to the earliest PIE community. The only
area in Eurasia relevant to IE origins that lacks all the other
salmonids but possesses those lexically reconstructed to PIE
(salmontrout and brook trout) is the territory north of the
Black and Caspian seas. This use of negative evidence,
however, is suspect as we have many examples of other flora
and fauna which must have been known to the earliest IE-
speaking communities but which show minimal or no evi-
dence of cognates across the IE stocks, e.g., ‘badger’.
The salmon is presented in Celtic and Germanic belief as a
primordial being and repository of ancient lore, e.g., the
“salmon of knowledge” which is frequently found in Irish
tales.
See also Fish; Trout. [D.Q.A., J.PM.)
Further Readings
Adams, D. Q. (1985) PIE *lokso- '(anadromous) brown trout' and
*kokso- ‘groin’ and their descendants in Tocharian: A coda to
the Lachsargument. IF 90, 72-82.
Diebold, R. (1976) Contribution to the Indo-European salmon
problem, in Current Progress in Historical Linguistics , ed. W M.
Christie, Amsterdam, 341-388
Diebold, R. (1985) The Evolution ol Indo-European Nomenclature
for Salmonid Fish: The Case of Huchen' Washington, Institute
for the Study of Man
— 497 —
SALMON
Krogmann, W (1960) Das Lachsargument. KZ 76, 161-178.
Thieme, P (1954) The Indo-European language. Scientific American
215 (9), 63-74.
SALT
*seh a -(e)l- ‘salt’. [JEW 878-879 (*sa/-); Wat 55-56
(*sa/-); GI 581 ( *sal-)\ Buck 5.81]. OIr salann ‘salt’, Weis
halen (< *saleino- ) ‘salt’, heli ‘brine’, Lat sal (< l*sals) ‘salt’,
ON salt ‘salt’, OE sealt ‘salt’(> NE salt), OHG salz ‘salt’, Goth
salt ‘salt’ (< Gmc *saldom) 1 Lith solymas ‘brine’, saldus ‘sweet’
(< ‘tasty’ < ‘salty’), Latv sals 1 salt’, OCS soli ‘salt’, sladnku ‘sweet’,
Alb ngjel-bet , ngjel-met (< *hien-sh a el-i-) ‘salty’, njelm ‘be
salty’, Grk akq (masc.) ‘salt’, (fem.) ‘sea’, Arm a\ ‘salt’, Olnd
salila - ‘sea, flood’, TochA sale ‘salt’, TochB salyiye ‘salt’.
The reconstruction here for what is clearly the PIE word
for ‘salt’ rejects the existence of PIE *a, hence the Germanic,
Slavic and Old Indie a must derive from *h a e (elsewhere a
might be solely h a> in Germanic *sh a l-C > *sul-C as in OHG
sulza (< *sh a Jd-io-) ‘brine’; *sh a l-V would yield *sal-V). The
long a in Latin may be from *eh a or eh a e or a form with *e
( *eh 3t *h a e), but the length may also be analogical. The acute
accent of Lith solymas points to *seh a l-. The circumflex of
Latvian requires *eh a e , *eh a or *h a e. In this way we can
reconstruct the paradigm as having: *seh a - and *sh a -el-\ the
nominative possibly had *seh a - , the accusative *sh a -el-ip , the
genitive *sl} a -l-os. To explain the Lithuanian acute and Latvian
circumflex, it seems easiest to assume that generalization of
*seh a - led to *seh a -l- in Lithuanian and *seh a -el- (acc.) in
Latvian. For the nominative, one may consider *seh a -ol, *seh a -
el (?) or *seb a l.
The shift to agriculture, particularly cereals, frequently
necessitated Neolithic and later populations acquiring salt
directly when their diet no longer contained sufficient animal
products to maintain the nutritional requirement of salt. The
linguistic evidence indicates the existence of a PIE word for
‘salt’ which comes as little surprise given the other evidence
for an agricultural economy. Nevertheless, the word has been
regarded by nineteenth and early twentieth century authors
as an important cultural marker of the early Indo-Europeans
and a key to the location of the IE homeland. Historically,
considerable debate concerned the date at which the ‘salt’
word entered the PIE vocabulary. Before Tocharian or even
after the discovery of the Tocharian cognates when Tocharian
could still be treated as a “European” language because of the
number of isoglosses shared with the IE languages of Europe,
the word for ‘salt’ was treated by some as a European term
and explanation for its absence in Indo-Iranian was required.
Some sought to use it to reinforce the idea that the earliest
Indo-Europeans were primarily pastoralists and, living
primarily off a meat diet, did not require salt additional to
what they were ingesting in the form of flesh. Hence the
absence of the ‘salt’ word was regarded as further support for
a steppe homeland and it was presumed that the Europeans
had innovated. The a-vocalism, commonly reconstructed for
this word, also enhanced the notion that ‘salt’ may have been
borrowed from a non-IE language. Alternatively, even before
the full extent of the word’s distribution was known, linguists
such as Herman Hirt emphasized that the archaic declension
class of the word also indicated that it was of PIE antiquity
and not a later loan word. The current evidence suggests a
straightforward PIE status for the term.
Salt has also been employed in attempts to locate the IE
homeland. There is an obvious association between the word
for ‘salt’ and that for ‘sea’, e.g., the Welsh, Latin, Greek, and
Old Indie forms cited all mean ‘sea’ while the related OCS
slant i means ‘sea water’. In Schrader’s Reallexikon the only
sources of salt admitted are the Aral, Caspian and Black seas
(the Baltic Sea is specifically excluded) and with the harsh
environment surrounding the first two lakes, only the Black
Sea seemed to provide a likely candidate for the source of the
earliest PIE word for ‘salt’. Such an argument could then be
used to support the notion that the homeland lay in the Pontic
region which would provide support for the “Kurgan theory”
of IE origins. While a Pontic origin provides a convenient
environment for PIE ‘salt’ it is hardly the only explanation as
prehistoric salt was by no means limited to a handful of
sources. Salt brines and springs (with salt in the bedrock)
were also widely exploited in the prehistoric period, especially
in those areas where natural temperatures did not provide an
easy means of extraction from saline lakes or seas. Concrete
evidence for salt-winning, for example, is known from Poland
during the later Neolithic period and the proximity of
Neolithic settlements to naturally occurring sources of salt
across Europe makes it difficult to employ salt as a geographic
marker of the earliest Indo-Europeans. Obviously, the
Mediterranean provided a potential source while Anatolia,
another of today’s putative homelands, contained the ancient
Halys (modern Kizil Irmak) river which Strabo (12, 3, 12)
informs us gained its name from nearby salt springs. It is,
therefore, at least theoretically possible to accommodate
almost any solution to the IE homeland problem with the
existence of a PIE ‘salt’.
See also Sea. [R.S.RB., J.PM.]
SAMARA CULTURE
Middle Volga Copper Age (c fifth millennium BC) culture
that preceded the Khvalynsk culture. It is best known from
the cemetery at Sezzheye which mirrors many of the practices
of the more westerly Dnieper-Donets culture, i.e., flat graves,
body in extended position, ocher, ornaments fashioned from
animal teeth, boar tusk, shell, etc. Among the ornaments were
several depicting horses, cattle and ducks. The finding of horse
skulls and bones in the overburden of the cemetery may derive
from rituals involving the horse although it is uncertain
whether it was domesticated. Within the model of the “Kurgan
theory”, the Samara culture provides a convenient contact
zone with the more northerly forest cultures who may have
spoken Uralic languages.
See also Dnieper-Donets Culture; Khvalynsk Culture
[J.PM]
— 498 —
SAP
SAME
*somds ‘same’. [IEW 904 (*som-); Wat 57 (*sem-); GI
741 (*se/om-)\ Buck 12.91, 15.77; BK 184 (*sam-/*s9m-)\ .
OIr -som ‘self; that one’, Weis hwn (< *sondo < *som-dhe )
‘this (one)’, ON samr ‘the same one’, sami ‘same’, sem (adv.)
‘just as’, OE same (adv.) ‘same’ (> NE same), OHG sama ~
samo ‘like, in the same way’, Goth sama ‘the same one’, OCS
samU ‘himself’, Grk opog ‘similar, same’, Arm omn ‘some,
certain, any’, Hit sanai- (if not Akkadogram SA-NI-I) ‘one
and the same, a single one’, Av hama- ‘same’, OInd sami-
‘equal, like, same’, TochAB sam ‘like, even’ (whose exact mor-
phological and phonological shape is difficult); in compounds
we have: ON sam-fedra, Grk oponarmp, Arm hama -hayr (with
first element borrowed from Iranian), OPers hama-pitar -,
TochA soma-pacar ‘having the same father’; with an *1-
derivative: Olr samail ‘likeness’, Weis hafal ‘similar, alike’, Lat
similis (< *semili-) ‘similar’ (cf. semel ‘once’). There is varia-
bility here in the vocalism which has led some to suggest
alternative forms for PIE, such as *somhxOS (PIE *som6s
should have given Av *hama-, OInd *sama- while the attested
forms could come from PIE *semos). Nevertheless, the broad
attestation and the common compound formation both
indicate PIE status. From *sem- ‘one (together)’.
See also Numerals (One); Some. IC.EJ, J.C.S.]
SAND
?*pe(n)s- dust’. [7EW824 ( *pe(n)s-)]. OCS pesQkQ ‘dust’,
SC pijesak ‘dust’, Av ppsnu- ‘dust’, OInd pamsu- ‘crumbling
soil, sand, dust’. The Indo-Iranian form may have been *pam/
nsnu- while the Slavic forms lack a nasal. The Slavic accentua-
tion points to *e and not *ehj. The long *e of *pens- points
to a root noun. Highly questionable is Hit passila- ‘gravel’.
?*samh x dhos ‘sand’. [IEW 146 (*bhes-)\ Wat 8 (*bhes-):
Buck 1.215]. Lat sabulum ‘sand’, ?saburra ‘sand in a ship as
ballast’, ON sandr ‘sand’, NE (dial.) samel ‘sand bottom’, OHG
sant ‘sand’, MHG sant ~ sampt ‘sand’, Grk dpaOog ‘sand’.
The Greek form cannot be separated from y/apaOog and
yocppog ‘sand’ while the MHG sampt can hardly represent an
old variant and, even if it is one, it can hardly be an alternative
development of a PIE form. A reconstruction along the lines
of *samh a dhos is impossible and the a vocalism suggests a
non-IE status for the word. This is even more evident if Lat
sabulum is regarded cognate. The status of Arm awaz ‘sand’
is unclear.
See also Rub. [R.S.P.B.]
SAP
*sok w 6s ‘sap, resin’. [IEW 1044 (*s(y)ek' J o-s)\ Wat 68
( *s(w)ok w o-)\ GI 106]. OPrus sackis ‘resin’, Lith sakai (pi.)
‘resin’, Latv svaka (with secondary -v-) (pi.) ‘resin, gum’, OCS
soka ‘sap, resin’, Rus sok ‘juice, sap; sapwood’. Alb gjak
‘blood’, Grk onog 1 sap, resin’, TochA saku ‘pus’, TochB sekwe
‘pus’. Lat sucus ‘juice, moisture, sap, liquid’, if it belongs here,
has been influenced in its form by sQgere ‘suck’. A large set of
forms constitute an etymological family on the basis of gross
SAP
similarity in sound and shared meaning of plant or animal
fluid. Widespread and old in IE. The Greek form, incidentally,
is the source for the NE opium (< omov ‘poppy sap’). Attempts
have been made to associate this word with Proto-Uralic *sikse
‘Siberian pine’.
*g w ih 3 ito- ‘pitch’. [77EW482 (*^Iu-)]. OIr b7‘tree pitch’,
Rus zivici ‘soft resin’, Arm /civ ‘tree pitch, mastic’. Probably a
younger word than *sok w os, and one perhaps limited to the
west and center of the IE world. Presumably a derivative of
*g w ieh 3 - ‘live’ as the tree’s ‘living matter’.
*g w 6tu ‘pitch’. [IEW 480 (*g y et-); Wat 25 (*g w et-)}. Lat
bitumen ‘mineral pitch, bitumen’, OE cwidu ~ cwudu ‘mastic’,
OHG kuti ‘glue, putty’, Olnd j£tu ‘lac, gum’. Compare with
new lengthened-grade ON kvada ‘tree pitch’; also Weis bedw
(< *g w etyeh a -) ‘birch’ and Lat (< Gaul) betulla ‘birch’ as the
‘sap-tree’ from the use of birch-sap as a food or as a glue. In
prehistoric Europe, the most frequent adhesive for sticking
arrows to their shafts or stone (or metal) axes within their
hafts was birch gum. Another old word, without any known
deeper etymological connections, within PIE.
*pik- ‘pitch’, (cf. IEW 794 ( *peig - ~ *peik-)\ Wat 51
.( *pik-)\ GI 543 ( *p h ik h -)\ Fried 31-38], Lat pix~ picea ‘tar,
pitch’, OCS picQlQ ‘pitch, tar’, Grk nicroa (< *pikih a - ) ‘tar,
resin’. Compare Lat picea ‘spruce’ and further Lith pusis
‘spruce, pine’, Grk itevici) ‘pine’. The words for ‘pitch’ and
Lat picea ‘spruce ( Abies abies )’ all show the same sporadic
change of *pu- to *pi- seen in *puIos ~ *pilos ‘a hair’. A fairly
widespread word of the west and center of the IE world.
?*sap- ‘sap’. [IEW 880 (*sap- ~ *sab-)\ Wat 55 ( *sab-)] .
Lat sapa ‘must, new wine boiled thick’, ON safi ‘sap’, OHG
saE sap’. A variant *sab- definitely appears in OE saep ‘sap’ (>
NE sap) and may occur in Olnd sabar-dhuk ‘yielding nectar
or milk’ and Illyrian sabaium ‘beer’ (? > Italian zabaglione ‘a
frothy dessert’). If all these words belong together, we can
reconstruct a widespread PIE lexical item.
See also Pine; Plants; Tree. [RE, D.Q.A.]
SATISFY
*seh 2 (i)- ‘satisfy, fill up’. [7EW876 ( *sa-)\ Wat 55 (*sa-)].
Grk dpevai ‘satisfy oneself’. Arm had ‘contented’. Hit sah-
‘stuff full, clog up’, Olnd a-si-n-v4- ‘un-satisfied’, TochA si-
‘be satisfied’, TochB soy- (with difficult vowel) ‘be satisfied’.
Cf. the widespread derivatives: (1) *seh 2 tis (gen. *sfr 2 teis )
‘satisfaction’: OIr saith ‘satisfaction’, Lat satis ‘enough’, Lith
sdtis ‘satiety’; (2) *sfr 2 tds ‘satisfied’: ON sadr ‘enough’, OE
saed ‘satisfied’ (> NE sad , via ‘satisfied’ > ‘heavy’), OHG sat
‘satisfied’, Goth saps ‘satisfied’, gasopjan ‘satiate’, OCS sytu
(with unexplained first vowel) ‘satisfied’, Grk daxog (< *p-
sp 2 -to-) ‘insatiable’. Widespread and old in IE.
*terp- ‘take (to oneself), satisfy oneself, enjoy’. [7EW1077-
1078 ( *terp-)\ Wat 70 ( *terp-)\ BK 94 ( *t[ h ]ir-ap[ h ]-/
*t[ h ]er-ap[ h ]-)\. ON purfa (pres, pari ) ‘need, lack’, OE purian
(pres, pearl) ‘need, lack’, OHG durian (pres, darf) ‘need, lack’,
durft ‘necessary’, durftig ‘poor’, Goth paurban (pres, pari)
‘need; must’, parbs ‘necessary’, parba ‘necessity’, paurits
‘necessary, useful’ (the Germanic verbs reflect an old perfect
‘have enjoyed’ > ‘still longing for’, whence ‘still have the
appetite for; need’), OPrus enterpo' use’, Lith tarpstii ‘flourish’,
Latv terpinat ‘better’, OCS trQpeti ‘suffer, endure’, Grk r epnco
‘satisfy’, xepnopai ‘satisfy oneself, Av tnfya- ~ tanp- ‘steal’,
Olnd tfpyati ‘be sated’, pa^u-tfp- ‘cattle-stealing’, TochAB
tsarw- ‘be confident, rejoice’. Cf. the widespread derivative
*tirptis (gen. *tjpteis) ‘satisfaction, enjoyment’: ON purit
‘need’, OHG durit ‘need’, Goth paurits ‘necessity, need’, Grk
xepif/ig 1 satisfaction’, Olnd tfpti- ‘satisfaction’. Widespread and
old in IE.
*spehi- ‘be satisfied, be filled, thrive’ (pres. *sp6h\iei ~
*spdh 1 uei). [IEW983-98H*sp(h)e(i)-)\ Wat 63 (*spe-); GI
1011. Lat spes ‘hope’, OE spowan ‘thrive, succeed; profit, avail’,
OHG spuon ‘succeed’, Lith speju ‘have free time’, Latv speju
‘have free time’, OCS spiti ‘be successful, prosper’, Hit ispa(i)-
‘get full, be filled, be satiated, be saturated’, ispiyanu- ‘satiate,
saturate’, Olnd spMyate ‘grows fat’, TochB spaw- ‘± spread
out’. Widespread and old in IE. Compare also *sppirds ‘±
fat, rich’.
See also Abundant; Favor; Please; Prosper. [D.Q.A.]
SCATTER
*sper- ‘strew, sow’. [IEW 99 3-995 ( *(s)p(h)er-)\ Wat 63-
64 (*sper-); Buck 9.34], OIr sreb (< *spre-bho-) ‘stream’,
OHG sprat ‘scattering’, Alb tare (< *sporeh a -) ‘seed’, Grk
07reipfi>‘strew, sow, sprinkle’, oizeppa ~ cmopG'setd' , Hit ispari
~ isparrizzi ‘spreads, strews, scatters, shatters’, ispamu-
‘spread, spray, scatter’. Reasonably widespread; certainly old
in IE.
*(s)ked- ‘scatter’ (pres. *(s)kedndh a ti ). [7EW 918-919
( *(s)k(h)ed-)\ Wat 59 ( *sked-)\ . ME scateren ‘scatter’ (> NE
scatter ), Lith kedeti ‘burst’, Grk cndSvppi ~ oKeSavvVpi
‘scatter, strew, sprinkle’, TochB katna- ‘scatter, strew; sow’.
Sufficiently widespread to be guaranteed of PIE status.
See also Sow; Spread. [D.Q.A.]
SCHLEICHER’S TALE
“Schleicher’s tale” is the name given to an artificial fable
created by August Schleicher in 1868 to illustrate the types
of results one might achieve through the comparative method
in linguistics. The contents of the fable, it should be noted,
were in no way an attempt to reconstruct a real PIE text; the
story was entirely Schleicher’s creation and he was merely
trying to display his notion of what a connected piece of PIE
discourse might look like. The history of this tale provides a
convenient summary of the changes in the appearance of
reconstructed PIE over the past century and a half.
Schleicher’s version (1868) of the tale:
Avis, jasmin vama na a ast, dadarka akvams, tarn,
vagham garum vaghantam, tarn, bharam magham, tarn,
manum aku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams a vavakat:
kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam.
Akvasas a vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai
— 500 —
SCHLEICHER’S TALE
vividvant-svas: manus pads vamam avisams kamauti
svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka vama na asti.
Tat kukruvants avis agram a bhugat.
“A sheep that had no wool saw horses — one pulling
a heavy wagon, another one a great load, and another
swiftly carrying a man. The sheep said to the horses: ‘it
pains my heart seeing a man driving horses’.
The horses said to the sheep: ‘listen sheep! it pains
our hearts seeing man, the master, making a warm
garment for himself from the wool of a sheep when the
sheep has no wool for itself’.
On hearing this the sheep fled into the plain.”
Some seventy years later, Herman Hirt took the same
(pseudo-)text and rewrote it to reflect his understanding, and
the understanding by and large of his contemporaries, of PIE
phonology. Hirt’s ( 1939 ) version:
owis,jesmin wbhna neest, dedork’e ek’wons, tom,
wogh’om g w brum weghontip, tom, bhorom megam,
tom, gh’bmonrp, dk’u bherontrp. owis ek'womos
ewbwek w et: k’erd aghnutai moi widontei gh’bmonrp
ek’wons ag’ontrp. ek'woses ewbwek w ont: k’ludhi, owei!,
k’erd aghnutai vidontmos: gh’bmd, pods, wblanam
owjdm k w pneud sebhoi gh w ermom westrom; owimos-
k w e wbhna ne esd. tod k’ek’ruwos owis ag’rom ebhuget.
A third version was prepared by Winfred Lehmann and Ladis-
lav Zgusta in 1978 :
G w 9rei owis, k w esyo wjhna ne est, ekwons espeket,
oinom ghe g w fum woghom weghontip oinomk w e
megam bhorom, oinomk w e ghrpenrp oku bherontrp.
Owis nu ekwobh(y)os (ekwomos) ewewk w et : ker
aghnutoi moi ekwons agontrp nerrp widptei’.
Ekwos tu ewewk w ont: ‘kludhi, owei, ker ghe
aghnutoi psmei widntbh(y)os (widntmos): ner, pods,
owidm f wjhnam sebhi g w hermom westrom k w fneud.
Neghi owidm wjhna esd’.
Tod kekluwds owis agrom ebhuget.
Below is appended a version reflecting the phonological
assumptions underlying the reconstructions in this encyclo-
pedia:
G w ph x ei hzdpis, k w esio ulhzneh 4 ne (hie) est,
hiekuons speket, hioinom ghe g w ph x um uoghom
ueghontrp hioinom-k w e megh a rp bhorom, hjoinom-
k w e ghmenrp h x 6ku bherontrp. h2duis tu
hiekuoibh(i)os ueuk w et: ker h a eghnutdr moi hiekuons
h a egontrp h a nerrp uidptbh(i)os: hiekuos tu ueuk w ont:
‘kludhi, hzouei, ker ghe h a eghnutor psmei uidptbh(i)os:
h a ner, pods, h2euicm f ulh2neh a m sebhi k w pneuti nu
g w hermom uestrom neghi h2epiom ujh2neh a hjesd. ’
Tod kekluuds h26uis h a egrom bhuget.
To facilitate comparison of these versions they have been
arranged by lines below (with punctuation standardized to
ease comparison and misprints have been silently corrected
and with a very literal English “translation”, one that tries to
recapitulate the PIE word-order, added):
1 . S avis, jasmin vama na a ast, dadarka akvams,
H owis, jesmin wbhna ne est, dedok’e ek’wons,
LZ l G w 9rei] owis, k w esyo w\hna ne est, ekwons espeket,
MA { G w fhx6i } h26uis, k w esio ulh2neh4 ne (hie) est,
hiekuons speket,
NE [On the mountain] (a) sheep, to which wool not was,
saw horses
2 . S tarn, vagham garum vaghantam, tarn, hharam
magham,
H tom, wogh'om g w brum wegh'ontrp, tom, bhorom
megam,
LZ oinom ghe g w fum woghom weghontip oinomk w e
megam bhorom,
MA hjoinom ghe g w fh x um uoghom ueghontrp h ioinom-
k w e megh a m bhorom,
NE one, (a) wagon heavy pulling, one, load great,
3 . S tarn, manum aku bharantam.
H tom, gh’bmonrp, dk’u bherontrp.
LZ omomk w e ghrpenrp oku bherontrp.
MA h 1 oinom-k w e ghmenrp hxdku bherontrp.
NE one-and man swiftly carrying
4 . S Avis akvabhjams a vavakat: kard aghnutai
H owis ek’wonmos ewbwek w et: k’erd aghnutai
LZ Owis nu ekwobh(y)os (ekwomos) ewewk w et: ker
aghnutoi
MA h2duis tu hiekuoibh(i)os ueuk w et: ker h a eghnutor
NE (the) sheep then to the horses said: ‘heart is pained
5 . S mai vidand manum akvams agantam.
H moi widontei gh ’bmonrp ek ’wons ag’ontrp.
LZ moi ekwons agontrp nerrp widpteT.
MA moi hiekuons h a egontip h a nerrp uidptei:
NE to me horses driving (a) man seeing 1
6 . S Akvasas a vavakant: krudhi aval,
H ek’woses ewuwek w ont: k’ludhi, owed,
LZ Ekwos tu ewewk w ont : kludhi, owei,
MA hiekuos tu ueuk w ont: kludhi, h2duei,
NE (the) horses then said: ‘listen, sheep’
7 . S kard aghnutai vividant-svas:
H k’erd aghnutoi vidontmos:
LZ ker ghe aghnutoi psmei widptbh(y)os (widntmos')
MA ker ghe h a eghnutor psmei uidptbh(i)os:
NE heart is pained to us seeing
— 501
SCHLEICHER’S TALE
8. S manus patis varnam avisams
H gh’bmdn, potis, wblonam owjom
17 ner, potis , owidm p wjhnam sebhi
MA h a ner, potis, hzeuiom f ujh 2 neh a m sebhi
NE man, (the) master, sheep’s wool for himself
9. S karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram
H k w pieuti sebhoi gh w ermom westrom;
1 7 g w hermom westrom k w pieuti.
MA k w [neuti nu g w hermom uestrom
NE makes now warm garment
10. S avibhjams ka vama na asti.
H owimos-k w e wbtena ne esti.
LZ Neghi owidm wlhna esti’.
MA neghi hzeuiom u\h 2 neh a hiesti.’
NE not to (the) sheep wool is
1 1 . S Tat kakruvants avis agram a bhugat.
H tod k 'ek ’lo wos o wis ag ’rom ebh uget.
LZ Tod kekluwos owis agrom ebhuget.
MA Tod kekluuds h 20 Jjis h a egrom bhuget.
NE this having heard sheep to the plain ran.
Some of the differences among these versions are purely
graphic. For instance Schleicher’s k , Hirt’s k\ Lehmann and
Zgusta’s k and the k employed in this volume all reflect the
same reconstructed sound which is usually presumed to be
some son of dorsal-palatal or at least fronted dorso-velar stop.
Similarly, Schleicher’s and Hirt’s j, Lehmann and Zgusta’s y
and this volume’s i all represent the same voiced lamino-palatal
glide. In these cases the only difference is the choice of symbol
to represent the sound. Other differences are more substantive.
Schleicher’s a for example is used where the other versions
have a , e, or o. In this Schleicher reflects the situation found
in Old Indie. The other versions represent a better understand-
ing of PIE phonology, an understanding which sees Olnd a
as reflecting the merger of original *a, *e, and *o which are
preserved, more or less as such, by Greek and Latin. Similarly
Schleicher’s r (where the other versions have both r and I)
reflects an Indo-lranian model of PIE. It has since become
clear that both r and / occurred in Proto-Indo-European (as
they continue to do in all stocks except Indie and Iranian)
and that the Indo-lranian r represents a merger of PIE rand /.
In general the earlier the version, the more dependent it
was on Old Indie as a model. Later versions have the benefit
of a wider array of evidence from other IE languages, including
Hittite and the other languages of the Anatolian stock and
the two Tocharian languages, which were both unknown and
unexpected in Schleicher’s day. The later reconstructions all
evince increasing awareness that, while Old Indie is a very
conservative representative of the PIE linguistic tradition, it
does not in all cases preserve the PIE situation. Hirt’s version,
in distinguishing e, a, o and r and /, shows a more balanced
phonological reconstruction. Over-reliance on Indie for recon-
structing PIE morphology also has its pitfalls. Recent work,
for instance, strongly suggests that reconstructing PIE with
the suffix *-oi certain “middle verbs” (those which were
typically passive or reflexive rather than active) and the prefix
hje- on any past tense verbs, both taken over from the Old
Indie model (and in both cases supported by the situation in
Greek) are actually innovations in a late state of dialectally
divergent PIE in those dialects that subsequently gave rise to
Indo-lranian and Greek. They were not originally character-
istic of PIE as a whole. The older situation had the suffix -r
on middle verbs and the prefix *hje- (actually originally a
separate word) was optional and used to reinforce the sense
of past time, perhaps on the first past tense verb of a discourse
(as with our version) to help “set the scene” as it were.
The biggest difference between the most recent recon-
structions and the earlier ones is the presence of the various
laryngeals, whose existence was first theorized by Ferdinand
de Saussure in 1879 and later confirmed by the realization
that some of them were at least preserved in Hittite. The
Lehmann-Zgusta reconstruction has one (their h = our / 12 )
and in their discussion of their version they are explicit in
assuming other laryngeals at an earlier stage of PIE. Analysis
of the evidence leads us to assume that all the reconstructible
laryngeals persisted late into the history of PIE — indeed into
the histories of the individual stocks (*/i 2 and *hi both
preserved as h in Hittite and *h 4 as h in Albanian). The initial
*hi of some of our reconstructions are present because it is
assumed by many linguists that PIE was a language that did
not permit initial vowels in words. Where it looked to prior
linguists, and still does to other linguists today, that PIE had
an initial vowel, these linguists assume an initial *h 1 has been
lost without a trace everywhere. Such an assumption is not
susceptible, even in theory, to absolute proof. Another way
in which the latter two reconstructions differ from earlier ones
is in the greater use of syntactic particles ( ghe , j\ nu, etc )
which Proto-Indo-European clearly used as ways of signalling
various features of discourse, emphasis, contrast, topical-
ization, resumption, etc. Finally, another difference between
our reconstruction and the previous ones is the addition of
accent marks. All the previous investigators would have been
in agreement that Proto-Indo-European distinguished accent-
ed from unaccented syllables, so no theoretical difference is
manifested in the accent marks, only an attempt on our part
to be maximally explicit about this feature of PIE phonology.
Progress in our ability to reconstruct PIE (or any other
language) is not always uni-directional. The Lehmann-Zgusta
version differs from the previous ones in assuming that the
rules of PIE syntax required the order subject-object-verb
rather than merely favoring that order (as in the previous two
versions). Our reconstruction, on the other hand, assumes
that the verb-final order was the unmarked one, i.e. , the most
frequent and semantically unemphatic one, but that other
orders were possible. Particularly there were many sentences
with the verb in the initial position as a mark of emphasis.
A different “PIE tale” has been produced recently, on the
502 —
SEA
basis of a passage in the Old Indie Aitareya Brahmana (7:33:1).
S. K. Sen asked a number of contemporary Indo-Europeanists
to reconstruct the PIE “parent” of the Old Indie passage. We
present below a representative example of those reconstruc-
tions (the one below is mostly E. P. Hamp’s, though with the
symbols adjusted to the usage of this Encyclopedia and with
a couple of lexical changes to bring it into closer conformity
with the other reconstructions) .
to reks ehiest. so pputlos eh jest, so reks suh x num
euel(e)t.
so tds(i)o gheuterip (e)pfRsket;
suh x nus moi gnhiiotam!
so gheuter tom r&giji eueuk w et:
ih^esuo deiiiom uerunom.
so reks deiuom uerunom h^upo-sesore nu deiuom
(e)ihxgeto:
kludhl moi pb a ter uerune!
deiuos uerunos krpta diuos eg w eh a t.
k w ld uelsi ?
uelmi suh x num.
tod hi6stu, \ieuk w et loukos deiuos ijerunos.
regos potmh a suh x num gegonhie.
“Once there was a king. He childless was. This king a
son desired.
He his priest (pourer) asked:
(let) son to me be born!
The priest the king said:
‘pray to the god Varuna’.
The king to the god Varuna approached now to the
god to pray.
‘Hear me father Varuna!’
The god Varuna down from heaven came.
‘What do you wish?’
‘I want a son.’
‘(Let) this be (so),’ said the bright god Varuna.
The king’s lady a son bore”.
See also Proto-Indo-European; Reconstruction. [D.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Lehmann, W P and L. Zgusta (1979) Schleicher’s tale after a century,
in Festschrift for Oswald Szemerenyi on the Occasion of his 65th
Birthday, ed. B. Brogyanyi, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 455-466.
Sen, S. K. (1994) Proto-Indo-European: a multiangular view. JIBS
22, 67-90.
SCRAPE
*red- ‘gnaw, scrape’. \IEW 854 (*red-); Wat 53-54
( *red-)\ - Lat rodd ‘gnaw’, rostrum ‘beak, ship’s prow’, OE net
‘rat’ (< *‘gnawer’ > NE rat), OHG razi ‘sharp (of taste or sound),
wild, biting’, MHG ratzen ‘rat’, MPers randltan ‘scrape,
smooth’, OInd radati ‘bites, gnaws, cuts, makes way, opens’.
The geographical distribution of this word, found only on
the eastern and western margins of the IE world, strongly
suggests PIE status. Connected in some fashion are possibly
Weis rhathu ‘scrape, smooth, file’, Lat rado ‘scrape, scratch,
shave, smooth off’, rastrum ‘rake’, radula ‘scraper’, though
they may reflect an Italo-Celtic *ras-de/o-.
*skebh- ‘scratch, shave’ (pres *skdbhei ) \IEW 931-93.3
( *(s)k£p-)\ Wat 59 ( *skep- ~ *kep-)\ . Lat scabo ‘shave, scratch,
scrape’, scaber ‘scabrous’, scobis ‘scrapings’, scobina ‘file’, ON
skafa ‘shave’, OE scafan ‘shave’ (> NE shave), OHG schaben
‘shave’, Goth skaban ‘shear’, Lith skambus ‘pluck’, skabus
‘sharp’, skobti ‘pull, pluck, gather’, Latv skabtt ‘hew off’, skabrs
‘sharp’, OCS skobll ‘scraping knife’. A word of the northwest
of the IE world.
See also Cut, Tear. [D.Q.A.l
SEA
*m6ri ‘sea’. [IEW 748 ( *mori ~ *mori)\ Wat 43 (*mori-)',
G1 580 ( *mor-/*mar-)\ Buck 1.32; BK 530 (*mar-/*mor-)\.
OIr muir ‘sea’, Weis mor ‘sea’, Lat mare (< *mori) ‘sea’, ON
marr ‘sea, lake’, OE mere ‘sea, lake’ (> NE mere), OHG mari
(gen. meres) ‘sea’, Goth mari-saiws ‘sea’, marei ‘sea’, OPrus
mary{< *mare) ‘harbor’, Lith mare{< *moria) ‘sea’, OCS morje
‘sea’, Oss mal (< *mori) ‘deep standing water’. If Hit
marmar(r)a- ‘swamp, body of water overgrown with vegeta-
tion’ is a reduplicated derivative of *mori, then the PIE origin
of the latter is virtually assured. Lat mare has ma < *mo. The
discovery of the Ossetic cognate extends the distribution
beyond the European languages and helps confirm a PIE origin
for the word unless it is a loan. More dubious is Arm mawr{<
*maru-1) ‘moor’. Morphologically *mdri (gen. *mr-ei-s or
*mer-i-s ?) is impeccable. It is uncertain whether OF. mor
‘morass, swamp’ (> NE moor), OHG /mior'swamp’ represents
*moro- with lengthened grade. Suggestions that the word
derives from *mer- ‘be bright’ are purely guesswork.
The precise semantic field of *mori has long been regarded
as diagnostic for locating the IE homeland. As an (unproduct-
ive) neuter i- stem, the word was considered of high antiquity
despite the fact that it was generally listed without any Indo-
Iranian (or Tocharian) cognate. On the other hand, only Celtic,
Italic and Slavic exhibited the meaning ‘sea’ in the strict sense
and other stocks, particularly Germanic, suggested an inland
freshwater lake or at least something other than an open salt
water sea with tides. This inland orientation was further
supported by the fact that those stocks actually living adjacent
to an open sea (e g., the Greeks, the Germans and the Indo-
Aryans) had borrowed words for the body of water from non-
IE sources, e.g., Grk SaXarra ‘sea’, OE s£ l sea’ (> NE sea),
Goth saiws' sea’. All of this suggested that the primary meaning
had been some form of ‘standing water’, preferably an inland
lake or sea, and the meaning ‘(salt water) sea’ was secondary.
Once this line of argument was adopted, linguists directed
their attention to determining which of the bodies of water
the Proto-Indo-Europeans had specifically in mind and
candidates ranged from the Baltic Sea to the Black, Caspian
and Aral seas. Generally, the identification was by the process
— 503 —
SEA
of exclusion on the basis of other arguments, e.g., those
supporting a steppe homeland suggested that the Indo-
Europeans could not have originally been located on the
shores of the Baltic Sea since Germanic had borrowed the
sea-word for this body of water while those who supported a
north European homeland excluded the Black Sea and the
other southern inland lakes since the IE vocabulary possessed
a word for ‘eel’, a fish unknown to those waters (though it
turns out that the Black Sea was incorrectly excluded).
While the semantic development is still generally accepted,
i.e., ‘lake’ > ‘sea’ (cf. NHG see ‘lake’ but NDutch zee ‘sea’),
there are no grounds to know whether the early Indo-
Europeans had a specific inland sea or lake in mind and if so,
which body of water it was; *mori offers little if any clue as to
the location of the IE homeland.
See also Lake; Salt. [R.S.PB., J.RM.]
SEA GOD
?*trih a tdn ‘watery (one?)’. [ IEW 1 096 ( *triiato~) ] . Olr triath
(gen. trethan) ‘sea’, Grk Tptrcov (son of Poseidon). The
phonological and semantic similarity of these two words is
seductive but problematic since they reflect only similarity
on both fronts, not identity. The Greek word might reflect
*trih a tdn, while the Old Irish might reflect *trih a etdn.
However, it is difficult to relate the Old Irish genitive with
such a form (since it requires a short *-/'-) or any other possible
antecedent of the nominative. Intriguing but doubtful.
See also Fire in Water [D.Q.A.]
SEASONS
*u£sj; ‘spring’. [IEW 1174 ( *ues-f)\ Wat 78 ( *wesf)\ GI
596 (*wes-f/$-)\ Buck 14.75]. Olr errach ‘spring’, OWels
guiannuin ‘spring’, Lat ver ‘spring’, Lith vasara ‘summer’, Latv
vasara ‘summer’, OCS vesna ‘spring’, Grk (p)eotp ‘spring’, Arm
garun ‘spring’, Av vanri ‘in spring’, Olnd vasanta- ‘spring’.
This word is widely distributed and as a heteroclitic repre-
sents an archaic construction; both considerations suggest
good PIE status although there is some semantic deviation
between Baltic and the other stocks.
*sem- ‘summer’. [IEW 905 ( *sem-), Wat 57 ( *sem-)\ Buck
14.76; BK 166 (VamWam-)]. Olr sam ‘summer’, Weis
haf ‘summer’, ON sumar ‘summer’, OE sumor ‘summer’
(> NE summer ), OHG sumar ‘summer’ (Gmc < *sipm-aro-),
Arm am ‘year’, Av ham- ‘summer’, Olnd sama ‘season, year’,
TochA sme (< *semeh a -hien-) ‘summer’, TochB smaye
‘summer-’. Its wide geographical distribution would seem to
guarantee its antiquity in PIE.
*hje$-en- ~ *hios~en- ~ *hjos-f- ‘autumn’. [IEW 343
(*es-en-); Wat 17 (*esen-); GI 596-597 (*(e)s-en-)\ Buck
14.77; BK 421 ( *as-/*ds -)]. ON pnn ‘autumn’, OHG aran
‘harvest’, Goth asans ‘summer, harvest time’, OPrus assanis
‘harvest’, OCS jeseni ‘autumn’, Rus osenf ‘autumn’, Grk
(Homeric) 07 Z( 6 pri(< *on- ‘after’ + o(a)apa[l] ‘summer’) ‘end
of summer, harvest time’, Hit zena-, zenanl- ‘autumn’.
The w,ord for ‘autumn’ has traditionally been regarded as
the weakest attested of the seasons in terms of cognates across
the different IE stocks. Frequently, the basic meanings in the
different stocks vary between ‘autumn’ and ‘summer’ or the
word is connected with ‘harvest’, e g , OE hxrfest ‘before
winter, harvest’ (> NE harvest ), Weis cynhaeaf ‘preceding
winter’, and Grk oncopri ‘after summer’. On such evidence it
was sometimes suggested that the “absence” of a PIE term for
‘autumn’ indicates that the early Indo-Europeans did not
recognize a harvest time and, consequently, did not practice
agriculture but were purely pastoralists. In actual fact, the
evidence for a PIE ‘autumn’ is not so weak as sometimes sug-
gested. With a common root represented in Germanic, Baltic,
Slavic, Greek and Hittite, the term for ‘autumn’ seems a good
candidate for IE status, a conclusion strengthened by the
probable antiquity of its appearance as an r/n- stem. On the
other hand, the term may not necessarily be co-ordinate with
the other seasonal terms, as some suggest that the Indo-
European year consisted conceptually of only three seasons —
winter, spring and summer. The end of summer, as indicated
in the early Irish seasonal festivals, was marked by an out-of-
season period and festival, samain, which reflected the
junction between the end of the old year and the beginning
of the new year. The junction also marked a period when the
otherworld might most closely impress itself on the world of
human society. It is at least possible, given the range of mean-
ings associated with the ‘autumn’ word, that the term did not
originally refer to a three month season but rather a much
shorter juncture between the old and new years.
It should be emphasized that even if one accepts the ab-
sence of a reconstructed PIE term for ‘autumn’, this is unlikely
to shed, any light on the nature of the earlier subsistence
economy of the Indo-Europeans. The Roman writer Tacitus
claimed that the ancient Germans themselves lacked a w'ord
for ‘autumn’ yet all archaeological evidence indicates that they
were very much engaged in both agriculture and stock-
breeding. And even agriculturalists such as the ancient
Egyptians operated with a civil calendar that recognized a
tripartite rather than quadripartite division of the year.
*gheim~, *ghidm- ‘winter, snow’. 1/EW425 ( *ghei-)\ Wat
21 ( *ghei-)\ cf. GI 750 ( *g h eim-)\ Buck 14.74], Gaul
Giamonios (name of a winter month), Lat hiems ‘winter’,
OPrus semo ‘winter’, Lith ziema ‘winter’, Latv ziemn winter’,
OCS zima ‘winter’, Rus zima ‘winter’, Alb dimer ‘winter’, Grk
Xeipa ~ yeipcov ‘winter’. Arm jiwn ‘snow’, Hit giemi in winter’,
gimmant- ‘winter’, giman(i)ye- ‘spend the winter’, Av zy3
‘winter’, Olnd heman ‘in winter’, hemanta- ‘in winter’, TochA
sarnie (< *samre ) ‘winter’, TochB sampraye ‘winter-’. This
ancient IE word, clearly reconstructible with the meaning
‘winter’, is distributed widely throughout the descendant
languages. Its antiquity is guaranteed not only by its distribu-
tion, but also by its semantic homogeneity and its status as
an r/n stem, seen in Grk x £l ^ v ‘winter’, yi 'papoq goat’ (with
zero-grade; meaning < *‘yearling’ < *‘one who has survived a
winter’).
See also Harvest; Time; Year [ P B . ; J P M ]
SEEK
SEAT
*sedes- l seat\ [ IEW 885 ( *sed-)\ Wat 56 (*sed-); Buck
7.43], Weis hedd 'rest', sedd ‘seat’, Grk k'Soq' seat’, Av hadis-
‘home’, OInd sadas- ‘place’. From *sed- ‘sit’. Although
distributed on the margins of the IE world, this nominalization
may have been independent in those IE stocks where it is
found.
*sedlom ~ *sedros (masc.) ‘seat, chair-like object’. [IEW
885-886 ( *sed-lo-m ); Wat 56 (*sed-)\ Buck 7.43]. Gaul
sedlon ‘seat’, Lat sella ~ sedile ‘seat’, ON sefr ‘seat’, OE setl
‘seat’, OHG sezzal ‘seat’, Goth sitls ‘seat’, OCS sedalo ‘seat’,
Grk k'8pa(< *sed-reh a ) ‘seat’, Arm ef/‘ seat’. From *sed- ‘sit’.
Words of the west and center of the IE world.
Furniture constructed from organic material is extremely
rare in the archaeological record but the existence of clay
figurines fashioned in the seated position are known from
both southwest Asia and southeast Europe from the early
Neolithic. In the Balkans there are also known miniature clay
models of chairs and even plastered seats in what are presumed
to have been shrines. The technology of chair-building may
have been far more ubiquitous than the existing archaeological
evidence even though the linguistic evidence does not require
the reconstruction of a PIE ‘chair’.
See also Sit. [A.D.V]
SEE
*derK- ‘glance at’. [ IEW 213 ( *derk-)\ Wat 12 ( *derk-)\
GI 186, 193 {*Verk h -)\ Buck 15.51, 52; BK 180 ( *c’ar -/
*cbr-)]. Olr ad-con-darc ‘have seen’, drech ‘face’, OE torht
‘bright, clear’, OHG zoraht ‘bright, clear’, Goth ga-tarhjan
‘distinguish, note’, Alb drite (< *dfkti-) ‘light’, Grk depKopai
‘see’, SeSopKa ‘seen’, dpaicoq'e ye’, perhaps dpaxcov ‘dragon’
(from its baleful glance?), depypa ‘glance’, Av dadarasa ‘have
seen’, Olnd dadarsa ‘have seen’, dfsti- ‘sight’. Absent in Hittite
and Tocharian but otherwise widespread and certainly old in
IE.
*h 3 ek w - ‘see’. [IEW 775-777 (*ok y -); Wat 45-46
( *ok w -)\ cf. GI 688 ( *se/ok ho -)\ Buck 15.51]. Grk onoma ‘have
seen’, okikevo} ‘stare at’, Olnd iksate ‘sees’. As a verb this root
is attested only in Greek and Old Indie; however, its derivative
*h 3 ek w ‘eye’ is practically universal in IE.
*leuk- ‘see’. [IEW 689 ( *leuk-)\ cf. Wat 37 ( *leuk-)\ cf. GI
779 ( *l(e)uk b -)\ Buck 15.51; BK 580 (* law-/* law-)}. Weis
amlwg ‘evident’, OPrus laukit ‘seek’, Lith laukiu ‘wait (for
someone)’, Latv lukuot ‘look at something’, OCS luciti ‘meet
someone’, Rus luciti ‘meet someone’, Grk Xe\)OG(o'ste\ Olnd
lokate ‘perceive’. We have here a semantic specialization,
probably of at least late PIE date, of *leuk- ‘shine, illuminate’;
cf. Olr loichet ‘lightning’, Lat lux ‘light’, luceo ‘let (a light)
shine’, ON ljos ‘light’, OE leoht ‘light’ (> NE light) , OHG lioht
‘light’, Goth liuhap ‘light’. Arm luc'anem ‘ignite, bum’, Hit
lukk- ‘be bright; dawn’, Av raok- ‘shine’, Olnd rocate ‘illu-
minates, shines’, TochAB luk - ‘light up, be illuminated’, TochB
lyuke ‘light’.
*(s)pek- ‘observe’ (pres. *(s)pekie/o~) . [IEW 984
( *spek-)\ Wat 63 ( *spek-)\ GI 102; Buck 1 5 . 52 1 Lat spead
‘see’, haru-spex ‘haruspex’, OHG spehon ‘spy’, Grk OKEKTopai
‘look at’, GKonoq ‘observer’ (Greek by metathesis from
*spek-/*spok-), Av spasyeiti ‘spies’, spas- ‘observer’, Olnd
pasyati ‘sees’, spat ‘observer’, TochAB pak- ‘intend’, TochB
pakw- ‘expect’. Widespread and old in IE.
*sek w - ‘see’ (< follow with the eyes’). [IEW 897-898
( *sek y -); Wat 57 ( *sek w -)\ cf. GI 688 ( *se/ok^°-)\ Buck 15.51],
ON sja ‘see’, OE seon ‘see’ (> NE see), OHG sehan ‘see’, Goth
saihan ‘see’, Lith seku ‘follow, keep an eye on’, Alb shoh (<
*sok w -ehi-ske/o -) ‘see’, Hit sakuwa ‘eye’, Lydian saw- ‘see,
observe’. A metaphorical extension of *sek w - ‘follow’ that
appears, given the distribution of its attestations, to be of PIE
date.
*yel- ‘see’. [IEW 1 1 36-1 1 37 ( *uel-) ; Wat 75 ( *wel-), Buck
15.51; BK 494 {*waV-/*waP-)\. Olr ///‘there is’ (< * behold!’),
Weis gweled 1 see’, TochB yel- (< *ye/-) ‘examine, investigate’.
Latin and Germanic show reflexes of a derived noun *ijeltus
(gen. *uhous ): Lat voltus ‘facial expression, appearance, form’,
OE wuldor 1 fame’, Goth wulpus ‘splendor’. In Germanic we
have the enlargement uleid-: ON lita ‘see, look’, leita ‘look
around, seek’, OE wlitan ‘see, look’, wlatian ‘look around,
seek’, Goth wlaiton ‘look around, seek’. Found only on the
margins of the IE world, a good candidate for PIE status.
?*leg- ‘see’ (< *‘gather’). [cf. IEW 658 ( *leg -); Wat 35
( *leg-)\ cf. GI 726 (*/e£-); Buck 15.41; BK 578 ( *luk ’-/
*lok'-)[. Lat lego ‘gather; read’, OE locian ‘look’ (> NE look),
OHG luogen ‘spy on’, TochAB lak- ‘see’. A metaphorical
extension, similar to that of the previous word, from the field
of movement to that of vision. As in the previous case, the
extension of meaning may well be independent in all the
stocks in which it occurs.
See also Follow; Light; Perceive; Shine; Show; Visible.
ID.Q.A.l
SEED
*sehimen- ‘seed’ (< *‘what is sown’). [IEW 890
( *se-men-)\ Wat 56 ( *se-men-)\ GI 594-595 ( * semen-). Buck
8.31]. Lat semen ‘seed’, OHG samo ‘seed’, OPrus semen ‘seed’,
Lith (pi.) semenys ‘linseed’, semud linseed; a single seed of
the flax plant’, OCS semp ‘seed’. Cf. Olr s/7 ‘seed’, Lith selena
‘husk ol a seed’; ON sad ‘seed’, OE sxd ‘seed’ (> NE seed),
OHG sat' seed’, Goth mana-seps ‘world, mankind' (< *‘man-
seed’). A word at least of the west and center of the IF. world.
From *sehi- ‘sow’.
See also Agriculture; Sow; Grain. [D Q.A.]
SEEK
*sehag- ‘perceive acutely, seek out’. [IEW 876-877
( *sag -); Wat 55 {*sag-)\ GI 705 {*sak-)\ BK 195 (*sah-/
*sah-)]. Olr saigid seeks out’, Weis haeddu ‘earn, gain’, Lat
sagio ‘perceive acutely, sagus ‘prophetic’, saga ‘fortune-teller,
wise woman’, sagax ‘sagacious, keen scented’, ON soekja seek’,
OE secan ‘seek’ (> NE seek), OHG suohhen ‘seek’, Goth sokjan
‘seek’, Grk pyeopai ‘direct, lead’, Hit sakiya- ‘make known'.
— 505 —
SEEK
sagai- ‘omen’, sakiyahh- give an omen’. Widespread and old
in IE.
See also Accomplish; Perceive; See. ID.Q.A.l
SEPARATE see DIVIDE
SERVANT
*h 2 entbhi-k w olos ‘servant’. [1EW 639 (*-/c y e/-); BK 414
(*harj-t[ h ]-/*h9o-t[ h ]-), 317 (*k w [ h ]ul-/*k w [ h ]ol-)]. Lat
anculus ‘servant’, Grk dfKpinoXoq ‘servant, priest’, OInd
abhicara-se rvant’. The word is a compound of *h 2 entbhi‘on
either side, around’ and a thematized nominal form of the
verbal root *k w el- ‘turn, move around in a circle’. The servants
are thus described as the people moving about their master,
circulating on his property. A similar concept is to be found
in Celtic *ambactos ‘highly ranked servant’ (< *h 2 entbhi-
‘around’ + the participle of the verbal root *h a eg- ‘be active’;
cf. Weis amaeth ‘husbandman’). This latter term was borrowed
into Germanic at a very early date and appears with a different
suffix in the meaning in ON embaetti ‘office’, OE ambeht ~
ambiht ‘office’, OHG ambahti ‘office’, Goth andbahts ‘office’
or OE ambeht ‘maid’, OHG ambaht ‘maid’, cf. ON ambatt
where ‘maid’ has developed into ‘concubine’. Distribution
suggests PIE status.
*sldugos ‘servant, one performing service’. I1EW 965
( *slougo-)\ Wat 61 ( *sloug-o-)\ Buck 19.43] . OIr slog ~ sluag
‘army, host; crowd, company’, Weis llu ‘army’, Lith slauga
‘service’, OCS sluga ‘servant’, Rus slug ‘servant’. A word of
the IE northwest with different semantic developments in
Celtic (military) and Balto-Slavic (service); cf. Lith slauge
‘nurse’.
?*h^upo-sth 2 i/o- ‘servant’. [GI 40 1 ] . Mir foss ‘servant’, Weis
gwas ‘servant’ (from Celtic > medieval Lat vassus ~ vassalus
‘vassal’), OInd upasti- ‘subordinate, servant’, upasthanam
‘service’. The distribution on the peripheries of the PIE world
suggests PIE status for this compound, but it is possible that
it was created independently in the two stocks that show it.
See also Captive; Freeman. [E.C.P]
SET
*dheh}- ‘put, place’ (pres. *dhldhehiti). [IEW 235-236
( *dhe -) ; GI 2 1 ( *d h eH-) ; Wat 1 3 ( *dhe-) ; Buck 1 2 . 1 2 ; BK 70
( *diy-/*dey -)]. From the present *dhldhehiti: Grk r (Oiyai
‘sets’, Av dadaiti ‘puts, brings’, OInd dadhati ‘puts, places,
lays’, TochB tattam ‘will put, place’; other, newer, presents
are reflected in Lat facere ‘do’, -dere in ab-dere ‘take away’,
con-dere ‘build, found, establish’, credere ‘believe’ (< *kred-
dhehi- ‘put one’s heart’), OE don ‘do’ (> NE do), OHG tuon
‘do’, Lith deti ‘lay’, Latv deju ‘lay’, OCS deti ‘lay’, Arm dnem
(< *dhehi-ne/o-) ‘puts, places’, Hit da(i)-(< *dhehi-i-ei) ‘puts,
lays’, tezzi{< *dhehi-) ‘says’, Lycian tadV puts, places’, TochAB
fa- ~ fas- ‘put, lay’. (Most of these latter presents are built on
the analogy of the aorist stem *dhehi- seen, as aorists, in
Arm ed ‘put, placed’, OPers ada ‘put, placed’, OInd adhat
‘put, placed’ [< *hiedhehit ].) Widespread and old in IE; the
PIE word for putting and placing.
*sed- set’ (pres. *sod6ieti~ *sodejeti) [ IEW 884 ( *sed-),
Wat 56 ( *sed-)\ GI 100 (*sef’-)]. From *sodeietr. Olr adsuidi
‘delay’, ON setja ‘set’, OE settan ‘set’ (> NE set), OHG sezzen
‘set’, Goth satjan ‘set’, OInd sadayati ‘sets’. From *sddeieti.
Lith sodinti ‘set, plant’, OCS saditi ‘set’, Av ni-sadayeiti ‘sets
down’. Cf. with a different suffix Hit sazki ‘make sit’. The
causative of *sed- ‘sit’. Widespread and probably old in IE.
*stel- ‘put in place, (make) stand (up)’. [IEW 1019-1020
( *stel-)\ GI 101; Wat 66 ( *stel -); Buck 12.121. Lat stolidus
‘stolid’, ON stjplr ‘stem, stalk’, stallr (< *sto!no-) ‘stall’, OE
stela ‘stalk, support’, steall ‘standing place, position, stall,
stable’ (> NE stall), stellan (< *stolneie/o-) ‘put, place’, OHG
stal ‘standing place, position, stall’, stellen ‘set up, establish’,
OPrus stallit ‘stand’. Alb shtjell{< *stel-nd) ‘fling, toss, hurl’,
Grk oteXXco ‘make ready, fit out with; send, dispatch’, or oXoq
‘equipment, troop’, Arm stelem ‘set, place’, OInd sthalam
‘eminence, tableland; ground, earth; dry land’ (with initial
consonant cluster influenced by slha- ‘stand’). Widespread
and old in IE.
See also Srr ; Stand [ A . D . V. 1
SET IN MOTION
*hier- ‘set in motion’. [IEW 326-332 ( *er-)\ Wat 1 7 ( *er-)\
GI 187 (*er-); cf. Buck 10.11; BK 593 {*ur-/*or-)\ (1) pres.
*hipieuti ‘stirs up, sets in motion’: Grk dpvVgi ‘stir up, move’,
Arm y-atnem ‘stand up’. Hit amuzzi ‘brings, sets in motion’,
Av oronaoiti ‘moves’, OInd fnoti ‘moves’; (2) pres. *h\drtor
‘stands up’: Hit arta ‘stands, is present, occurs’, TochA artar
‘will evoke, produce’, TochB ertar ‘will evoke, produce’; (3)
*h jorei: Hit ari ‘comes, arrives’. Other presents are represented
by Lat orior ‘rise; be born’, OInd iyarti ‘sets in motion’.
Widespread and old in PIE.
*hjeis-‘set in motion’. [7EW299-301 (*e/s-);Gl 188, 194
(*ejs-)]. ON eisa ‘go dashing’, Grk ivduo pour out’, oi'opai
‘suppose, think’, Av aes- ‘set in motion’, OInd isnAti ‘sets in
motion, swings’, isanyati ‘impels’, esati ‘glides’. Geographically
widespread and certainly of PIE date. Related to the word for
‘arrow’.
*kei- ‘set in motion’. [IEW 538-539 (*keh), Wat 28
( *kei-)\ Buck 10.11; BK 307 (*k- v 7^/ay-/*k>/ /l /ay-)]. Lat cieo
‘set in motion’, citus ‘quick’, citare ‘set in motion', Alb qoj
‘wake’, Grk gevco (< *kieu-) 'set in motion’, kiveco ‘set in
motion, drive’, Arm c'vem ‘set off’, Av s(y)avaite ‘sets off’,
OInd cyavate ‘goes forth’, TochB sa- ‘set in motion’. Wide-
spread and old in IE.
*ti 2 lei- ‘set in motion’. [IEW 664-665 ( *lei- ); Wat 36
(*/ei-); cf. Buck 9.351. Olr lie ( D1L lla) ‘river, sea’ and Weis
llif~ lh ‘river, sea’ (< *liyant-), Olr do-lin (< *-Ii-nu~) ‘streams’,
Weis dillydd ‘pours out’, Lat Iltus ‘beach’ (< *‘flooded area’),
ON lid ‘beer’, OHG lith ‘fruitwme’, Goth leipu ‘fruitwine’,
Lith leju ~ lleju ‘pour’, Ijju ‘rain, stream’, Latv liet ‘pour’, lit
‘rain’, OCS lejp- h/p‘pour’, Grk c(Xeigov(< *h 2 leituo-) ‘cup,
goblet’, Hit hala(i)- (< *h 2 loiei) ‘sets in motion’. Widespread
SEXUAL ORGANS AND ACTIVITIES
and old in IE. Except for Hittite the meaning has been
specialized to set (a liquid) in motion’.
*pelh a - ‘set in motion’ (pres. *pelneh a - ). [IEW 801-802
( *pe/-); Wat 48 (*pe7-)]. Olr ad-ella (- ella < *pelnat ) ‘seeks’,
Lat pe77o‘ push, drive away’, opilio(< *oui-pelio) ‘shepherd’,
Pales ‘goddess of herdsmen’. A word restricted to the west of
the IE world.
*kerhx- ‘propel’, [cf. 7EW933 (*(s)ker-)]. OInd kirati ‘pour
out, scatter, throw’, TochB karsk- (< *k[hx-sI<e/o-) ‘propel’,
i.e., shoot, throw, spread (by throwing), TochA parra-krase
‘distance of an arrow-shot’. Dialectally restricted to the east
of the IE world.
*jeudh- ‘set in motion, stir up, make excited’. [IEW 511
( *ieU'dh-)\ Wat 79 ( *yeudh-)\ Buck 10.1 1). Lat iubeo ‘order’
(< *‘set in motion’), Lith judu ‘move oneself, stir, get oneself
in motion’, judinu ‘set in motion’, jundu ‘feel, perceive’,
jaudinu ‘excite, stir, move’, Latv jaust ‘feel, pay attention to,
understand’, Pol judzic ‘incite’, Grk vofitvrf ‘combat’, Av
yuidyemti ‘they fight’, yaozaiti ‘becomes agitated (of water
and emotions)’, OPers yaudatiy ‘is stirred up’, OInd yudhyate
‘fights’, ud-yodhati ‘boils up’, TochA yutk- (< iudh-ske/o-)
‘become upset, worry’. Widespread and old in IE.
*y egh- (*yegh-?) ‘shake, set in motion’. [Wat 74
( *wegh-)\ BK 301 (*wag y -/*wog y -)[. Lat vexare ‘shake, vex’,
OE wecgan ‘agitate’, ME waggen ‘wag’ (> NE wag), Goth
wagjan ‘shake’, Grk yavq-oxog ‘earth-shaking’, TochA wask-
‘move, budge, have motion (intr ); move (from a place) (intr.);
tremble’, TochB wask-fwask - ‘move, budge, have motion
(intr.); move (from a place) (intr.); tremble’ (Toch < *uegh-
sKe/o-). Perhaps this should be reconstructed *uegh- and
regarded as an early semantic specialization of *uegh- ‘bear,
carry’. In any case, widespread and old in IE.
*yeip-‘set in motion, agitate’, [cf. 7EW1 131-1 132 (*ueip-
~ *ueib-)\ Wat 75 ( *weip -)]. Av vip- ‘throw, ejaculate’, OInd
vepati ~ vepate ‘trembles’, TochB wip- ‘shake’. A word of the
IE east.
*seuh 3 - ‘set in motion’ (pres. *sun6hjti). [IEW 9141. Olr
sold ‘twists, turns’, Hit suwai- ‘push, urge’, sunna- ‘fill’, suu-
‘full’, sawatar(< *souh 3 edhrom ‘horn’ [< *‘pusher’]), Palaic
sunat (< *su-ne-hj-t ) ‘poured out’, Av hunaiti (< *su-ne-h 3 -
ti ) ‘± seeks to create, drives toward’, OInd suvati ‘sets in
motion, vivifies, urges’, sava- ‘instigator; instigation’, TochB
sewi ‘pretext, excuse’.
See also Bow and Arrow; Flow; Move; Pour; Stir. [D.Q.A.J
SEW see TEXTILE PREPARATION
SEXUAL ORGANS AND ACTIVITIES
*p6ses~ ‘penis’. [IEW 824 ( *pes-); Wat 50 ( *pes-)', GI 716
{*pfies-os-)\ Buck 4.492; BK 62 ( *p[ h ]as y -/*p[ h ]ds y -)l . Lat
penis (< *pesn-i - ‘manhood’ derived from *pes-no- ‘man’, cf.
Hit) ‘penis, tail’, OE faesl ‘seed, offspring’, OHG faseP penis’,
Grk neog ‘penis’, noadr] ‘penis, foreskin’, Hit pisna- ‘man’ (<
‘[one] provided with a penis’), pisnatar ‘penis’, OInd pasas-
‘penis’, pela- (< *pazla-) ‘testicle’. Very strong evidence for
PIE status.
*kipr ‘penis’. [IEW 529; Wat 27; Buck 3.371. The
underlying noun is seen in OInd kapph- ‘penis’; a derivative
*kapr-o- ‘possessed of a penis’ is seen in Olr gahor ‘he-goat’,
Weis ga/r ‘he-goat’, Gaul Gabro-magus ‘goatfield’ (with initial
g - rather than *k- that is not well understood), Lat caper ‘he-
goat’, ON 7iafr‘he-goat’, OE baefer ‘he-goat’, Grk Kcbrpo<;‘boar’.
The meanings of the derivative suggest, perhaps, that this
word tended to mean ‘animal penis’ while *peses- may have
had a tendency to be restricted to ‘human penis’. In any case,
the distribution of the underlying noun plus its derivative
would seem to guarantee PIE status for *kapy.
*h 3 pusds ‘shaft, penis’. Grk onvi'a) (< *h 3 pusie/o-)
‘copulate, marry’, Hit hapusa- ‘shaft, penis’. An early euphe-
mism for ‘penis’, preserved as such in Hittite.
*putds *± vulva, anus’. [IEW 849 {*pQ-to-)\ ON fud-
‘vulva’,MHG vut ‘vulva’, Grk(Hesychius)^uvvo^(< *putno- )
‘anus’, OInd (attested only very late) putau (dual) ‘buttocks’.
Sparsely but widely attested. The best candidate for a word
with this meaning having PIE status.
*kutsds (Greek) - *kutsn6s (Latin, Iranian) ‘anus, vulva’.
[IEW 952-953 (*(s)keu-)\. Lat cunnus (with expressive
gemination) ‘vulva’, Grk (Hesychius) Kvcrog ‘anus, vulva’
(outside of Hesychius this word occurs in compounds, always
with the meaning ‘anus’ and always with reference to
pederasty), NPers kun ‘vulva’. Perhaps also belonging here
are Weis cwthr (< *kuzdhro-) ‘anus’ and Grk KvcrOog (if <
*kuts-to-) ‘vulva’. A late, popular word in PIE subject to
phonological deformation.
*kukis ± (female) pubic hair, vulva’. [IEW 953
( *(s)keu-k-)] . Lith kusys ‘female pubic hair, vulva’, Latv kusis
‘pubic hair, vulva’ (Baltic with new lengthened vowel), NPers
kus ‘female genitals’. Geographically restricted to the center
and east of the IE world. This may well be in origin the
euphemistic use of a word meaning ‘belly’; compare OInd
kuksl- ‘belly’ which, though derived morphologically, may
preserve the older meaning.
*pisdo/eh a - vulva’ [7EW831 ( *pIzda-)\. OPrus peisda ‘ass’,
Lith pyzda ‘vulva’, Latv pizda ‘vulva’, Rus pizda ‘vulva’, Pol
pizda ‘vulva’ (Balto-Slavic with lengthening of -i- to -7- by
Winter’s Law), Alb pidh ‘vulva’, Nuristani port (< *pizdika)
‘vulva’. From *(hje)pi- + s(e)d- + -o- ‘what one sits on’ (cf.
*ni-sd-6s ‘nest’ < *(hj)ni- + s(e)d- + -o- ‘what one sits in’).
Archaic in formation but geographically limited to central
and eastern IE. Presumably a late, dialectally restricted PIE
euphemism for ‘vulva’.
*h 4 drghis (gen. *h^fghi0s) ‘testicle’. [IEW 782 (*orghi-),
GI 716 ( *or^-i-)-. Buck 4.49; BK 428 ( *ar-ag-/*or-ag-)\ . Mir
uirge (< *h 4 orghiieh a -) ‘testicles’, Alb herdhe ‘testicles’, Grk
opyig ‘testicle’. Arm orjik‘ ‘testicles’, Hit arki- ‘testicle’, Av orozi-
‘scrotum’, orozi (dual) ‘testicles’, TochB erkatstse ‘testiculate’.
From *h 4 drghei ‘mounts’. The PIE word for ‘testicle’.
*hiendr6s‘egg, scrotum’. Rus jadro ‘kernel, scrotum’, OInd
anda- ‘egg, scrotum’, (dual) ‘testicles’, Kalasa dndrak
(preserving the Proto-Indie *-r~) ‘egg’. Originally ‘that which
507 —
SEXUAL ORGANS AND ACTIVITIES
is inside’ (PIE *hien - ’in’), whence > 'kernel, egg’. The
development ‘egg’ > ‘scrotum’ may be independent in Old
Indie and Slavic or may reflect a late PIE ‘easternism’.
*musk6s ‘male or female sex organ’. [IEW 753 ( *mus );
Buck 4.49]. Grk (Hesychius) pvayov (with ‘expressive’
-kh-) ‘male or female sex organs’, OInd muska- ‘testicle,
scrotum’, (dual) ‘vulva’. Etymologically probably *mus-ko-
‘little mouse’ from its presumed resemblance to a mouse under
the skin (as in *mus-tIo- ‘muscle’). Unlike the similar
extension of ‘mouse’ to ‘muscle’, this metaphor seems limited
to late IE.
*h4drghei ~ *h^ghdr ‘mounts, covers’. [IEW 339
( *ergh~) 1 . ON argr ‘cowardly, unmanly, immoral’ (< *h4drghos
‘one [who is] mounted’), ergi (< *h4orghieh a - ) ‘lascivious
behavior, shamelessness’, Lith arziis ‘lascivious’, Rus jerzajet
~ jergajet ‘fidgets, wriggles, moves in coitus’, Grk opxzogai
‘makes lascivious motions, dances’, ccpxoq ‘rectum, anus’, Hit
arki ~ arga ‘mounts’ (attested only with reference to a male
animal), OInd fghayate ‘is impetuous, rages’. Though the
underlying verb is attested only in Hittite (with originally
iterative-intensives also in Slavic, Indie, and Greek), this is
surely the oldest reconstructible IE verb for ‘copulate’. Cf.
also *h4orghis ‘testicle’.
*i6bhe/o- 'enter, penetrate’ > ‘copulate’. [IEW 298
( *eibh-)\ GI 716 (*eib h -)\ Buck 4.67], Rus jebu ‘copulate’,
Grk oicpco ‘copulate’, Sogd a-yamb- ‘commit adultery’, OInd
yabhati ‘copulates’. The meaning ‘copulate’ is a specialization
of an earlier ‘penetrate, enter’ still to be seen in Luv ipatarma-
‘west’, iparwassa/i- ‘western’ (presupposing a pre-Luvian *ipa-
‘west, sunset’), TochA yow- ‘enter, set (of sun)’, TochB yap-
‘enter, set (of sun)’. The semantic specialization would seem
to have been confined to the central and eastern parts of the
IE world, one that did not affect either Tocharian or Anatolian
and which has left no trace in the “west”.
See also Anatomy; Blow; Castrate; Goat. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Watkins, Calvert (1975). La famille indoeuropenne de grec opyig:
linguistique, poetique et mythologique. BSLP 70, 1 1-26.
SHADOW
*sKdiba( gen. *skii6h a s) ‘shade [= place protected from the
light], shadow [= image cast]’. [IEW 9 17-9 18 ( *skiia-)\ Wat
58 ( *skeoi -); GI 103; Buck 1.63]. Latv seja ~ sejs(< *skeio/
eh a -) ‘shadow; ghost’, OCS sent (< *skoi-nih a -) ‘shade,
shadow’, Rus sen ‘shade, shadow’, SC sjen ‘shade, shadow’,
dsoje (< - *skoiom ) ‘shaded spot’, Alb hie (< *skeieh a -) ‘shade,
shadow; ghost, spectre’, (dial.) he ‘shade, shadow; ghost,
spectre’ (< *skiieh a , if he is not just another form of hie), Grk
okiG (< *skiieh a -) ‘shade, shadow; reflection, image (as in a
bowl of oil); ghost, spectre’, cncipov ‘umbrella’ (a
nominalization by accent retraction from *skiro- ‘shady’),
(Hesychius) OKoioq (< *skoih a -o-) ‘shady’, Av a-saya- ‘who
throws no shadow’, NPers saya- ‘shadow’, OInd chayft- ‘shade,
shadow, shady place’ (Indo-Iran < *skoieh a -), TochB skiyo
‘shadow’ (< *skiieh a - , the lack of the expected initial
palatalization may reflect a leveling from the old nominative
*skoih a ). Widespread and old in IE.
*skdtos ‘shadow, shade’. [IEW 957 ( *skot-)\ Wat 61
( *skot-)\ Buck 1.631. OIr scath ‘shadow, reflection; ghost,
spectre’, MWels ysgawt ‘shadow, darkness; nocturnal spirit’
(Celtic < *skoto -), OE sceadu ‘shadow’ (> NE shadow ), OHG
scato ‘shadow’, Goth skadus ‘shadow’ (Gmc < *skotijb -), Grk
GKoroq ‘darkness, gloom, shadow’, gkotoo) ‘darken, blind’
(> NGrk (jkotcovco ‘kill’). At least a word of the west and center
of the IE world.
See also Dark; Shine. [D.Q.A ]
SHAFT
*h2/36ihios ~ *h2/3&hids (gen. *h2/3ihisds ) shaft (of a
cart or wagon)’. [IEW 298 ( *ei- ~ *oi-)\ GI 624 ( * H is -)\ ON
ar~ pr‘oar’, OE ar ‘oar’ (> NE oaf) (< Proto-Gmc *aizd-), Rus
voje ‘shaft’, Slov oje (gen. ojesa ) ‘shaft’, Grk oirjiov tiller, helm,
rudderpost’, Hit hissa- ‘pole, shaft, thill (for harnessing a draft
animal to a cart)’, Av aesa- ‘± (pole-)plow, pair of shafts’, NPers
xes ‘plow(-share)’, OInd Isa ‘pole, shaft’. Baltic is probably
represented by borrowing in Finnish aisa ‘pole, shaft’ (< Proto-
Baltic *aisa- or *aisd-), though Iranian has also been seen as
the source of the Finnish word. Compare also the derived
Grk oia^hng on a yoke through which the reins are passed,
terret’. Widespread and old in IE. The proto-language would
appear to have had both a neuter *h2/)eihios, preserved as
such in Slavic, and a “collective” feminine *h2/ieih 70 s, whose
non-nominative stem *h2/3ihis- is reflected in the Hittite and
Old Indie forms. Almost also certainly of PIE age is the
derivative *h2/30ih iseh a - with substantially the same meaning
seen in Germanic, Baltic (in the form of a loanword into
Finnish), and Iranian. Only Baltic shows related words without
*-s-, e.g., Lith l'elekstis ‘pole, shaft’, aile ‘pole’, Latv ieluksi
‘shaft’, aihs ‘pole’, Lith iena ‘pole’.
*dhur- ‘± pole, peg, pin’. [GI 624-625 ( *d^ur-)\ Grk
daipoq ‘pivot of door or gate; axle of chariot’, Hit turiye-
‘harness’ (< *‘put to the wagon-shaft’), OInd dhur- ‘means of
harnessing a horse to a cart, pole, fore-carriage’, dhura- ‘yoke,
peg of axle’, dhurya- ‘draft animal’, TochA lurs-ko ‘draft ox’.
Reasonably widespread and certainly old in IF.. Probably not
to be confused with *dhuer - ‘pierce’.
*tengh-s- ‘pole’. [IEW 1067]. Lat temo (< *tengh-s-
mon-) ‘pole, shaft, beam; wagon’, ON pi si ‘pole’, OE pi si
‘wagon-pole, shaft’, OHG dihsala ‘wagon-pole, shaft’ (< Gmc
*pinhs- < *tengh-s-Ieh a ). From *ten- ‘pull, stretch. A word
of the west of the IE world.
See also Axle, Wagon; Yoke. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Meid, W. (1994) Die Terminologie von Pferd und Wagen 1 m
Indogermanischen, in Die lndogermanen und das Pferd, eds. B.
Hansel and S. Zimmer, Budapest, Archaeolingua, 53-65.
— 508 —
SHARP
SHAKE
*trem- ‘shake, tremble (in fear)’. [IEW 1092-1093
( *trem-) ; Wat 72 ( *trem-)\ Gl 187 ( *t h rem-)\ Buck 16.53].
Lat tremo ‘shake’, Lith trimti ‘shake’, Latv tremt ‘chase away’.
Alb tremb (with secondary -b-) ‘scare, startle, shock’, Grk
r pepco ‘shake’, rappvaoco ‘am afraid’, TochA tram- ‘be
enraged’. Cf. the derivative *trdmos: Grk rpopog 1 trembling ,
TochB tremi ‘anger’. Widespread and old in IE.
*tres - ‘tremble, shake with fear’. [ IEW 1095 (*fres-); Wat
72 ( *tres-)\ GI 207 ( *t h res-)\ Buck 16.53; BK 97 ( *t[ h ]ir -/
*t[ h ]er-)\. Mir tarrach{< *tfsako-) ‘fearful’, Lat terrere ‘terrify’,
terror ‘terror’, Lith trisu (if < *tfs-ske/o-) ‘tremble’, Latv triset
‘tremble’, OCS trpsQ ‘tremble’, Grk rpeco ‘tremble, flee’, Av
trorosaiti (< *tfs-ske/o-) ‘fears’, Oran-hayeiti ‘frightens’, OInd
trasati ‘trembles, is afraid’. Widespread and old in IE. Both
*trem- and *lres- are enlargements of an unattested *ter-
‘shake, tremble’. In both cases there has been a tendency to
develop a metaphorical transfer, probably of PIE dale, from
an outward sign of fear to fear itself.
*rei- ‘tremble, be unsteady’ (reduplicated pres, or perfect
*rei-roi-h2e) . [IEW 862 ( *rei-r(ei)-)\ . Goth reiran ‘tremble,
shake’, OInd lelaya ~ lelayati ‘swings, is unsteady’. The exact
equation of this odd present formation on the part of two
languages on the periphery of the IE world would seem to
assure reconstruction of PIE age.
*tpeis- ‘shake’. l/£W 1099 ( *fy£i-); Wat 72 ( *t wei-)\ Buck
10.26] . Grk aeico ‘shake’, Av Owaesah - ‘fear, anxiety’, OInd
tvesate ‘is excited’. A form without the final *-s- is seen in Av
upa-9wayeiti ‘is afraid’, Owayah- ‘fright, danger’. At least a
word of the center and east of the IE world.
*kret- ‘shake’. [/EW620 ( *kret -); Wat 32 (*kret-)\ Buck
10.26] , Mir crothaid ‘shakes’, ON hradr ‘quick’, OE hrade
‘quick’, OHG hrad ‘swift, strenuous’, redan ‘sieve’, Lith kreciu
‘shake, jolt; strew by shaking’, kretu ‘shake, move back and
forth’, Latv krest ‘shake, jolt’. A word of the west and center
of the IE world.
?*(s)ku(n)t- ‘shake, jolt’. [IEW 957-958 ( *(s)km-)\ Wat
61 ( *skut -)] • From *kui-\ OE hudenian ‘shake’, Lith kutinetis
‘preen oneself (of birds)’, kutu ‘rouse, shake out of a lethargy’;
from *skut-: OE scudan ‘drive’, ME shud(e)ren ~ shudren
‘shudder’ (> NE shudder), OHG scutilon ‘shake, jolt’, scudden
‘shake, jolt’, OCS skytati sp ‘wander’; from *(s)kunt-: ON
skynda ‘drive’, OE scyndan ‘drive’, OHG scuntan ‘impel,
stimulate’, Lith kuntu ‘recover, get better’ (i.e., ‘shake some-
thing off’). Limited to Germanic and Baltic but widespread
and prolific within those groups; a northwest dialectal word.
*kreut-± shake’. [IEW 623 (*kreu-t-)\. ON hraustr ‘quick;
courageous’, OE hreade-m us ‘bat’, MHG rutten (< *hrudjari)
‘shake, jolt’, Lith krutu ‘move, stir’, krutus ‘active, alert’. The
very limited geographical range of the attestation of this word
suggests a northwest isogloss.
*kseubh- ‘shake’. [IEW 625 (*kseubh-)\. Pol chybn^c
‘shake’, Av xsaob- ‘agitate’, OInd ksubhyati ‘shakes’. Related
in some fashion to *skeubh- ‘push away, push ahead’. An
isogloss of Slavic- Indo- Iranian.
?*k w at- ‘shake’. 1/EW632 (*kuet-)\ Buck 10.26], Lat quatio
‘shake, brandish, agitate’, Grk ndoaco strew, sprinkle’.
Formally a perfect equation but the isolation of this root to
two stocks and the semantic distance invite caution. Perhaps,
but only perhaps, a late IE word.
See also Fear; Frighten . [ D . Q . A . ]
SHAME
*h a eig w hes- ‘shame’. [IEW 14 ^aig^h-)] Buck 16.45], OE
Sewisce ‘shame, insult’, Goth aiwiski ‘shame’ (< *hjeig w hes-
ki-iom ), Grk aicryog (< *h a eig w h-s-ko-s ) ‘shame, disgrace’.
Compare also OE iewan ~ £wan (< Proto-Gmc *aiwjan )
‘despise’, MHG eisch ‘ugly, detestable’. At least a word of the
west and center of the IE world.
*h a egos (gen *ha£gesos) shame [IEW 8 ( *agos-), Wat 1
(*ag-es-); BK459 (*hak’-/*h9k’-)\. Grk dyog guilt, pollution’,
OInd igas- ‘guilt, sin’. The Greek term is more specifically
‘consecration’, hence ‘malediction’. Although not in Homer,
this word has been identified in a Mycenaean toponym.
Undoubtedly, it was part of the terminology of the ‘sacred’
(cf. Hesy chius gloss dyea - repevea), taken negatively as a
religious interdiction striking those who break it (cf. evayrig
‘cursed by the gods, struck [for profanation]’). Favorable and
unfavorable meanings occur side by side, e g. , Jtavccyrjg very
sacred’ and ‘cursed’. Even the anthroponym 'Ayi)g points to
some positive sense; however, the meaning ‘curse’ seems to
prevail and in compound verbs, derivations from dyog
indicate the chasing away of a defiled person. This denotes
the ambivalence of the “sacred", also shown by Lat sacer. One
would be tempted to connect this with Grk dyiog ‘sacred’
but the spiritus asper of the latter makes it difficult though
ancient grammarians sometimes considered dyog as a form
with psilosis of dyiog and dyvog. Indeed dyog appears to be
attested in the Pamphyllian dialect but the initial h - may reflect
conflation with the semantically similar dyiog
See also Insult; Sacred. [E.C.P.]
SHARP
*h 2 €k- ‘sharp, pointed’. [IEW 18-19 ( *al< - ~ *ok-)\ Wat 1
( *ak-)\ Gl 96 ( *ak h er -); Buck 15.78; BK 398 ( *hukl b } -/
*fiok[ h ]-)\. Weis hogi ‘to sharpen’, Lat acer ‘pointed, sharp >
pungent, sour (of taste)’, acus ‘needle’, MHG ag~ egle ‘perch’.
Alb athet (earlier athe-te ) (< *b 2 ako-) ‘sour’, Grk aKT] ‘point’,
Arm aseln ~ aslan ‘needle’, NPers as ‘grinding stone’. In
Germanic, this form has been connected with ‘perch’ (the
fish) as can be seen in Danish aborre, which would be from
*ag+ burzon ‘pointed/sharp + pointed one’, along with various
less likely suggestions in that branch. Other formations built
on this root include Lith astriis (~ asrus) ‘sharp’, Latv ass ~
ass ‘strong, powerful, sharp’, OCS ostru ‘sharp’, OInd asri-
‘sharp edge, edge’, asman- ‘stone, cliff’. An extremely clear
case for PIE status with a broad set of formations based on
this root. Although sometimes set here. Hit hekur ‘summit,
peak’ would appear to be a borrowing.
*kent- ‘sharp’. [IEW 567 ( *kent -); Wat 29 ( *kcnt-)\ Gl
— 509 —
SHARP
205 ( *k h ent h -)]. ON hannarr (< *hanparaz ) clever’, OHG
handeg ‘bitter, stern’, Goth handugs ‘wise’, Latv sits ‘hunting
spear’, Grk kevtso) ‘prick’. The connection between the
Germanic and Greek forms is uncertain. A variant *kneth2-
is seen in Av snaO -, OInd snath- ‘stab’. Widespread and old
in IE.
?*bhehag- Tsharp’. [7EW 107 (*bhag-)]. Grk (Cretan)
(paypog ‘whetstone’, Arm baric ‘bitter’. The meager attestation
and the considerable semantic distance between these two
forms prevents the positing of this form as IE.
?*Kpxt6s pointed ’. [IEW 541-542 ( *ka-to-)-, Buck 15.78],
OIr cath ‘?wise; ?holy, sacred’, Lat catus ‘sharp, pointed’, OInd
sita- ‘sharpened, sharp’. The Old Irish form has been treated
as a Latin loan or connected to OIr caid ‘holy, pure, noble’.
Weak case for IE status. Most likely independent develop-
ments of *keh x (i)- ‘sharpen’.
See also Fish; Perch; Sharpen; Stone; Whetstone.
U.C.S., M.N.]
SHARPEN
*k ehx(i)- ‘sharpen, hone’. [IEW 541-542 (*ice(i»; Wat
32 {*ko-)\ GI 199 (*Hk h -eH-)]. The underlying verb is
preserved only in OInd slsati ~ syati ‘sharpens, whets’. There
are a number of widespread derivatives: (1) *kp x tos in OIr
cath ‘wise’ (a hapex legomenon and possibly a loan), Lat catus
‘acute, sharp of sense’, OInd sita- ‘whetted, sharp’; (2)
*koh x nos doubtfully in Grk xajvog ‘pinecone, fircone; peak
of a helmet’ (if < * ‘sharpened object’), kcoveiov ‘hemlock’ (<
* ‘coniferous’), more certainly in OInd sana- (with Mind -n-
for expected - n -) ‘whetstone’, TochB kantsa- ‘sharpen’ (if <
*koh x n-es-eh a -)\ (3) *koh x ros in Arm sur ‘sharp’, srem
‘sharpen’ (with numbers (2) and (3) possibly reflecting a
heteroclitic *Roh x f, gen. *kp x nos)\ (4) *koh x inis in ON hein
‘whetstone’, OE han ‘whetstone’ (> NE hone), Av saeni- ‘point’;
(5) *kp x lo/eh a - in Arm sal ‘slab, anvil’, OInd sili- ‘stone’. Yet
other formations are to be seen in Lat cos (gen. cotis)
‘whetstone’ and probably Alb thike ‘knife’ (if < *kih x k( w )eh a -
or, if *-h x - = *-hi~, *kehiik( w )eh a - ‘sharpened object’).
Widespread and obviously old in IE.
*kseu- ‘rub, whet’ (pres. *ks-n6-u-ti) [IEW 586
( *ks-eu-)\ Wat 30 ( *kes-)\ Gl 192 (*k h sn-io- ~ *k h s-n-eu-)\
BK 243 ( *kf h Jas-/*kl h l 9 s-)\ . Lat novacula (< *ksneueh a ~)
‘razor’, ON snoggr ‘cut-short’, Grk ^vco ‘shave, rub’, tgvpov
‘razor’, Av hu-xsnuta - ‘well sharpened’, OInd ksnauti ‘whets,
sharpens’, ksura- ‘ razor ’. Sufficiently widespread to guarantee
PIE status.
*k w ed- ‘whet, sharpen’. [IEW 636 ( *k u ed-)\ Wat 33
(*k w ed-)\ Buck 15.78; BK 341 ( *k’ w at’-/*k’ w 9 t ’-)]. Lat
triquetms (< *tri-qued-ro-) ‘having three comers, triangular’,
ON hvass ‘sharp, keen’, bvatr'quick, sharp’, OE hwaes ‘sharp,
piercing’, hwaet ‘sharp, quick; bold, brave’, hwettan ‘sharpen,
incite, encourage’ (> NE whet), OHG (h)waz ‘sharp, rough,
severe’, wezzen ‘sharpen’, Goth ga-lvatjan ‘sharpen, incite,
entice’. A word of the IE northwest.
See also Knife; Pine; Razor; Sharp; Whetstone. [D.Q.A.]
SHEATFISH
*(s)k w *los ‘sheatfish, wels ( Silurus glanis)'. [IEW 958
(‘(W'a/o-s); Wat 61 {•(s)k w al-o-)\ BK 330 (*fc'7'7a/-)|. Lat
squalus ‘large sea-fish’ (according to Pliny it is viviparous and
cartilaginous but not a flatfish, thus a ‘shark’?), ON hvalr
‘whale’, OE hwael ‘whale’ (> NE whale), OHG hwal ‘whale’,
MHG wels ‘sheatfish’, OPrus kalis ‘sheatfish’, Grk (Hesychius)
aonaXog (< *sk w alos and not well explained initial a-) ‘fish’,
Av kara- ‘a kind of fish’, MPers karmahlk a mythical fish, the
largest of fish (lit. ‘moon-fish’ < as the sheatfish is basically a
nocturnal feeder). It is significant that Hesychius localizes
the use of acmaXog ‘fish’ to the Athamanians who inhabited
the region of northwestern Greece drained by the Acheloos
(the modem Aspropotamos), the one river in Greece where
sheatfish are native. The sheatfish is a large freshwater fish
that may achieve a length of one meter and weigh 10 kg. It
inhabits the big, slow-moving rivers and lakes of Asia and
eastern Europe (as far west as the Elbe). It is very' well known
along the large rivers such as the Danube and the Dnieper
but it is apparently absent from Siberia and the arctic north
although present in Central Asia. It seems likely that *(s)k w alos
originally designated the ‘sheatfish’ and as speakers of various
IE stocks migrated outside its habitat, the name was given to
other large important fish (or cetaceans). In any case the range
of attestations for this word strongly suggests PIE status.
*kimos ‘sheatfish’. Lith samas ‘sheatfish’, Latv sams
‘sheatfish’, Rus som ‘sheatfish’, Grk KapacrqvEg (pi.) 'a kind
of fish’. A word of the center of the IE world; a partial replace-
ment for the previous word.
See also Fish. ID.Q.A]
Further Reading
Rodriguez, M. S. (1989) Indo-European *(s)k w alo/i-s ‘sheat-fish’.
J1ES 17, 177-180.
SHEEP
*h 2 duis (gen. *h 2 ^mos) ‘sheep ( Ovis aries)'. [IEW 784
(*oui-s); Wat 46 ( *owi-)\ Gl 493-494 ( *howi -); Buck 3.25,
3.28; BK 370 ( *uw-/*ow-)[ . OIr oi ‘sheep’, Lat ovis ‘sheep’,
ON *er‘sheep’, OE eowu ‘sheep’ (> NE ewe), OHG ou ~ ouwi
‘sheep’, Goth awepi ‘herd of sheep’, a wistr ‘sheep-fold’, OPrus
awins ‘ram’, Lith avis ‘sheep’, Latv avs ‘sheep’, OCS ovfnu
‘sheep’, Grk o(f)ig ‘sheep’, Arm hovi-w ‘shepherd’, Luv
hawa/i- ‘sheep’, Lycian xawa- ‘sheep’, Wakhi yobc (< Proto-
Iranian *avi-ci-) ‘ewe’, OInd avi- ‘sheep’, TochB eye
(< *h20ueis) ‘sheep’, (pi.) am (< *h2eueies) ‘ew r es’ (whether
these two words are part of a single paradigm in Tocharian B
is very doubtful). Widespread and old in 1E.
*h 2 o\}ikeh a - ewe’. [/EW784 (*ouika)-, Buck 3.28; BK 370
( *uw-/*ow -)]. Wels ewzg’hind’, OCS ovfci ‘ewe’, OInd avika
‘ewe’. A regular feminine derivative of the previous word, itself
of PIE age.
^aeg^hnos lamb’. [IEW 9 ( *ag >J h-no-s), Wat l ( *ag w h -
no-)\ Gl 499 {*a^ 0 no-)\ Buck 3.29) OIr uan ‘lamb’, Wels
oen ‘lamb’ (Celtic as if < *h a og w nos, with the vowel of
— 510
SHEEP
*h 20 uisl), Lat agnus ‘lamb’, avillus (< *h a eg w nelo-) ‘lamb’,
OE eanian (as if < *h a eg w no -) ‘to lamb’ (> NE yean), OGS
(j)agnp ‘lamb’, Grk dpvoq ‘lamb’. A word of at least the west
and center of the IE world.
*yfhjCn (gen. *yifhinds) or *u(f)ren (gen. *y jnds) ‘lamb’.
[IEW 1170 ( *u e ren- •); GI 499 (*wr-en-); Buck 3.29], Myc
we-re-ne-ja (= /wreneio/a-/) ‘pertaining to a lamb’, Grk
(f)apriv (gen. (f)apvoq) ‘lamb’, (Tsakonian) vanne ‘lamb’,
Arm gam (gen. garin ) iamb’, Av varan- iamb’, NPers barra
(< *vamaka~) ‘lamb’, OInd uran- ‘ram, sheep’, urana- ‘(young)
ram, sheep’. The Greek forms are slightly easier to derive from
a form without a laryngeal while the Old Indie ones are
somewhat easier to understand if we do start with a laryngeal.
Related forms are Lith veras ‘lamb’, Sogd wr’n (< Proto-Iranian
*varana-, as if < PIE *uer(hi)on-) ‘lamb’, Oss waer iamb’,
Roshani warbon (< *vara(h)-pana- ) ‘fur-robe, sheepskin coat’.
A word of the center and east of the IE world, overlapping
the previous entry only in Greek.
*hier- ‘lamb, kid’. [ JEW326 ( *er-); Wat 17 ( *er-); Gl 500
( *er(i)-)\ Buck 3.26; BK 437 ( *ar-/*ar-)\. OIr erp ‘goat; fallow
deer’, ScotsGael earb ‘roedeer’ (Celtic < *hier-bhih a -~ *hjer-
bheh a - ), Lat aries (gen. arietis ) ‘ram’, Umb eriet- ‘ram’, OPrus
eristian iamb’, Lith eras ‘lamb’, Latv jprs iamb’, Grk epicpoq
‘young goat (of either sex)’, Arm oro] (< *eroj) iamb’, erinj
‘young cow’, OInd areya- (< *hidreio-) ‘ram’. Widespread
and apparently old in the IE world.
*moisds ‘ram, sheep; fleece, skin’. [IEW 747 ( *moiso-s ;)].'
OPrus moasis ‘bellows’, Lith maisas ‘bag, sack’, Latv maiss
‘sack’, OCS mechQ ‘(leather) sack’, Rus mekh ‘skin, sack’, Av
maesa- ‘ram’, maesl- ‘ewe’, OInd mesa- ‘ram, sheep; fleece,
skin’, mesi- ‘ewe; fleece, skin’. Compare the derivative *mois-
to- in Hit maista- ‘± bale of wool’. Widespread and old in IE.
Cf. another derivative *moisos in ON meiss ‘basket’ and OHG
meis(s)a ‘baggage’.
?*(sJlcegos ‘sheep/goat’. [Mayrhofer I, 558-559; Buck 3.251 .
With the initial *s- we have Oss ssey (< *skegeh a -) ‘she-goat’,
Ashkun did (< *chagala~) ‘sheep’, Wakhi ceg ‘kid’, OInd
chagala- ‘he-goat’; with lengthened grade we have OE sceap
‘sheep’ (> NE sheep), OHG schaf ‘sheep’ (Gmc *skepa- by
dissimilation < *skeka- < *skegom), OInd chaga- ‘he-goat’,
Marathi saga (< *chagya- ) ‘flock of sheep’; without the initial
*s- we have MDutch hoek(e) ‘he-goat’, OE hecen ‘kid’,
MDutch hoekijn ‘kid, lamb’ (< Proto-Gmc *hoka(n)- and
hoklna -), ON hpkull ‘priest’s cloak, cope’ (< * ‘goatskin’), OE
hacele ‘cloak’ (> NE hackle ), OHG hachul ‘cloak’, Goth hakuls
(< Proto-Gmc *hakula-). Not everyone would agree that the
Germanic words for ‘sheep’ belong here, but this seems
altogether the most likely source. Attestation in Germanic
and Indo-Iranian would seem to guarantee PIE status for this
word.
Archaeological Evidence
The wild sheep, the Asiatic mouflon ( Ovis orientals ) which
is primarily confined to western Asia, is the probable ancestor
of most domestic sheep along with the possible contribution
of the urial sheep (Ovis vignei) of north Iran to northwest
India. Domestication of wild sheep probably took place about
the same time or slightly later than the goat, l e., c 8000 BC
in Iraq and Iran and it appears in neighboring regions, includ-
ing India, by the seventh millennium. The domestic sheep
(Ovis aries ) predominates in the early Neolithic fauna of
southeast Europe in the seventh and sixth millennia and also
appears contemporaneously in the Caucasus and perhaps even
the southern Urals. In general, the earliest waves of domestic
sheep spread through Europe and their proportion as a part
of the Neolithic herd or flock decreases with distance such
that they are frequently of tertiary importance (after cattle
and pig) in central, western, and northern Europe.
The semantic field of the words for ‘sheep’ is interesting
and in considerable contrast to the terms for ‘goat’. In the
latter case, there are many words for ‘goat’ that appear to be
geographically restricted. On the other hand, a single term
*h 20 uis ‘sheep’ is virtually ubiquitous across the IE world
and other than ?*(s)kegos ‘sheep/goat’, all other terms,
whether widespread or regionally confined, refer to the young
sheep rather than replicate the meaning ‘sheep’. One might
have expected more words for the ‘(adult or generic) sheep’
since variation among prehistoric sheep was every much as
great as among goats. For example, in addition to the domestic
sheep, varieties of wild sheep lived alongside various IE stocks.
Although the domestic sheep ( Ovis aries ) may derive from
the Asiatic mouflon ( Ovis orientals), the latter did not become
extinct but still survives from the upland regions of Anatolia
to the southeast as far as southern Iran. Another wild variety,
the urial sheep ( Ovis vignei) is found distributed from eastern
Iran, across northern Afghanistan to northwest India while
the arkhar or argali sheep ( Ovis ammon) occupies highland
Central Asia, including the Altai, Pamirs, Tien Shan and
Himalayas. In Europe, the major alternative to the
domesticated sheep is the European mouflon (Ovis musimon)
which is usually taken to be a feral sheep of the western
Mediterranean that developed from the earliest domestic sheep
that were introduced in this region.
In addition to the distinction between the domestic and
the various wild sheep of different regions, there is also
variation within the domestic sheep as well. These variations
may comprise changes in the appearance of the horns and
the tails but most important is the alteration in the fleece of
the sheep. The earliest domestic sheep would appear to have
been exploited for their meat and probably their milk but not
their wool as the latter had not yet been developed. Primitive
and wild sheep have their fine underwool obscured by long
course kemps which required generations of selective breeding
to reduce and alter into finer wool which could be exploited
as a textile. Generally, textiles of any sort from the early
Neolithic tend to be made from plant fibre, wool only appears
toward the end of the Neolithic and in the Bronze Age. The
appearance of the larger woolly sheep has generally been
linked to either developments in the Near East which spread
across Anatolia into Europe or, alternatively, began north of
— 511
SHEEP
the Caucasus and spread westwards. In both cases, a larger
variety of sheep, some 10 cm taller than the early Neolithic
sheep, began to appear in an east to west spread. Since there
is clearly a PIE word for ‘wool’, it is possible that the most
widespread word for sheep’ among the IE stocks, *h 20 uis ,
may have referred to the later and larger woolly sheep rather
than that of the early Neolithic. Alternatively, the word may
derive from the early Neolithic and have been reapplied to
the later variety of sheep c 4000-3000 BC.
Sheep in Indo-European Ritual
Unlike cattle, horse, and perhaps even the pig and goat,
there is no great body of ritual literature or comparative myth
relevant to the sheep that would appear to be of PIE antiquity.
It may have been its very abundance in the economies of
many of the IE peoples, its docile behavior, or the nature of
its secondary products (wool, milk, hides rather than traction)
that accounts for its apparent lack of mythic valency. For
example, in the Avesta (Yast 25.5), when the animals to be
sacrificed to Arodvl are recited, they are apparently listed in
descending order of importance, i.e., a hundred stallions, a
thousand cattle, and ten thousand sheep. Nevertheless, in
trifunctional sacrifices such as that mentioned in the Avesta ,
the sheep or a ram is not only a regular component but its
place is often at the head, e g., in the Old Indie sautramani , it
is the deity representing the priest class, Sarasvati, who receives
the ram while the warlike Indra is offered a bull and the Asvins,
the representatives of the third estate, are presented with a
he-goat. In the Roman suovetaurilia, the sheep is sacrificed
along with a pig and bull.
Another ritual role for the sheep is seen in its frequency as
either a grave good or remains of a funeral feast deposited
with the deceased. Of the main sacrificed animals of the Pontic
Kurgan tradition, i.e., the Yamna and Catacomb cultures,
sheep is the most frequently sacrificed animal comprising
nearly 60% of the remains, followed by cattle and then horse.
Here the parts of the sheep deposited exhibit recurrent
patterns. Children are provided with the astragali or knuckle-
bones of the sheep while adults may have a skull, foot bones
or apparently a joint. On occasion there were the remains of
both the skull and the forelegs which would reflect a “head
and hooves” deposit where the forepart of the animal may
have been initially raised on a pole with skin intact (cf. the
Golden Fleece of the Argonaut tale).
See also Animal; Goat; Mammals; Wool. [D.Q.A., J.RM.J
Further Readings
Clutton-Brock, J. (1987) A Natural History of Domesticated
Mammals. Cambridge, University Press.
Mason, 1. L. (1984) Evolution of Domesticated Animals. London
and New York, Longman.
Ryder, M. L. (1983) Sheep and Man. London, Duckworth.
Zeuner, E E. (1963) A History of Domesticated Animals. London,
Hutchinson.
SHELLFISH
*karkr(o)- crab’. [IEW53 1 ( *karkar-\ Wat 27 ( *kar-)\ GI
451 ( *k h ark h ar-)\ BK 268 ( *k[ h ]ar-)\ . Lat cancer (dissinulated
from *karkro-1 ) ‘crab, lobster’, Grk KapKivoq (dissimulated
from *karkrmo-?) Crab’, Olnd karkata- (a Middle Indicism
for *karkfta- or a borrowing from some non-IE source?) Crab’.
OCS raku ‘crab’ is sometimes put here as well, under the
doubtful assumption that it reflects dissimilatory loss from
*kraku. Probably a word of PIE date. From *kar- ‘hard’; cf.
Olnd karkara- ‘hard’.
*kijih a ros ‘crayfish’. [IEW 558 ( *k e mer-)\ . ON humarr
‘lobster’, Grk Kap.(g)apoq~ Kappapiq a kind of lobster. Some-
times put here, but surely wrongly, is Olnd kamatha- ‘tortoise’.
*kifih a ros looks like a noun created from an adjective, i.e.,
*krph a ros, by accent retraction but such a morphological
explanation does not seem to point to any corresponding
semantic elucidation. The seemingly exact semantic equation
between Old Norse and Greek is probably an illusion. The
Proto-Indo-Europeans, wherever they may have lived,
undoubtedly had an inland orientation rather than a marine
one. Thus it is likely that both Old Norse and Greek have
transferred an inherited word, one found at least in the west
and center of the IE world, from the fresh-water crayfish to
the much larger and more important marine lobster.
*konkh 20 S ‘mussel (-shell) (= Unio spp.) and related
genera’. [LEW614 ( *konkho-)\ Wat 32 ( *konk(h)o-)\ GI 28
*Konk^o-)]. Grk Koyxoq ~ tcoyxP ‘mussel’ perhaps also ‘cockle
(= Cardium edule)\ mussel-shell’, Olnd sankha- ‘(conch-)
shell’. Latv sence ‘mussel’ (~ zence ~ zencis with secondary
z-) reflects a derived *kenkh 2 iios with a new full-grade. Grk
KO%Xoq ‘shell- fish with a spiral shell (used for dyeing purple)’
no doubt belongs here too though just how remains an open
question ( *konkhos> *kdkhnos> *kdkhlosl). Though often
taken as borrowings from some non- IE source in those
languages where they are attested, there seems to be no
particular reasons to assume that these attestations do not
reflect a common inheritance of a word at least of the IE center
and east. Formally it looks like an o-stem derivative of a
*konk(e)h 2 - (< *konk- ‘hang’). Shell-bead necklaces are
known since the Palaeolithic. Since the use of mussel-shell
included the making of beads, which were strung to make
necklaces and the like, it is possible that the semantic develop-
ment ran * ‘that which hangs’ > *‘bead(-material)’ > *‘shell’
> ‘mussel’.
See also Animal. [D.Q.A.l
SHIELD
*sk6its (gen. *skitds ) ‘shield, board’. \IEW 921
( *skai-to-)\ Wat 58-59 ( *skei-)\ Buck 20.34]. OIr sciath
‘shield’, Weis ysgwyd ‘shield’, OE scid thin slip of wood,
shingle’, OHG scit ‘board, plank’, OCS stitu shield’; a derived
*skoitom with a new full-grade is seen in Lat scutum ‘shield’,
OPrus staytan (probably a miswriting for *scaytan ) ‘shield’.
At least a word of the northwest of the IE world.
*spelo/eh a - shield’. \IEW 985-987 ( *sp(hk > l-ta ); cf. Wat
— 512 —
SHINE
63 ( *spel-)\ GI 643 ( *phol -)l ON //p/ ‘board’, possibly Luv
palahsa- ‘± blanket, coat’, OPers OKapoc-fiapcci ‘shield-
bearing’, MPers ispar ‘shield’, OInd phalakam ‘shield, board’.
Derived from *(s)p(h)el- ‘strip, tear off.
As the earliest shields would have been made entirely out
of organic material, either split planks of wood or animal hide,
their preservation in the archaeological record occurs only
under exceptional circumstances. One of the earliest objects
to be proposed as a shield derives from a Globular Amphora
burial dating to about 3000 BC. Although this find consider-
ably predates the general appearance of shields in Europe,
which are normally found coincidental with the emergence
of the bronze sword as a weapon, there is nothing ethno-
graphically unexpected about this; the Maring of New Guinea,
for example, whose own offensive weapons (bow, spear,
polished stone ax) perfectly parallel those of the Neolithic in
Eurasia, defended themselves with large wooden shields. But
most evidence in Eurasia does come from a later date. Shields
appear on Egyptian figures of the early second millennium
BC and in the Aegean they are known from Mycenaean Greece
c 1500-1 100 BC where both large rectangular (“tower”) and
figure-of-eight-shaped shields are depicted in artwork (and
later small round shields appear). In general, shields appear
in the rest of Europe from the later Bronze Age, i.e., c 1200-
700 BC, and may be of either organic material or bronze.
Both lexical items of some IE antiquity derive from verbal
roots to ‘split’ or ‘tear off’ and suggest that the original referent
was either a wooden shield or one fashioned from leather.
The latter would be formed by stretching leather across a
wooden mold and both experimental archaeology and
depictions of its use in the Iliad attest to the utility of the
leather shield.
See also Plank; Warfare. [D.Q.A., J.RM.]
SHINE
*leuk- ‘shine’. [IEW 687-688 ( *leuk-)\ Wat 37 ( *leuk-)\
Gl 40; Buck 1.61, 15.56; BK 580 ( *law-/*hw-)\ . Intransitive
presents: Lat luceo ‘shine’, Hit lukke- ‘shine’, Olnd rocate
‘shines’ (Latin and Hittite agree on PIE *leuk-ehi-\ the Olnd
*leuk-e/o- must be a newer formation); transitive presents
(PIE *loukeie/o -): Lat luceo ‘kindle’, Hit lukke- ‘kindle’, Av
raocayeiti ‘makes shine’, Olnd rocayati ‘makes shine’. The
derivatives, both nouns and adjectives, are many, without
any special enlargement we have Mir loch ‘shining’, Weis Hug
(noun) ‘light’ (Celtic < *louko-), Lat lux{ noun) ‘light’, lucema
‘lamp’, ON logi ‘blaze’, leygr ‘flame, blaze’, OE lleg ‘flame,
blaze’, OHG loug ‘flame, blaze’ (the last three < *loukip-),
OE leah (< *lduko- ) ‘meadow’ (< * ‘opening to the light’) (>
NE lea), OCS luca ‘gleam’, fuel ‘ray of light’, Grk dg(piXvKri
‘twilight’, XevKoq ‘white’, Hit lalukkima ‘source of light’, Olnd
roca- ‘shining, radiant’, TochB lyuke (noun) ‘light’; from
*l(e)uk-m(en)-\ ON ljomi ‘radiance’, OE leoma ‘radiance’,
Olnd rukma- ‘gold decoration’; from *l(e)uk-(e)s-: OIr luan
(< *louksno~) ‘moon’, Lat lumen (< *leuksmen-) ‘light,
opening’, lustrum (< *leukstro-) ‘purification’, luna (<
*louksneh a -) ‘moon’, OPrus (pi.) lauxnos 'stars’, OCS luna
(< *louksneh a -) ‘moon’, Grk Xvyvoq (< *luksno -) lamp’,
OPers raucah- ‘day’, Av raocah- (noun) ‘light’, (adj.) ‘bright’,
Olnd ruksa- ‘gleaming’, rods- (noun) ‘light’, Ideas- ‘radiance’,
from *leuk(e)t-\ Gaul Loucetius ~ Leucelius ‘light-bringer’
(epithet of Mars), Osc Loucetius ‘light-bringer’ (epithet of
Jupiter), OE leoht (noun) ‘light’ (> NE light), OHG lioht
(noun) ‘light’, Goth liuhajj (noun) ‘light’, Hit lukkatla ‘on the
next morning’. A variant *leuk- is seen in OCS vuz-lysu ‘bald’,
Arm loys (gen. lusoy) (noun) ‘light’, Olnd rusant- light’.
Widespread and old in IE; the word for the shining of the
sun.
*dei- ‘shine, be bright (primarily of the sky?)’. [IEW 1 83—
184 (*dei-)i Wat 10 (*deiw-)\ GI 196; BK 1 19 (*t’a>'-/*t'a>'-)\.
ON fezfr‘glad’, OE ttEtan ‘gladden, cheer’, OHG zeiz ‘delicate’,
Grk deaxo ‘is seen’, deeXoq ‘visible’, Olnd dideti shines, is
bright’. Enlarged by *-u- we have *diieus ‘Jupiter’ and the
further derivative * deiuos ‘god’. Though not widely attested
itself, the fact that its derivate *dieu- in *di\eus and * deiuos
means that this word is very old and has suffered replacement
in most parts of the IE world.
*lap- ‘shine’. [ IEW 652-653 ( *la(ijp -), Wat 35 (*/ap-);
Buck 15.561 Olr lasaid ‘flames’, Weis llachar ‘shining’ (Celtic
< *lap-s-), OPrus lopis ‘flame’, Lith lope ‘torch, light’, Latv
lapa ‘torch’, Grk XapKco 1 give light, shine, ring loud and clear’,
Xoyviq (< *lop-s-ni- with new full-grade) ‘torch’, Hit lapzi
‘glows’, lap(pa)nuzi ‘kindles’. Widespread and old in IE.
*bheh 2 - shine’ (pres. *bh 6 h 2 ti ) l IEW 104 ( *bha-)\ Wat 5
(*bha-)\ Buck 1.61, 15.56; BK 20 {*bah-/*b 3 h-)\. OIr ban
‘white’, OE bonian ‘ornament, polish’, ?Rus bas ‘ornament,
decoration’. Alb bej ‘make, do’ (< ‘bring to light’), Grk (pai'vca
‘bring to light’, (paivopai ‘appear’ (Albanian and Greek <
*bhh2-me/o-), Luv piha- (< *bheh2-) ‘splendor, might’, Av
ba- ‘shine’, banu- ‘light, ray of light’, Olnd bhati ‘shines’,
bhanQ- ‘light, appearance, ray of light’, bhas- ‘light, splendor’,
bMsati ‘shines, is bright’. Widespread and old in IE.
*bhleg- burn, shine’ (pres. *bhl6gti , pi. *bhlginti) [ IEW
124-125 ( *bheleg -), 139 ( *bheng -); Wat 6 ( *bhel -); Buck
1.55; BK 15 {*baiy -/*bal y -) J. Lat fulgo ‘lighten’, flamma (<
*flagma) ‘flame’, fulmen (< *bhlgmen-) ‘lightning,
thunderbolt’, OE blaec ‘black’ (< *bhlogo - ‘burned’) (> NE
black), OHG blecchen ‘be visible’, Grk (pXeyco'bmri , (pXeypa
‘flame’, cpXoi; ‘flame, torch’, Av brazaiti ‘gleams, shines’, Olnd
bhrajate ‘gleams, shines, glitters’ (if the Indo-lranian words
do not belong with the following entry), TochAB palk- shine -
Widespread and old in IE.
*bherhxg- ‘shine, gleam’. [IEW 139 ( *bherag -); Wat 7
( *hherdg-)\ GI 532 ( *b h erHk ’-); Buck 15.56, 15.57; BK 16
(*bar-/*bor-)\. Weis berth ‘shiny’, ON bjartr ‘light’, OE beorht
‘shiny, brilliant, light, clear’ (> NE bright), OHG beraht shiny’,
Goth bairhts ‘bright, shiny’ (Celtic and Germanic <
*bherhxgto-), Lith breksta ‘dawns’ (with apparent *-g- rather
than *-g-), Pol brzask ‘dawn’. Alb bardhe (< *bhfh x g~) ‘white’,
perhaps Av brazaiti ‘shines’ and Olnd bhrajate ‘shines, beams,
glitters’ (if they do not belong with the previous entry).
— 513
SHINE
Widespread and old in IE. Related to the word for the ‘birch’.
*(s)kand- ‘shine, glitter (particularly of the moon)’. [IEW
526 ( *kand - ~ *skand-)\ Wat 27 ( *kand-)\ Buck 15.56]. Weis
cann ‘white, bright’, MBret cann ‘full moon’, Lat canded ‘glitter,
shine’, candidus ‘shining white, clear, bright’, candidates
‘candidate for office’ (< ‘one clothed in a white toga’), in-
cendere ‘kindle’, Alb hene (< *skandneh a -) ‘moon’, Grk
(Hesychius) Kctvdapoq ‘coal’, OInd candati ‘shines, is bright’,
candra- ~ scandra- ‘shining; moon’. Widespread and old in
IE.
*syeid- ‘shine’. [IEW 104 ( *sueid-)\ Wat 68 ( *sweid-)} .
Lat sidus (gen. sidcns) ‘constellation, star’, considero ‘examine’
(< an augural term * ‘observe the stars carefully’), OE switol
‘distinct, clear; open, public’, Lith svidu ‘shine, am glossy’,
svidus ‘shiny, glossy’, svindii ‘break (of the day)’, Latv svist
‘breaks (of the day)’, Av x v aena- ‘glowing’. Widespread and
old in IE.
*mer- ‘shine, shimmer’. [LEW 733 ( *mer-)\ Wat 42
( *mer -)]. Lat merus ‘pure, bare’, ON mura ‘silver-weed’, OE
a-merian ‘test, examine; purify, refine’, Rus mar ‘blaze of the
sun’, Grk pappaipco ‘shimmer’, Maipa ‘Sirius’ (< *‘the
shimmerer’), papf/bj ‘glowing ashes’, OInd marici- ‘shining
mote, beam of light’. Widespread and old in IE.
*keuk- ‘shine, burn’, f IEW 597 ( *keuk-)\ Wat 31
{*keuk-)\ GI 84-85 ( *k h euk h -)\ Buck 15.56]. Grk KVKvog
‘swan’ (< *‘the white one’), Av soc- ‘burn, flame’, atra-saoka-
‘firebrand’, saocinvant- ‘burning with a bright flame’, Khot
sujs- ‘burn’, va-suj- ‘purify’, OInd socati ‘shines, glows, burns’,
sue - ‘light, glow, flame’, soka- ‘light, flame’, soka- ‘glowing’,
socis - ‘light, flame’, sukra- ‘light, bright, white’, TochB sukye
‘shining’. A word of the center and east of the IE world.
*gher- ‘shine, glow’. [IEW 441-442 ( *gher-)\ Wat 22
( *gher-) 1 . ON grar ‘gray’, OE gr£g ‘gray’ (> NE gray), OHG
grao ‘gray’ (Gmc < *greyo-), OPrus sari ‘glow’, Lith zeriu
‘shine’, zeruoti ‘glow, be glowing; sparkle, glitter’, OCS ziijQ
‘see, glance’, Rus zretV see’. The underlying verb is attested in
only Baltic and Slavic; a derivative in Germanic. A word of
the northwest IE area.
*h 2 eug- ‘shine, become bright’. [ IEW 87 ( *aug-)\ Wat 4
(*aug-)]. Alb agon ‘dawns’, agim ‘dawn, morning’, Grk avyri
‘beam of light’, avya^o) ‘shine, brighten’. A word restricted
to the center of the IE world.
?*(s)plend- ‘shine’. [IEW 987 ( *(s)p(h)el-)\ Wat 63
( *spel -); Buck 15.56], Olr les (< *plend-tu- ) ‘light’, Lat
splended ‘shine, glitter; am glorious’, Lith splendziu ‘light’
(though this word is not well established), TochAB planta-
‘rejoice, be glad’ (< *‘be shining’). The sparse attestations are
geographically widespread, the existence of the (Old)
Lithuanian word is not well-assured, and the Tocharian is
semantically a bit distant (though the change of ‘shine’ to
‘joy’ is documented in many other cases). If all these words
belong together we have a good case for a late PIE status for
this lexeme.
?*leip - ‘light, cause to shine’. [ IEW 653 ( *la[i]p-)\ . ON
leiptr ‘lightening’, Lith liepsna ‘flame, blaze’, Latv lipt ‘light’.
Perhaps a word of the IE northwest.
?*bherk- ‘shine’. [IEW 141-142 (*bhcrak-)] Wat 8
( *bherak-)\ BK 16 ( *bar-/*bar-)\ . Olr brecc ‘speckled’, Weis
brych ‘speckled’, ON brja ‘light up’, Grk (Hesychius) <popKoq
‘white, gray’. Hit parkuis ‘clean’, OInd bhrasatc ‘shines,
glitters’. Semantically and phonologically similar to *bherh x g-
but it is anything but certain that all these words belong
together. Doubtful PIE status.
??*ghyoig w os ‘radiant’. (7EW495 ( *g/7yoA: y -); Buck 1.541.
Lith zvaigzdi ‘star’, Latv zvaigzne ‘star’, OCS dzvezda ‘star’,
Rus zvezda ‘star’ (the Balto-Slavic words for ‘star’ may reflect
a PIE *ghuoig w -dheh\- ‘radiance-putter’ or the like), Grk
( poipog ‘pure, bright, radiant (of water or flame)’. The
connection of the Greek word with the Balto-Slavic words is
most tenuous. Very probably the Balto-Slavic words for ‘star’
reflect a Balto-Slavic innovation that has nothing to do with
the otherwise isolated Greek word.
See also Birch; Burn; Color; Light; See; White. 1D.Q.A.)
SHOE
*kph ipls shoe’. [IEW 581 ( *kerap -); Buck 6 511 Olr
cairem ‘shoemaker’, Weis crydd ‘shoemaker’. Late Lat
carpisculum ‘kind of shoe’ (quite probably a loanword from
some [IE] source), OPrus /curpe’shoe’, Lith kiirpe ‘shoe’, Latv
kurpe ‘shoe’, OCS krupa ‘patches’, SC krplje ‘snowshoe’, Grk
KpTjmq l shoc' . If ON hnflmgr ‘shoe , OE rifehng (< *hrifeling)
‘shoe’ belong here, they reflect a Germanic innovation *bref-
(as if from PIE *krep-). The strong phonological, morpho-
logical, and semantic agreement of at least four IE stocks seems
to assure at least a word of the west and center of the IE
world. This word is commonly understood as an extension
of the root *(s)ker- ‘cut’ where it would indicate footwear
that has been fashioned from leather rather than woven from
bast. The latter is attested, for example, at least since the
Neolithic where sandals or the soles of shoes, woven from
the bast of oak or lime trees, have been recovered from Alpine
lake-side settlements. Leather shoes are also attested since
the Neolithic, e.g., the oldest European leather shoe was
recovered from a Dutch bog and dates to c 2500 BC and
similar leather shoes are regularly attested in later periods.
The shoes of Otzi, the Tyrolian Iceman, which date back to c
3300 BC, had soles of leather while the uppers were probably
fur and the entire shoe strapped up with knotted grass cord.
The shoe or sandal may also have served as an item of IE
ritual. The evidence for this is both iconographic and
mythological. The latter is suggested by a curious parallel
between the Old Indie rajasdya , the investment of a king,
and an early Irish tale. In the Old Indie ritual, the designated
king is presented with the vestment of a priest, three arrows
and shoes fashioned from the skin of a boar In the Irish “Life
of St Maedoc”, a king is invested with a silk shirt, a spear (the
bow and arrow were very rarely employed by the early
medieval Irish) and shoes filled with silver. D. Dubuisson has
suggested that the three talismans were indicative of the three
Dumezilian “functions”, i.e., priest (white vestments), warrior
514 —
SHOULDER
Shoe Neolithic sandal.
(weapons) and herder-cultivators where the shoes were
symbolic of sexuality and fertility
The iconographic evidence is to be seen in the stone stelae
of the Pontic-Caspian region, and more rarely in western
Europe, where a motif, commonly regarded as the impressions
of paired feet, sandals or shoes are found on anthropomorphic
stelae. In the Ukraine they may be found on the front or rear
of the stelae, sometimes apparently inserted behind a belt.
They can be variously interpreted as shorthand for the position
of a figure (either in a standing or kneeling position), or
symbolic. On occasion they are found on figures also display-
ing weapons and other signs which might suggest some
correspondence with the royal investiture motifs but such
combinations do not occur sufficiently often or in such clear
association as to be regarded as canonical and they are just as
likely to be fortuitous.
See also Stelae. [D.Q.A., J.PM]
Further Readings
Dubuisson, D. (1978) Lequipement de l’inauguration royale dans
l’lnde vedique et en Irlande. Revue de I’Histoire des Religions 2,
153-164.
Knobloch, J. (1987) Die Kleidung der lndogermanen und ihrer
Erben: Schuwerk, in Studienzum Indogermanischen Wortschatz,
ed. W. Meid, Innsbruck, 65-66.
SHOOT
?*h a enkulos shoot’. [IEW 45-46 ( *anku-lo -)J. ON o// (<
Proto-Gmc *anhula -) ‘bud, shoot’, Olnd ankura- ‘young
shoot’. The apparent identity of form and meaning in these
two attested words suggests at least that the reconstructed
word was a part of the PIE vocabulary. Perhaps a derivative
from *h a enk- ‘bend’ and thus related to Grk dyKvXoq
‘crooked’.
See also Bend, Branch; Plants. [D.Q.A.l
SHORE
*h a eh x peros (?) ‘river bank, shore of sea’. [7£W 53
( *apero-)\ Wat 3 ( *apero-)\ . OE dfer ( masc.), oefer (fem.),
cefre (neut.) ‘bank’, MHG uover (neut.) ‘bank’ (< Gmc
*dbera-), Grk pneipoq (fem.), (Aeolic) aneppoq (< *aperios )
‘shore’, ?Arm ap‘n ‘shore’. The Greek word is feminine while
Germanic has all genders (the masculine and neuter may easily
have replaced the feminine -os). In Middle and High German
the word is recent which suggests that it is a North Sea-
Germanic word, possibly from peoples living along the sea-
coast. It is hard to exclude the Armenian form from the rest
although the p‘ is left unexplained (< *ph x I). A reconstruction
like *aper- may be *h a eper-, a vfddhi-derivation from a form
like Olnd apara - ‘farther, later’, Goth afar ‘later’, but this
particular derivation, which would yield something like ‘the
region which, seen from inland/the interior, lies backwards/
lower’, is semantically unconvincing and the stress would also
be unusual; the Armenian form would not in this case be
cognate. Otherwise we must posit a root *h a eh x per- or
*hxeh a per~. The unusual structure of such a root makes it
useful to reconsider the old etymology that the word contains
the “prefix” found in Olnd a and a word for ‘shore’ as in Olnd
para - (< *por-o-). However, this substantive does not appear
to be old. Perhaps the word was an adjective of land’, with
*per- ‘to cross’, i.e., ‘(the land) towards which one crosses
over’, which might explain the feminine gender of the o-stem
(but which would again exclude the Armenian word as a
cognate).
?*moleh a -‘ shore’. \IEW 721-722 ( *mola)\ BK 550
( *mal-/*mol-) |. Lith mala ‘land’, pamalis ‘border, surrounding’,
jormala ‘sea-coast’, Latv mala ‘border, rim, shore’, jurmala
‘sea-coast’. The meaning ‘shore’ in Baltic is secondary and
derives from ‘border’. Although presented as cognate, Grk
npopoXf) ‘approach, foot of mountain, mouth of river’ carries
meanings that are late and do not support a primary meaning
of ‘shore’. Probably from ‘appear, come forward’ but
this offers no evidence for a PIE word for ‘shore’.
See also Lake; River; Sea [R.S.RB |
SHORT
*mfghus ~ *mregh- ‘short (both temporal and spatial)’.
[IEW 750-751 ( *mreghu-)\ Wat 43 ( *mregh-u-) ; G1 685
( *mreghu-)\ Buck 12.591. Lat hre\is (? *mregh- with *mr- >
br-) ‘short, brief’, OE myrge ‘pleasantly, leisurely’, OHG murgi
‘short’, Goth gamaurgjan ‘shorten’, Grk (Ipaxvq ‘short (of time
or space)’, Av morozu- ‘short’, Olnd muhu- (with Middle
Indian phonological development) ‘suddenly, shortly’.
Connections to Slavic words for ‘fast’ (cf. Rus bdrzyf) have
been proposed but are very unlikely. Even without the insecure
Latin and Slavic connections, PIE status is likely.
?*gher- less, short’. | IEW 443 ( *gher-)\ G1 199
(*gVes-); Buck 12.59], OIr gerr ~ gair 1 short’, Grk
‘worse, weaker’, Av hrasva- ‘less, short’, Olnd hrasati ‘becomes
smaller’. More recent sources have regarded the association
between the Greek and Indie forms as uncertain leaving this
form very sparsely supported.
See also Heavy; Less; Small. (J.C.S.J
SHOULDER
*hi/ 4 dmsos ‘shoulder’. [ IEW 778 ( *om(e)so-s)\ Wat 46
( *omeso -); Buck 4.30], Lat umerus ‘shoulder’, ON ass
— 515 —
SHOULDER
‘mountain-ridge’, Goth ams ‘shoulder’, Grk cofioq
(< *hi/ 4 dmsos ) ‘shoulder’, Arm us ‘shoulder, Hit an(as)sa-
‘hips, buttocks’ or ‘upper back’, Olnd amsa- ‘shoulder’, TochA
es ‘shoulder’, TochB anise ‘shoulder’ (Toch < *hi/ 4 omsos).
The oldest reconstructible word for ‘shoulder’ in IE.
*(s)kup- ‘shoulder’. [IEW 627 {*kup-)\ Buck 4.30], MLG
schuft (< *skup-tu-) ‘shoulder blade of cow or horse’, Alb
sup (< *kup-o -) ‘shoulder’, Av supti- ‘shoulder’, Olnd supti-
‘shoulder’ . Though not so widely attested, this word too would
appear to be old in IE. Perhaps the MLG schuft preserves the
older meaning here.
*h a eks- shoulder(-joint); axle’, *h a eksleh a - ‘shoulder’.
[IEW 6 ( *ages- , *aks)\ Wat 1 ( *aks-)\ GI 625 (*Hak h s-)\ Buck
4.30]. Lat axis ‘axle, axis’, OE eax‘axle, axis’, OHG ahsa ‘axle,
axis’, OPrus assis ‘axle, axis’, Lith asis ‘axle, axis’, OCS os I
‘axle, axis’, Grk cdqcov ‘axle, axis’, Av asayB (dual) ‘shoulders’,
Olnd aksa- ‘axle, axis’. Lat ala (< *h a eksleh a -) ‘shoulder, wing,
axilla’ (< *h a eUsloleh a -) ‘armpit’, ON pxl ‘shoulder’, OE eaxl
‘shoulder’ (> NE axle), OHG ahsala ‘shoulder’ (all < Proto-
Gmc *ahsla-), N Dutch oksel (< *ohsla~) ‘shoulder’, OE oxn
‘armpit’, OHG uochsana ‘armpit’. The underlying noun
*h a eks- has come to mean only ‘axle’ except in Avestan. The
derivative *h a eksleh a - has better retained what is probably
the original PIE meaning ‘shoulder’ (cf. the relationship of
‘nave’ and ‘navel’). Further derivatives in Germanic and Latin
mean ‘armpit’. Certainly of PIE date.
*pl(e)t- ‘shoulder(-blade)’. 1/EW833-834 ( *pl£t-), cf. Wat
5 1-52 ( *plat-)\ Buck 4.31], Mir leithe (< *pletieh a -) ‘shoulder’,
OCS pleste ‘shoulder’, Rus pleco ‘shoulder’ (Slavic <
*pletio~), Grk (bpoKXdxrj ‘shoulder-blade’, Hit paltana-
‘shoulder’. From *plet- ‘broad’. Though different in
morphological formation, the widespread attestation suggests
that the derivation as a whole is of high antiquity in PIE.
See also Anatomy, Arm; Axle; Elbow; Joint. [D.Q.A.]
SHOW
*deik- ‘show’. [IEW 188-189 ( *deik-)\ Wat 10 (*deik-)\
Gl 32 ( *t’eik *-); Buck 15.55], Lat died ‘say’, ON tea ~ tja
‘show, report’, OE teon ‘accuse’, OHG zlhan ‘accuse’, zeigon
‘show’, Goth ga-teihan ‘announce’, Grk 8ebcvvpi ‘show’, Av
disyeiti ~ daesayeiti ‘shows’, Olnd disati ~ desayati ‘shows’.
Cf. the widespread derivatives. (1) *diktis in OE tiht
‘accusation’, OHG bi-ziht ‘accusation’, Av a-disti- ‘instruction’,
Olnd disti- 1 instruction’; (2) *doikos in ON teigr ‘strip of land’,
Olnd desa- ‘direction’; (3) *dikeh a - in Grk Siktj ‘justice’, Olnd
disa ‘direction’. Though not found in Hittite and Tocharian,
this word is otherwise widespread and surely old in IE.
*d(h)ek w - ‘show’ (pres. *d(h)ek w -se/o-). Hit tekkussa- (=
tek w sa-) ‘show’, Av daxsa- ‘teach, show’. Isolated in Hittite
and Avestan but the exact coincidence of present formation
would seem to guarantee at least a late PIE status for this
word.
*bhoudh€ie/o - ‘waken, point out’. [IEW 1 50 ( *bheudh-)\
Wat 8 ( *bheudh-)\ BK l ( *baw-/*baw-)\- Lith baudziii
‘wakens’, OCS buditi ‘wakens’, Av baodayeiti ‘indicates’, Olnd
bodhayati ‘wakens’. The causative of *bheudh - pay attention’
At least a late derivative of the central area.
See also Watch. 1D.Q.A ]
SHREW
?*su(o)r~ ~ *s\}oraks shrew ( Neomys fodiens. So rex spp. ,
Crocidura spp.)’. [IEW 1049-1050 (*suer-); Gl 8451. From
*su(o)r-: Latv sussuris ~ susers ‘shrew’, Bulg sasar ‘shrew’;
from *suoraks\ Lat sorex(< *suorak~ ) ‘shrew’, Grk vpa<^ (<
*surak-) ‘shrew’. Cf. Rus surok ‘marmot’. This represents a
possible late PIE word for ‘shrew’, presumably so called after
its piping sound (cf. the related NE swarm [of bees] or Lat
susurrus ‘humming, murmuring, whispering). The cognates
suggest that the animal in question is not the common shrew
(Sorex araneus) which is found over most of Europe except
for the Mediterranean. Those whose range includes both that
of Italy and Greece would comprise the pygmy shrew ( Sorex
minutus) and the lesser white-toothed shrew ( Crocidura
suaveolens) while the water shrew ( Neomys fodiens) is found
in Italy but not in Greece.
See also Mammals. {D.Q.A.J
SHRINK
*tenk- ‘shrink, become compact, make thick’ [IEW 1068
( *tenk-)\ Wat 70 ( *tenk-)\. Mir techt (< *tenkto~) ‘coagulated’,
ON />e/(< *tenklo-) ‘buttermilk’, Lith tankus ‘thick, copious’,
Pashto tat (< *tahta- < *tnkto-) ‘thick’, NPers lalxina ‘sour
milk’, tanjidan ‘pull together’, Olnd tanakti ‘pulls together’,
a-tanakti ‘makes curdle’, takram (< *tpklom) ‘buttermilk’,
TochA taiiki ‘very, fully; full, blocked’, TochB tanki ‘very, fully,
full, blocked’ (Toch < *tpk- ‘± thick’ + a Proto-Toch suffix
*-/). Widespread and old in IE.
*reuk/g- ‘shrink, wrinkle up’, [cf. IEW 869-870
( *reuk/g -)]. Lat ruga ‘wrinkle’, Lith runkii ‘shrivel, become
wrinkled’, TochB ruk- ‘grow lean (with hunger)’. Not as wide-
spread as the previous word, but probably also old in IE.
See also Milk. [D.Q.A.]
SICK
*syergh- ‘be ill’, [cf. IEW 1051 ( *suergh-)\ Wat 68
( *swergh-): GI 105; Buck 4.84] . OIr serg(< *suerghos) illness,
diminishment’, Lith sergii ‘am sick’ ( sirgti ‘to be sick’), Latv
sgrg ‘is ailing’, sgrga ‘illness; be sick’, Alb dergjem
(< *suorgheie/o-) ‘lie ill, be bed-ridden’, TochA sark ‘illness’,
TochB sark ‘illness’. Distribution indicates PIE status.
*h 3 ligos l ill; bad’. [IEW 667 ( *oIeig-/k-)\ . Lith illness’,
Latv liga ‘severe illness, pestilence’, Alb hg ‘bad; ill; thin,
skinny’, Grk oXiyoq ‘few’, TochA lykaly ‘small, fine’, TochB
lykaske ‘small, fine’. Cf. Olr Each ‘suffering, unfortunate’, Lith
nu-Iiegti ‘fall ill’, and Grk Xoiyog (with loss of *h$- as
sometimes before *-o~) ‘ruin, harm, death’. A strong candidate
for PIE status.
*h iermen-‘ sickness’ . [Puhvel I: 160], ON armr ‘wretched,
wicked’, OE earm ‘weak, wretched’, OHG arm poor’, Goth
arms ‘pitiable, poor’, arma-hairts ‘merciful’ (Gmc <
— 516 —
SIDE
*hiormo-), Alb jerm 'stupor, delirium caused by high fever’,
Arm otorm (< *or-orm ) ‘pity, compassion’, Hit arman- ~
erman- ‘sickness’. Spottily attested, but surely of PIE age.
*seug- ‘be sick; take care of sick?’. [ IEW 9 1 5 ( *seug-)', Buck
4.84]. ON sjukr ‘sick’, OE seoc ‘sick’ (> NE sick), OHG sioh
‘sick’, suin' sickness’, Goth siuks'sxck ’, sauhts ‘sickness’, Arm
hiwcanim ‘sicken’. Though only certainly attested in Germanic
and Armenian, very probably at least dialectal in late PIE. A
younger word than the preceding ones.
*sokto- ‘sickness, ?dryness’. IGI 7 1 1 ( *sok h t h o-)\ . OIr socht
(< *soktos) ‘silence; stupor’. Hit saktaizzi ‘takes care of,
performs sick maintenance’. The Irish word is explained as
originally indicating a pathological state, e.g., the Irish king
Mac Datho is put into a stupor (socht) and remains three
days without food or drink, and may derive from *sek- ‘dry’
while the Hittite form appears to be a denominative that
presupposes a noun *sakta- (< *sokto~).
See also Medicine. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1975) Sick maintenance in Indo-European, in Indo-
European Studies 11, ed. C. Watkins, Cambridge, Mass., 379-
387.
SICKLE
*sfpo/eh a - ‘sickle’. [IEW 91 1-912 ( *serp-)\ Wat 58
(*serp-)\ GI 597 (*serpfi-)\ Buck 8.331. Latv sirpis ‘sickle’,
OCS srupu ‘sickle’, Rus serp ‘sickle’, Grk apnr] ‘sickle’, Hit
Gls sarpa- ‘agricultural tool (utilized in ritual along with a plow)’,
Oss aexsyrf ‘sickle’. Cf. Lat sarpd ‘cut away, prune (vines)’,
OHG sarf' rough’. Originally ‘the cutter’ (and a nominalization
by accent retraction from *sfpo- ‘cutting’). Widespread and
old in IE. The word was apparently borrowed into Finnish
sirppi ‘sickle’.
Neolithic sickles were composite tools consisting of a series
of blades (flint, chert, obsidian, etc.) that were inserted into a
handle of antler, wood or bone. They were known in south-
west Asia and Egypt by c 10,000 BC, even before the domestic-
ation of cereals, where they served for the harvesting of stands
of wild wheat and barley. In Europe, they are encountered
from the beginning of the Neolithic onwards as is also the
case for India and Iran, where they comprised an essential
component of the agricultural technology. The sickles might
be mounted in series into either a straight or, at least for
Europe, more often a curved handle. Generally, all that is
preserved are the sickle blades which often exhibit a character-
istic silica sheen produced by repeated cutting of cereals. Ia
some instances, however, it would appear that a single long
blade may have served as the sickle edge and such examples
are known from Swiss lakeside settlements of the Neolithic.
Metal sickles (copper and bronze) appear in the Near East by
the fourth millennium BC and bronze sickles are encountered
in the south Caucasus (Kuro-Araxes culture) by at least 3000
BC. Precisely when metal sickles first appeared in Europe is
difficult to establish. A figurine from the Neolithic site of
Szegvar-Tuskoves in Hungary depicts a seated figure holding
what has often been interpreted as a metal, presumably copper,
sickle over his shoulder in a gesture that is regarded as cultic.
Although a copper sickle has been recovered from Hungary,
it is without context and hence of uncertain date although it
may derive from the late Neolithic. By about the middle Bronze
Age (c 1500 BC) there is evidence of bronze sickles in temper-
ate Europe and by the late Bronze Age (c 1200 BC) hoards of
bronze sickles are a frequent find across Europe. If the *sjpo/
eh a - can indeed be assigned to PIE, then this could have
referred to either the composite stone tool or the later metal
sickles; all the IE stocks reflecting cognate terms do so at a
time when sickles would have typically been of bronze or
iron. It should be emphasized that sickles played important
roles in ritual and myth, and there is some evidence for long
retention of stone sickles in ritual use even after they had
been replaced by metal sickles in the secular sphere, e.g., the
Greek account of the castration of Ouranos by his son Kronos
is accomplished in some versions with a flint-bladed sickle
See also Agriculture; Cut; Harvest; Tool [D.Q.A., J PM.]
SIDE
*poksos(< *pogs6s) side, flank’. [IEW 792 (*pog~). Buck
4.40] . Latv paksis (< poksuo-) ‘corner of a house’, Olnd paksa-
‘wing, flank, side’; with lengthened grade ( *pokso/eh 3 - ): Rus
pakh ‘flank, loins’, pakha ‘armpit’, Oss faxs ‘side’. Cf. also
517 —
SIDE
Czech paze (< *pogio-) ‘arm’ and OInd pajasya- ‘belly, loins’.
Perhaps more distantly related are Olr ucht (< *poktu - )
‘breast’, and Lat pectus ‘breast’. At least a word of the center
and east of the IE world. If the Old Irish and Latin words
belong here, this group must be considered quite old in PIE.
*teig w - ‘± side’ . [ IEW 1 0 1 8 ( *(s)teig*-) 1 . Olr toib ( DIL taeb)
‘side’, Weis tu ‘side’ (Celtic < *toig w o~), Arm t'ekn ‘shoulder’.
It is not certain that the Celtic and Armenian words belong
together. If they do, they provide evidence for at least a late
PIE date.
[D.Q.A.l
SIEVE
*kreidhrom ‘sieve’. [IEW 946 (*skerE)\ Wat 32 (*krei-)\.
Olr criathar ‘sieve’, Weis crwydr ‘sieve’, Lat cnbrum ‘sieve’,
OE hrlder ~ hridder ‘coarse sieve’ (> NE ridder), OHG rlt(e)ra
‘coarse sieve’. Cf. Goth brains ‘pure’, Lat cemo (< *krino )
‘separate, sift, decide’, Weis gogryn(u) ~ gogrwn (< *upo-
krino) ‘sift’, Grk K-plwu‘cut, decide’. Further from *sker- t cut’.
A western dialect word.
*sehi(i)~ ‘sift’. [/EW889 ( *se(i)-)\ Wat 56 ( *se-)l . Lith sijdju
‘sift’, Latv sijat ‘sift’ (Baltic < *sh iii-eh a -), OCS serf ‘sift’, proseati
‘sift thoroughly’, Grk rjOeo) ‘sift’. Cf. the various derivatives
meaning ‘sieve’: *sehitIom : Weis hidl ‘sieve’, ON said ‘sieve’;
*sehiitom. Lith sletas ‘sieve’, OCS sito ‘sieve’; and Alb shosh
(< *shiieh a -so-) ‘sieve’ Grk i)6pog ‘sieve’, and Lat sinus (<
*shiih a sno ~ ) ‘bowl’. A word of the west and center of the IE
world.
The first term, *kreidhrom ‘sieve’, appears to derive from
the notion of dry-sieving grain, i.e., the sieve as a riddle, rather
than utilizing the instrument for separating liquids. This
distinction is important since the earliest ceramic sieves known
in Europe dating from the Neolithic period and later are
generally interpreted as strainers employed in the production
of dairy products rather than sifting cereal products.
See also Milk. [D.Q.A.l
SIGH
*lbjiesh x - ± breathe; sigh, groan’. [IEW 631 ( *Rues-)\ Wat
34 (*kwes-); Buck 4.511. Lat queror ‘complain, lament’, OE
hwdsan (originally a lengthened-grade intensive) ‘cough’,
OInd svasiti ~ svasati ‘blow, hiss, pant, snort; breathe, sigh,
groan’, TochB kwas- ‘mourn, lament’. To thi^etymon also
belong the Iranian words for ‘lungs’, e.gV, Av susi (dual),
Zoroastrian Pahlevi sus, NPers sus, all from Proto-Iranian
*sus-. Widespread and old in IE.
See also Breathe; Cough. [D.Q.A.]
SIGN
*gneh 3 irm ‘sign’. [IEW 377 ( *gno-mp-)\ Wat 24 ( *gno-)\
BK 295 ( *k , an y -/*k , 9n y -)]. Lat cognomen ‘surname’, ORus
znamja ‘sign, mark’, Grk yvcopa ‘distinctive mark’. A dialectally
restricted derivative of *gneh 3 ~ ‘know, be(come) acquainted
with’.
See also Know; Name. [D.Q.A.]
SILENT
*tuh 2 S-'be silent’. [Mayrhofer l, 663|. OPrus tusnan ‘quiet’,
Hit tuhuss(i)ye- ‘keep quiet, acquiesce’, Av lusni- ‘sitting
silently’, OInd tusnfm ‘quiet, silent’. The geographical distri-
bution would seem to guarantee high antiquity for this word.
*tak- ‘be silent’ (pres. *takeh\-). [IEW 1055 ( *tak-)', Wat
69 ( *tak-)\ GI 26; Buck 18.23]. Olr tachtaid chokes, stifles’,
Weis tagu ‘choke’, gosteg ‘silence’, Lat laced ‘am silent’, ON
pegja ‘be silent’, OHG dagen ‘be silent’, Goth paban be silent’.
A word of the west of the IE world.
?*s\}Ig/k- ‘be silent, hush’. [IEW 1052 ( *sui-g/k/p-)\ Wat
68 (*swf-); Buck 18.23). OE swigian be silent', OHG swlgen
‘be silent’, Grk mydco ‘am silent’. Restricted to two stocks
and almost certainly of onomatopoeic origin, presumably
based on some sort of ‘hushing’ sound.
See also Deaf; Quiet. [D.Q.A.]
SILVER
*h 2 erg-pt-om ‘white (metal), silver’. [IEW 64 (*ar(e)-g-);
Wat 3 ( *arg-ent-); Gl 617 ( *Hark'-)\ Buck 9.65; BK 403 ( *har-
ak ,y -Whar-ak? -)] . Olr argat ‘silver’, MWels aryan(t) ‘silver’ (<
*h 2 fg-Qt-om ) (cf. Gaul ARGANTODAN ‘mint, moneyer?’),
Lat argentum (< *h 2 erg-pt-om ) ‘silver’, Umb a regetud ‘silver’,
Arm arcat‘ ‘silver’, Luv KL BABBAR-anza ( *barkan/zal ), Av
orozatom ‘silver’, OPers ardata- ‘silver’, Oss aerzaet ‘silver’ (Iran
< *h 2 rg-pt-om) . The distribution appears broad enough to
suggest PIE status. Although the word is obviously formed
from the base *h 2 erg- ‘white’, the specific morphological shape
reconstructed here means only a metal, usually ‘silver’. From
Armenian the form may have spread to neighboring Caucasian
languages, e.g., Ingush arsi ‘silver’ although the phonetics of
such loans are far from clear. OInd rajatam ‘silver’ is often
mentioned here but is derived from *reg- ‘to color’ while the
superficially similar Tocharian forms, TochA arki ‘white’,
TochB arkwi ‘white’, cannot be set here either. Although
formed from the same root, Grk apyvpoq ‘silver’ is formed
differently and is apparently an independent development;
the diminutive dpyvpiov ‘a silver coin’ is the source of
Messapic argorian.
*silVbVr- ‘silver’. [GI 366, 617; Buck 9.65], lbero-Celt
silaPur (/silabur/) ‘silver’, ON silfr ‘silver’, OE seolfor ‘silver’
(> NE silver ), OHG silab(a)r ‘silver’, Goth silubr ‘silver’, Lith
sidabras ‘silver’, Latv sidrabs ‘silver’, OCS slrebro ‘silver’, Rus
serebro ‘silver’. The distribution of these words is obviously
western and the variation between medial /, c/, and r points
to the alien phonetics of a substrate loanword. The phonetic
similarities with such items as Berber azret '‘silver’, Hausa
azurfa ‘silver’ and most notoriously Akkadian sarpu are
questionable. The last named form means ‘refined’ and the
actual Akkadian word for silver’ is kaspu. A loan from
Kartvelian *werc\xl has also been suggested but the many
phonetic differences not to speak of distance renders such a
proposition too uncertain. The most tantalizing connection,
given the reflex of this word in the first Botorrita inscription,
is Basque zilhar ‘silver’.
— 518 —
SING
Archaeological Evidence
By c 3500 BC silver objects appear in both Egypt and
Mesopotamia. More relevant to the early Indo-Europeans is
the discovery of silver artifacts, e.g., beads, discs, and even
daggers, in the Aegean on Crete, mainland Greece and
especially the Cyclades islands, i.e. , c 2500-2000 BC. In Troy
I and II (c 2500 BC) silver bars have been recovered and
silver is also attested in the north Caucasus by the late fourth
and early third millennium BC where at Maykop, silver was
fashioned into vessels, silver poles (for holding up a canopy),
figures (of bulls, antelopes, etc.) and ornaments. There is also
the find of a silver dog at Klady in the north Caucasus and
occasionally silver rings are recovered from Yamna burials on
the Ukrainian and south Russian steppe. Silver rings are also
found in the Usatovo culture from c 3500-2900 BC and they
are one of the markers of steppe movements into southeast
Europe where they have been found in burials on twenty -six
sites. The source of the silver is unclear and could have entered
the northwest Pontic by way of the Caucasus or from the
Aegean. That silver was widely exchanged at this period is
also seen by its occasional presence in the Afanasevo culture
in the Yenisei-Altai region. The use of silver (as a deliberate
alloy with copper) is seen in Central Asian (Namazga IV
period) sites of c 3000-2500 BC and silver objects are also
known from the Harappan culture of the third and second
millennium BC.
Outside of eastern Europe, silver is also occasionally found
in central and western Europe, initially about the time of the
Beaker “culture”, i.e., c 2500-2000 BC where it has been
occasionally recovered from Beaker burials from central
Europe to Brittany as well as in the Remedello culture of north
Italy. The silver sources here are presumed to have been either
central Alpine or perhaps Iberian which emerged in prehistory
as another major center of silver metallurgy. Possibly attested
as early as the third millennium BC in Iberia, silver is one of
the more distinctive products of the later Spanish Agaric
Bronze Age culture of c 2000-1600 BC.
The dates for the earliest distribution of silver could accom-
modate the lexical correspondences in Celtic, Italic, Armenian,
Anatolian and Iranian but there is one problem of discon-
tinuity of silver artifacts. Other than the Aegean and Iberia,
the early use of silver was largely confined to a narrow horizon
(c 3500-2000 BC) and silver objects are conspicuously absent
throughout most of the Bronze Age which poses a problem
for explaining the continuity of a PIE term for the metal into
the various IE stocks. A second problem concerns the absence
of a PIE term for ‘lead’. Although native silver does occur in
small amounts, it is clear that by the third millennium BC,
the process of silver extraction, at least in the Aegean and
Near East (and whatever sources supplied Maykop), involved
the cuppelation of lead, i .e., the smelting of a silver-rich lead
ore such as galena to c 900-1000 C to reduce the ore to silver.
Lexically, there is no evidence, therefore, to suggest that the
early Indo-Europeans knew how to produce silver which may
fit the evidence from the northwest Pontic region where it
was acquired by exchange rather than local extraction.
The appearance of a loanword for ‘silver’ in lbero-C.eltic,
Germanic, Baltic and Slavic is not easily explainable. What
might be observed is that only in Spain was the metal not
only native but abundant and extensively mined in antiquity.
Moreover, only Ibero-Celtic offers a reflex of this word in the
Celtic languages; there is no trace in any of the much better
represented Insular Celtic languages which, like Gaulish,
shares the PIE word for ‘silver’. It is attractive, therefore, to
look to Iberia for the origin of this word and it is difficult to
separate it from the various reflexes one finds in northern
Europe. Nevertheless, the spread of both word and silver does
not appear to be explainable by reference to any known late
Neolithic or Bronze Age exchange system and the earliest silver
objects in northern Europe are generally dated to the Iron
Age or later.
See also Gold; Iron; Lead; Metal. [M.E.H., J.P.M.l
Further Readings
Hamp, E. P. (1973) Lith sidabras , OCS srebro. Baluslica9 , 57-58.
Jovanovic, B. (1993) Silver in the Yamna (Pit-grave) culture in the
Balkans. JIES 21, 207-214.
Mallory, J. P and M. E. Huld (1984) Proto-Indo-European “silver"
KZ 97, 1-12.
SING
*seng* r h- ‘sing, make an incantation’. [1EW 906-907
( *seng^h-)\ Wat 58 {seng w h-)\ Buck 18.12}. MWels dehongli
‘explain’, ON syngva ~ syngja ‘sing’, spngr ‘church song,
service’, OE singan ‘sing, lecture, narrate’ (> NE sing), sang
‘song’ (> NE song), OHG singan ‘sing’, sang ‘song’, Goth
siggwan ‘sing, present formally as by chanting’, Grk op<pr\
‘divine voice, prophecy’, Prakrit sarnghai ‘say, honor’. Only
the Germanic and Greek words are universally assumed to
belong together but there is no compelling reason not to
include both the Middle Welsh and the Prakrit as well. If we
do, we have clear evidence of a word that is widespread and
old in IE. Otherwise, we have evidence only for a word of the
west and center of the IE world.
*gehi(i)~ ‘sing’. [/EW355 {*ge(i)-), Wat 18 ( *gei-)\ Buck
18. 1 2] . Lith giedoti ‘sing’ (pres. Lith giedmi ~ giedu), giesme
‘song of praise’. La tv dziedat ‘sing’, ORus gajati ‘crow’, Av
gaOa- ‘meter, line of poetry’, OInd gdyati ~ gati ‘sings’, gdtha-
‘song’. At least a word of the center and east of the IE world.
It is in complementary distribution with the following word.
*kan- ‘sing’ (pres. *k&ne/o-) \1EW 525-526 ( *kan-)\ Wat
27 ( *kan-)\ Gl 515; Buck 18.12; BK 257 ( *k[ h Jaij -/
*kfr]dr)-)]- OIr canaid ‘sings’, Weis canu ‘sing; play an
instrument’, Lat cand ‘sing’, carmen (< *canmen) ‘song,
prophecy, form of incantation’, OHG hano ‘cock’, Goth hana
‘cock’, Grk ^)i-lcav6g l cock , (< * ‘dawn-singer’). At least a word
of the west and center of the IE world.
*pei- 1 sing’. (Buck 18.121. OCS peft ‘sing’, Rus perUsing’,
TochA pisa- ‘blow (i.e., cause to sing) a musical instrument',
TochB piya- ‘sing’. Though restricted to only two stocks, those
— 519
SING
two are not usually considered very close to one another
linguistically so their witness here may well indicate a word
of PIE antiquity.
*sh 2 dmen- song’. [GI 733 (*sHomen-)]. Grk v^ivog 1 song,
festival song of praise (commonly in honor of gods or heroes)’,
v/nveo) ‘sing, praise with song’, oljiog ~ oi/irj (< *sh 2 omio/
eh a -) ‘song, lay’ (borrowed > NE hymn), Hit ishamai- ‘song,
melody’, ishamai- ~ ishamiye- ‘sing, sing of’, OInd siman-
‘song, chant’. Often connected with *se/i 2 - ‘bind’. The
connection is possible but it is not particularly compelling
either semantically or formally. Whatever its derivation, this
is obviously a very old word in IE.
See also Pray; Speak. [D.Q.A.l
SINK see DIVE
SINTASHTA
Sintashta refers to a late Bronze Age fortification and large
burial and ritual complex in the trans-Ural steppe (in Chelya-
binsk province), dating to c 2000-1600 BC. The settlement,
which measured c 136-140 m in diameter, was enclosed by
a bank and ditch which surrounded an inner enclosure some
60 m across. Between the two lines of defense were a series of
rectangular semi-subterranean houses, set like spokes of an
enormous wheel. The entrance to the settlement lay on the
south. Near the settlement were a number of cemeteries. One
cemetery was located NW of the settlement and contained
sixty-sixty-five individuals buried in forty graves. The burial
Sintashta a. Location of Sintashta.
SISTER-IN-LAW
pits contained wooden box-like constructions and the
deceased were occasionally accompanied by chariots (five
graves) and some form of animal offerings (twenty-five graves).
There were also sacrificial complexes of cattle and the head
and forelegs of horses. Another of the cemeteries included a
large barrow, 32 m in diameter and 10 m high. In addition to
other burial complexes was a major ritual structure consisting
of superimposed timber frames forming a 9 m high “temple”,
topped by a circular area and what have been identified as
ritual fires. The cemetery has been interpreted in the light of
religious practices recorded in early Indo-lranian literature:
the use of an earthen barrow, exposure of the body before
burial, animal sacrifice, especially horse and dog as conveyor
of deceased to underworld, use of post-like structure within
grave, fire cult, etc. Similar cemeteries have also been
discovered in the Volga-Ural steppe and have been used to
support the Indo-lranian identity of the steppe region during
the Bronze Age.
See also Andronovo Culture; Horse; Indo-Iranian
Languages; Sacrifice; Wagon. U P-M I
Further Readings
Gening, V. E, G. B. Zdanovich and V V. Gening (1992) Smtashta.
Chelyabinsk, Yuzhno-Uralskoye Knizhnoye Izdatelstvo.
Gening, V E (1979) The cemetery at Sintashta and the eady Indo-
lranian peoples. JIES 7, 1-29.
SISTER
*sy£sdr(gen. *s\}esrds) ‘sister’. [JEW 1051 ( *suesor-)] Wat
68 ( *swesor-)\ GI 666 ( *s°esor-); Buck 2.45; Szem 6; Wordick
144-145], OIr siur (lenited fiur indicates an original cluster
*su~) ‘sister, kinswoman, womans brothers sister’, Weis chwaer
‘sister’, Lat soror ‘sister; cousin; friend’, ON systir ‘sister’, OE
sweostor ‘sister’ (> NE sister ), OHG swestar ‘sister’, Goth
swistar ‘sister’, OPrus swestro ‘sister’, Lith sesuo ‘sister’, OCS
sestra ‘sister’, Rus sestra ‘sister’, SC sestra ‘sister’, Grk eop
‘cousin’s daughter’, Arm k'oyr (gen. /e'er/) ‘sister’, Av x v anhar
‘sister’, Pashto xdr ‘sister’, Olnd svasar- ‘sister’, Prasun syus
‘sister’, Waigali sos ‘sister’, Kati sus ‘sister’, TochA sar ‘sister’,
TochB ser ‘sister’ (Toch < [acc. | *sijesnji). In Hittite the unique
form neka - occurs; the Luvoid languages have further created
a new feminine based on the masculine *negna- ‘brother’,
e.g., Lycian nere/i -, Luv nanasriya, HierLuv nanasri. Lacking
only in Albanian and Anatolian, this word is clearly old in IE.
Compare the derived *suesros ~ *suesriios ‘pertaining to
a sister, sisterly; sister’s son’ in OSwed swiri ‘mother’s sister’s
son’, OE swor ~ (ge)sweor ‘mother’s sister’s son’, geswirga
‘sister’s son; mother’s brother’s/sister’s son, father’s sister’s son’,
Apn k‘eri ‘mother’s brother’. Assuming ‘sister’s son’ as the
oldest meaning allows us to explain Armenian ‘mother’s
brother’ as an example of reciprocal naming (cf. OIr aue
‘grandson’ from *h 2 euh 20 s ‘grandfather’ or OHG enikl
‘grandson’ from ano ‘grandfather’). In Germanic we find the
further derivative *ga-swerjan - ‘co-sister’s son’ (much as in
Lat consobrinus ‘mother’s brother’s/sister’s son, father’s sister’s
son’ < *‘co-sister’s son’), though there has been considerable
confusion and overlapping of the earlier and later meanings.
This derivative is at least a word of the west and center of the
IE world.
The word for sister has seen abundant attempts to discover
a “deeper” etymology, none of which can be regarded as
entirely convincing. Earlier in this century many accepted
*syesoras being from *sue- ‘own’ + *sor ‘woman’, i.e., ‘woman
of one’s own family’ (this etymology, among other things, tends
to flounder on the uncertainty of a PIE *sor- ‘woman’ although
Gl propose *sor- as a feminine marker in Hit hassu- ‘king’
but hassussara- ‘queen’; Szemerenyi suggests that the word is
to be split hasu-asara where *asar- means ‘woman’ and is
cognate with Grk oap wife’, Av Hohairi ‘female, woman’).
Alternatively, others have proposed *suesdr< *su- (zero-grade
of *sue) or *su- ‘with’ + *h iesdr ‘blood’, i.e., (woman ol)
one’s own bloodline or lineage’. Here Uli Linke has emphasized
that the metaphor of ‘blood’ was very much connected with
‘inside blood’, i.e., the positively charged blood which Bowed
within the body and did not breach the flesh in contrast to
the negatively charged ‘outside blood’ ( *kreuh- t ) which was
associated with wounding or menstruation. Szemerenyi argues
that *suesor is to be analyzed *su- ‘joint family’ + *h iesdr
‘woman’, hence, ‘woman of ones own joint family’. Many
would probably hold that attempts to provide deep
etymologies for words so basic in the IE vocabulary is at best
speculative, if not idle.
See also Aunt; Daughter; Kinship. (M.E.H.I
Further Reading
Linke, U. (1985) Blood as a metaphor in Proto-Indo-European .JIES
13, 333-376.
SISTER-IN-LAW
*svoiniieh a - ‘wife’s sister’. [1EW 884 ( *suedh -); Wordick
204], Lith svaine ‘sister-in-law’ (particularly ‘wife’s sister;
brother’s wife’), Latv svaine ‘wife’s sister’, Arm keni ‘wife’s
sister’. Confined to the center of the IE world, but related to
a word for ‘wife’s brother that shows a bit wider distnbution.
*glh 3 -\}os- ‘husband’s sister’. \IEW 367-368 ( *g( c )lou-)\
Gl 662 ( *Fal(ou)-)\ Wordick 233; Szem 25; BK 283 (*k’al-/
*k’dl-)\. Lat glos ‘husband’s sister, brothers wife’, OCS zuluva
‘husband’s sister’, Rus zolov-ka ‘husband’s sister, brother’s wife’,
Grk yaZcoq, (Aeolic yaXotoq) husband’s sister, brothers wife’,
cf. Hesychius yaAr<;-yaAad<; ‘husband’s sister, brother’s wife’,
without ethnic identification, Phryg (Hesychius) yeXXapoq
(glossing *yeXXapoq ‘brothers wife’), Arm tal ‘husband’s sister’
(for *cal by contamination from taygr ‘husband’s brother’),
Olnd giri- ‘brother’s wife’ (contaminated by the forms for
‘mountain’ or ‘weasel’ without a palatal). Distribution indicates
PIE status. It has been suggested that these forms were not
only influenced by similar sounding terms for the mouse’ or
‘weasel’ (e.g., Lat glis ‘dormouse’, Grk yaXer\ ‘weasel’, Orrnuri
gilak ‘rat’, Bakhtiari girza ‘rat’, Olnd gin- ~ girika- ‘mouse’)
but that the kinship terms was actually applied to the animal
— 521 —
SISTER-IN-LAW
( *gihps ‘dormouse, marten, weasel?’) either as a metaphor
(comparison between young women and slim, streamlined
mustelids?) or because of some taboo on employing the
animal’s name. Szemerenyi has attempted to reverse this
derivation and has suggested that the ‘sister-in-law’ was named
after the animal (here ‘marten’). The incompatibility of the
laryngeals in the two words, however, would seem to obviate
against either proposal.
*hiienh a -ter- ‘husband’s brother’s wife’. [IEW 505-506
(*ien3ter-)\ GI 662 ( *(y)enlqIt h er-)\ Wordick 226-227; Szem
26]. Late Lat ianitrlces ‘brothers’ wives’, Lith jente (eastern
dial, inte) ‘husband’s brother’s wife’, Latv ietere ‘husband’s
brother’s wife’, OCS j?try ‘husband’s brother’s wife’, ORus jatry
‘husband’s brother’s wife’, Rus jatrovt ‘husband’s brother’s wife’,
Grk evdrrfp (Homeric eivaxepeq) ‘husband’s brother’s wife’,
Phryg iavaxepa (claimed by Chaintraine as a carelessly
written Greek form with ia- for ai-, a late spelling of £-),
Arm ner ‘husband’s brother’s wife’, Pashto yor ‘husband’s
brother’s wife’, OInd yatar- ‘husband’s brother’s wife’, Prasun
irt ‘co-wife’, Waigali yari" ‘co-wife’, Kati yarf ‘co-wife’. Distri-
bution indicates PIE status.
The above cognate sets suggest that of the different persons
who may be termed ‘sister-in-law’, PIE or at least late PIE had
discrete terms for at least three. The discontinuous distribution
of the feminine *suoiniieh a - ‘wife’s sister’ in Baltic and
Armenian assures some antiquity for this form. A term for
‘husband’s sister’ is phonologically more troublesome, but a
form approximating *glh 3 Uos - in various ablaut grades will
account for most forms with some analogical restructuring in
Indie and Armenian. A reciprocal term, *hiienh a -ter-
‘husband’s brother’s wife’ is recorded in Italic, Baltic and Slavic,
Greek, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian.
See also Brother-in-law; Kinship. [M.E.H.]
SIT
*hjes- ‘sit’ (pres. *hi6sor). [ IEW 342 ( *Ss-) ; Gl 187
(*es-); Buck 12.13; BK 434 ( W-/W-)]. Grk r)oQai ‘sit’,
Hit esa ‘sit’, aszi ‘remains, stays, is left’, Av aste ‘sits’, OInd
aste ‘sits’. Though only modestly attested, its geographical
distribution guarantees its PIE antiquity. Originally a length-
ened-grade intensive of *h;es-‘ be’. Indeed, *h\es- may have
originally meant ‘sit’ and, on “weakening” to ‘be’ was replaced
in its original semantic sphere by the derived intensive *hjes~.
In any case one should note the common interchange of ‘be’
and ‘sit’ (and ‘stand’) as witnessed for instance in the Spanish
paradigm for ‘be’ where the indicative es ‘is’ reflects Latin ‘be’
but the subjunctive sea and infinitive ser both reflect the Latin
word for ‘sit’ (sedere), while the other ‘be’ verb in Spanish,
estar , reflects Lat stare ‘stand’.
*sed- ‘sit (down)’ (pres. *s£dsti, *s(sdeti ‘sits down’; stative
pres. *s6dehiti ‘sits, is sitting’). [IEW 884-885 (*sed-); Wat
56 (*sed-)\ GI 134; Buck 12.13]. OIr saidid ‘sits’, Weis seddu
‘sit’, Lat sldo (< *si-sd-e/o- ) ‘sit down’, seded ‘sit, be sitting’,
ON sitja ‘sit’, OE sittan ‘sit’ (> NE sit), OHG sizzan ‘sit’, Goth
sitan ‘sit’, OPrus sldons ‘sitting’, Lith sedu 'sit down’, sedziu
‘sit, be sitting’, Latv sest ‘sit down’, OCS sesti ‘sit down , sedeti
‘sit, be sitting’, Grk i'£co (< *si-sd-e/o -) ~ k'^ogai sit’, Arm
nstim ‘sit’, Av hiSaiti (< *si-sd-e/o- ) - ‘sit’, OInd sad- ~ sfdati
(< *si-sd-e/o~) ‘sit’. Cf. the derivatives: (1) *sedes-‘ seat’: Weis
hedd‘ rest’, sedd ‘seat’, Grk k'8oq L seat’, Av hadis- ‘seat’, OInd
sadas- ‘seat’; *sod(i)o - ‘soot’: ON sot ‘soot’, OE sot ‘soot’ (>
NE soot), Lith (pi.) suodziai ‘soot’, OCS sazda ‘soot’. Nearly
ubiquitous in IE, certainly old.
See also Seat; Set. ID.Q.A ]
SKIN
*fy£ics(gen. *tij € kds) ‘skin’. [IEW 1099 ( *tuakos)\ GI 712
( *t ho ek h -)\ Buck 4.12], Grk (T(xk(k)oc ; (if < *tu e ko-)
‘(leather-)shield’, Hit tuekka- ‘body; person, self’, OInd tvak-
‘skin’. Though sparsely attested, this word is not derived from
any verbal root and would appear to be the oldest word
reconstructible for ‘skin’ in PIE.
*(s)fojehxtis (gen. *(s)kuh^tiis), also *k(e)uh x t-es- skin,
hide’. (7EW952 ( *(s)keu-l -); Wat 60 ( *(s)keu-)\ Buck 4.12].
Weis esgid (< *ped-skuti-) ‘shoe’, ON hud ‘hide’, OE hyd
‘skin, hide’ (> NE hide), OHG hut ‘hide’ (Gmc < *kuh x ti-),
Grk <TK~uTO£‘skin, hide, leather’, TochA kac (< *k\jeh x ti-) ‘skin’;
with new full vowel: OPrus keuto ‘skin’, Lith /aaufas‘skin’ (<
*keuh x t-o-). Related forms without a laryngeal are: Lat cutis
‘skin (of living beings)’, Grk tcvroq ‘body, skin’, Epcvvi(q)
‘down to the skin’, perhaps abstracted originally from
compounds where, as the second member, the loss of laryngeal
was probably at least semi-regular. From *(s)keuh x - ‘cover’.
Originally meaning ‘covering’ this word has replaced the more
original *tueks in most of the IE world and had probably
done so in late PIE times.
*k€rmen- skin’. [IEW 938-939 ( *(s)ker-)\ BK 247
(*k[ b ]ar-/*k[ h ]ar-)}. OPrus kermens ‘body’, Av caraman-
‘(animal) skin, leather’, OInd carman- ‘skin’. Regularly denved
from PIE *(s)ker- ‘cut (off)’ but morphologically isolated in
both Baltic and Indo-Iranian by the prehistoric loss of the
underlying verb. Perhaps a late PIE “easternism”.
*hjoyes- ‘(inner) skin’. [IEW 346 (*eu-)\. Lat omentum
‘fatty membrane or caul covering the intestines’, TochB ewe
‘inner skin, hide’. From *hieu- ‘cover’. Possibly a word of
late PIE date.
See also Anatomy; Flesh; Hide 2 ; Meat; Skin Disease. (D.Q.A.J
Further Reading
HilmarssonJ. (1985) Toch. A kac, Lat cutis, Olcel. hud< IE *kuEkis
‘skin’. KZ 98, 162-163.
SKIN DISEASE
*dedrus ‘tetter, skin eruption, leprosy’. [IEW 209 ( *de -
dru-)\ Wat 12 ( *de-dr-u-)\ . OE refer ‘tetter, skin eruption’,
OInd dadru- ‘skin eruption, a kind of leprosy’. Cf. the derived
*dedrukos ‘leprosy’: OHG zittaroh ‘leprosy’, OInd dadruka-
(only attested in lexica) ‘leprosy’; and Lith dedervme ‘ulcer’.
From *der- ‘split’. The exact formal and semantic equation
from the two ends of the IE world seem to guarantee this
— 522 —
SLAVIC LANGUAGES
word’s PIE status.
*k\nos ‘callosity’. [IEW 523-524 ( *kl-no-)\ Wat 26
(*kal-)]. Lat callus ‘callosity’, OInd kina- ‘callosity’. From *kal-
‘hard’. Again, though sparsely attested, the presence of this
word near the eastern and western extremes, of IE speech is
strong evidence for its PIE status.
*\ffhjps ‘pimple’. [IEW 1151 (*u e ro-s)\ Wat 76 (*wer-)l-
Lat varus ‘pimple’, Lith viras ‘pimple in a piece of pork’, TochB
yoro (< *uerh x eh a -) ‘± pimple’.
*\}orhxdo — *uerhxdeh a - ‘wart’ . [ IEW 1151 ( *uer-d-) ; Wat
76 ( *wer -)1. ON varta ‘wart’, OE wearte ‘wart’ (> NE wart),
OHG warza ‘wart’, Latv ap-virde ‘abscess’, OCS vredu ‘damage,
infirmity’, Rus vered ‘abscess, ulcer’, NPers balu (< *var -
duka-) ‘wart’. Taken together, *u[h x os and *uorhxdd- suggest
a reasonably widespread PIE *uerh x - ‘± small swelling in the
skin’. That *uorhxdo- is apparently homophonous with a
word meaning ‘frog’ suggests that the traditional association
of frogs and warts is of high antiquity.
*kreup~ ‘± rough, scabby’. [IEW 623 ( *kreup-)\ Wat 33
( *kreup -)] . Gaul cruppellarii (type of armored gladiator), ON
hrjufr ‘rough, scabby’, OE hreof 1 rough, scabby’, OHG nob
‘leprous’, OPrus crupeyle ‘frog’, Lith kraupus ‘rough’,
nu-krupes ‘scabby’, Latv kfaupa ‘wart’, TochB karpiye
(< *krupiio- ) ‘common’ (< * ‘rough’). Widespread, at least in
the “west” of the IE world, in late PIE.
*hi6lkes - ‘± ulcer’. [IEW 310 ( *elkos-)\ Wat 17
( *elk-es -)]. Lat ulcus ‘ulcer’, Grk e'X xoq (with secondary h-)
‘(suppurating) wound, ulcer’, Sogd ‘rsx ‘hemorrhoids’, Khot
asl ‘itch’, OInd arsas- ‘hemorrhoids’. Not derived from any
attested PIE verb; at least late PIE in date.
?*ghendh- ‘abscess’. [IEW 438 ( *ghendh-)\ Wat 22
( *ghendh-)\ . OE gund ‘pus’, OHG gund ‘pus’, Goth gund
‘gangrene’ (Gmc < *ghpdhd-), Grk KccvOvXr) ‘abscess, tumor’.
The Germanic and Greek words do not match well
phonologically; a PIE source is doubtful.
See also Anatomy; Frog; Medicine; Rough; Sick. [D.Q.A.]
SKY GOD see GOD
SLACK
*(s)lb2g- ~ *(s)leti 2 g- ‘slack’. [IEW 959-960 (*(s)leg~ ~
*(s)hg-)\ Wat 61 ( *sleg-)\ Buck 4.82], OIr lac ‘slack, weak’,
Lat laxus ‘slack, loose’, ON slakr ‘slack’, OE sleac ‘slack’
(> NE slack), OHG slab- ‘slack’, Latv \egans ‘slack, soft’, Grk
Xayapoq ‘slack’. MWels llacc ‘slack’ is probably a loanword.
OInd slaksna - ‘slippery, smooth, soft’ has been placed here
(assuming the second reconstruction given) but it may be
instead from *klek-sno- ‘smooth, soft’, cf. Lith slakas ‘drop’,
slikti ‘to spray’, etc. TochB slakkare has traditionally been
placed here as well, but the geminate velar represents a formal
problem and the meaning is ‘swift, fickle’ rather than ‘slack,
beaten down’. Distribution still suggests at least late IE status.
?*s£k- ( *seh}k- ) ‘slow, slack’. [IEW 896 ( *sek-)\ Wat 57
( *sek -)]. Lat segnis ‘slow, slack’, Grk f)Ka ‘slow, easy’. The
Latin form has been regarded as lacking secure connection
but a possible affinity to TochA sak- ‘to hold onesell/someone
back’ would enhance the case for PIE status. Perhaps to be
associated with *sehi(i)- ‘leave behind’.
See also Weak. (J C.S .J
SLANT
*dj} 3 ghmds ‘aslant’. [IEW222 ( *d9gh-md-s)] . Grk <5 oypoq
~ doyp ioq ‘slanting, oblique’, OInd jihma- (with regressive
assimilation from *dzidzma-< *didzhma-) ‘athwart, oblique’
At least a word of the southeast of the IE world. With no
known root connections, it is likely to be old in PIE.
[A.D.V.]
SLAVIC LANGUAGES
The earliest historical location of the Slavs, during the first
half millennium or so AD, corresponds roughly to the central
and western Ukraine and adjacent parts of Poland. In their
Ukrainian and Polish homeland the Slavs were intermixed
and at times overlain by Germanic speakers (the Goths) and
by Iranian speakers (Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans) in a shifting
array of tribal and national configurations. The collapse in
AD 453 of the Hunnic empire put together by Attila left a
power vacuum in central and southeastern Europe that the
Slavs exploited by moving, in large numbers, south of the
Carpathians, settling in the Balkans as far south as Greece.
They also moved west, as far as the lower Elbe, and to the
north and east, into what is now European Russia which were
then territories occupied by Baltic and Uralic groups.
In the latter part of the ninth century Sts Cyril (Constantine)
and Methodius, two brothers who were native speakers of
Slavic from Thessalonika, were charged by the Byzantine
emperor with a Christian mission to the Slavs. It is they who
are credited with devising the first Slavic alphabet (though
the “Cyrillic” alphabet is a somewhat later development); areas
of the Slavic world which came to be in the orbit of western
Christianity came to write in the Latin alphabet. The variety
of Slavic, first used by Cyril and Methodius in their biblical
translations, is called Old Church Slavonic (OCS). The Slavic
speech area of the ninth century was not altogether uniform
and Old Church Slavonic represents a southern variety,
appropriate to the Thessalonican origin of Cyril and
Methodius (though differences between the speech of Cyril
and Methodius and other varieties of Slavic of the time were
slight). Subsequently, the various dialects of Slavic have
continued to develop and diverge. The currently spoken
languages can be divided into three large groups: east, west,
and south. The eastern group is composed of Russian,
Belorussian, and Ukrainian. The western Slavic languages are
Polish, Czech, Slovak, Upper Sorbian, and Lower Sorbian
(the latter two spoken by small populations in eastern
Germany). Other, non literary, languages of this group are
Kashubian and Slovincian (both spoken in Polish Pomerania)
and the extinct Polabian (once spoken in Lower Saxony in
Germany). Southern Slavic languages are Macedonian (the
most direct descendant of Cyril and Methodius’ speech),
523 —
SLAVIC LANGUAGES
Slavic I Distribution of Slavic languages. Shaded territory indicates
core area of Slavic river names.
Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and Slovenian.
Slavic and Baltic are closely related Indo-European groups.
They are so closely allied that most assume that Baltic and
Slavic shared a period of continued common development
after the general break-up of Proto-Indo-European “unity”.
In any case, these two groups have always lived adjacent to
one another and have a long history of mutual influence. Baltic
and Slavic also enjoyed a close, early relationship with
Germanic (earlier and distinct from the relationship of Gothic
with Proto-Slavic). On the other hand both Baltic and Slavic
share certain innovations with Indo-Iranian, innovations that
probably antedate the influence of the Iranian Scythians and
Sarmatians on Slavic. Thus, both Slavic and Baltic are satam
languages, merging the PIE dorso- velars and labio- velars and
showing sibilants as reflexes of the PIE palatals. Both groups,
however, but particularly Baltic, show exceptions which
suggests that Balto-Slavic was on the periphery of that part of
Proto-Indo-European that underwent satamization (or they
“absorbed” vocabulary from an otherwise unattested centum
language). They also both show the effects of the ruki- rule
whereby a PIE *-s- is retracted to -£- after r, u, k, or i. This is
an unexpected phonological development that is shared
otherwise only with Indo-Iranian. In other respects both Slavic
and Baltic are fairly conservative representatives of Proto-Indo-
European. Both groups preserve seven nominal cases and three
numbers (singular, dual, and plural) in the noun. The verb
has undergone more restructuring. Particularly the wide range
of past tense formations known to Proto-Indo-European is
much reduced, though Old Church Slavonic and some South
Slavic languages even today preserve the PIE distinction
between the aorist (denoting completed past actions) and
imperfect (denoting on-going past actions). In the course of
their historical development the Slavic languages have created
a thorough-going distinction in all tenses between perfective
(i.e., verbs showing completion of action) and imperfective
(showing incomplete activity) aspects that are formally and
historically quite distinct from anything inherited from Proto-
Indo-European.
Slavic Origins
The Slavs were one of the most recent of the IE stocks to
disperse from their own region of formation and up until the
middle of the first millennium AD we can attribute a Common
Slavic to all Slavic speakers. The historical expansion of the
Slavs into peripheral areas such as the Balkans can be partially
charted through historical sources. Where they derived from
before these historically attested migrations has been a much
more controversial problem.
The claims for the earliest historical attestation of Slavic
peoples derives from Herodotus’ description of the Iron Age
peoples of Scythia, the region north of the Black Sea. There
he places the Neuroi ( Nevpoi ) on the upper reaches of the
southern Bug, and the Boudinoi ( Bov5ivoi ) to their east
between the upper Dnieper and Donets. Zbigniew Gofcb
argues that both these names may reflect Slavic tribal names:
Neuroi may derive from a *Nenjoi (< *haner- ‘manly strength’)
and their eastern neighbors, the Boudinoi, are derived from
*Bydini ‘tribesman’ (< *by-ti ‘grow’). Identifications more
widely accepted derive from the first centuries AD where the
Venedi , generally presumed to be the Slavic Wends, are
recorded to the east of the Vistula. This tradition continues to
the sixth century when Jordanes ( Getica 5.34) also introduces
the names Sclaveni and Antae , the first being the earliest
attestation of the ethnonym Slav or Slovene (unless concealed
under Ptolemy’s Stauanoi , situated on the middle Dnieper
and recorded in the second century AD). The historical
evidence generally points to an early Slavic presence
somewhere east of the Vistula and west of the Don.
One of the other techniques employed in tracing the earlier
distribution of the Slavs is river names combined with a sort
of dead-reckoning that requires us to place the early Slavs in
a region peripheral to that of the early Balts and Uralic-
speakers of northeast Europe and the Iranian tribes that came
to dominate the steppe and forest-steppe of the Ukraine and
south Russia at least by the Iron Age if not earlier. The Pripet
marshes of southern Belarus were once thought to have served
as the major border between prehistoric Balts and Slavs but
the evidence of Baltic river names south of the Pripet suggests
that at least at some time in the past, the early Slavs did not
occupy this region.
The other technique is retrospective archaeological analysis
where the culture of the earliest historically attested Slavs is
examined and its (archaeological) ancestors are sought. The
Prague-Penkov-Kolochin complex of cultures occupied an
— 524 -r-
SLAVIC LANGUAGES
Proto-Indo-European and Slavic Phonological Correspondences
PIE
ocs
PIE
OCS
*P
>
p
*porkos ‘young pig’
prase ‘young pig’
*b
>
b
*boliios ‘strong’
bolfji ‘great’
*bh
>
b
*bhreh a ter ‘brother’
bratru ‘brother’
*t
>
t
*tuh x ‘thou’
ty ‘thou’
*d
>
d
*dom(h a )os ‘house’
domu ‘house’
*dh
>
d
*dhuh s mds ‘smoke’
dymu ‘smoke’
*k
>
s
*kfd- ‘heart’
srld-ice ‘heart’
*g
>
z
*gdmbhos ‘tooth, peg’
zgbu ‘tooth’
*gh
>
z
*gheimeh a - ‘winter’
zima winter’
*k
>
k
*teke/o- ‘run’
tekQ ‘run’
*g
>
g
■*iugom ‘yoke’
jlgo ‘yoke’
*gh
>
g
*ghdrdhos ‘enclosure’
gradu ‘town’
*k w
>
k
*ulk w os ‘wolf’
vllku ‘wolf’
*g w
>
g
*g w ou- ‘cow’
govpdo ‘ox, cow’
* g wh
>
g
*g w horehj- ‘burn’
gored ‘burn’
*s
>
s
*sehi- ‘sow’
sen ‘to sow’
*i
>
j
*iugom ‘yoke’
jlgo ‘yoke’
*u
>
V
*yedhe/o- ‘lead’
vedg ‘lead’
*m
>
m
*meh a ter ‘mother’
mad ‘mother’
*n
>
n
*nok w ti- ‘night’
nosd ‘night’
*1
>
1
*loks ‘salmon (trout)’
Rus lososl ‘salmon’
*r
>
r
*hjroudhos ‘red’
Slov rud ‘red’
*iP
>
e
*Ripstos ‘thick’
cestu ‘thick’
>
e
*g w h\ j- ‘strike’
zed ‘to chew, mow’
*1
>
il
*tlhxom ‘ground’
tllo ‘ground’
*r
>
Ir
*kjd- ‘heart’
srld-ice ‘heart’
*i
>
I
*pise/o- ‘push, stamp’
*pIsQ ‘push, mb’
*i
>
i
*g w ih.3Uos ‘alive’
zivu ‘alive’
*e
>
e
*bhere/o- ‘carry’
berQ ‘carry’
*e
>
e
*sehi - ‘sow ’
s£d ‘to sow’
*a
>
o
*nas- ‘nose’
nosu ‘nose’
*a
>
a
*bhr€h a ter ‘brother’
bratrd ‘brother’
*o
>
o
*g w horehi~ ‘burn’
gored ‘burn’
*6
>
a
*sddeie/o- ‘cause to sit’
sadid ‘to set, plant’
*u
>
u
*dhug(h a )ter ‘daughter’
dUkti ‘daughter’
*u
>
y
*dhuh x mos ‘smoke’
dymu ‘smoke’
*hi
>
0
*hiest- ‘be’
jestQ ‘is’
*h 2
>
0
*h 20 uikeh a - ‘ewe’
ovica ‘ewe’
*h 3
>
0
*h 3 dk w ‘eye’
oko ‘eye’
*h 4
>
0
*h 4 fgheh a - ‘mount sexually’
Rus jerzall ‘move in coition’
area so broad (Vistula to Dnieper and south to the Danube) among which were certainly the Sarmatians, the major Iranian-
during the sixth and seventh centuries AD that it surely speaking group of the last centuries BC and first centuries
incorporated most if not all early Slavic speakers. This series AD. Within the Chernyakovo culture were also possibly early
of related cultures with their semi-subterranean houses, use Slavs (in the more northerly area of the Chernyakovo culture
of coarse pottery, and cremation has been labeled the “Slavic are found coarse wares typical of the later Prague-Penkov
cultural model”. Attempts to go earlier usually involve complex alongside the wheel-made Chernyakovo pottery) and
consideration of the Chernyakovo culture, the broad cultural the close cultural contact between them and the Sarmatians
phenomenon pivoting about the northwest comer of the Black may possibly account for some of the Iranian loans in Slavic.
Sea. It would appear that the Chernyakovo culture was very (It has also been suggested that the Slavs derived their Iranian
much a mixed culture involving various ethnic elements, vocabulary from the Avars whose ruling family is identified
— 525 —
SLAVIC LANGUAGES
school”, that argues for a more westerly Slavic homeland in
Poland which comes into conflict with Germanicists who
would place the eastern borders of the early Germans in the
same region. Most controversy concerning Slavic origins
concerns this western border. It should be obvious then that
as one recedes further back into time to earlier Bronze Age
candidates for either Proto-Slavic or Proto-Balto-Slavic, any
degree of certainty must recede correspondingly. In one of
the most detailed linguistic analysis of the problem of Slavic
origins, Zbigniew Gol^b has sought to peel away the layers of
linguistic contacts between the Slavs (and Proto-Slavs) and
their neighbors. Gofeb argues that Proto-Slavic emerges
sometime about 1000 BC, i.e., in archaeological terms during
the later part of the Bronze Age after the floruit of the Trzciniec
and Komarov cultures which spanned Poland and the western
Ukraine and are frequently regarded as Proto-Slavic.
See also Baltic Languages; Indo-European Languages.
1D.Q.A.J.PM.1
Further Readings
Language
Charlton, T. R. (1991) Introduction to the Phonological History of
the Slavic Languages. Ann Arbor, Slavica Publishers.
Connie, B. (1993) The Slavonic Languages. London, Routledge.
Etymological Dictionaries
Vasmer, M. (1953-58) Russisches etymologisches Worterbuch
Heidelberg, Carl Winter.
Slavic II 1 = light-shaded area of Prague-Penkov-Kolochin complex;
2 « medium-shaded area of Chemoles culture; 3 = dark-shaded
area of Przeworsk(3a)-Zarubintsy(3b) cultures.
Origins and Culture
Birnbaum, H. (1973) The original homeland of the Slavs and the
problem of early Slavic linguistic contacts. JIES 1, 407-421.
Gimbutas, M. (1971) The Slavs. London, Thames and Hudson.
Golpb, Z. (1992) The Origins of the Slavs: A Linguist’s View. Ann
Arbor, Slavic Publishers.
Nichols, J. (1993) The linguistic geography of the Slavic expansion,
in American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress
of Slavists, eds. R. Maguire and A. Timberlake, Slavica, 377-
as Turkic but, it has been speculated, was primarily composed
of lranian-speakers.) Alternatively, there are others who see
in Chernyakovo a mixture of Germanic and Sarmatian
elements, excluding the Slavs from a region so far south. Any
attempt to retreat earlier with respect to Slavic ethnogenesis
normally carries one further to the north since the Slavs would
appear to have followed, at least in part, a north-south
trajectory during the course of their expansions. The main
cultural phenomenon for this period would be the related
Przeworsk and Zarubintsy cultures (second century BC-fourth
century AD). In the view of many, the more easterly Zarubintsy
culture in the region of the upper Dnieper and Pripet accords
geographically with the position of early Slavs (i.e., as it lies
east of the Vistula it fits very well with the location attributed
to the Venedi) although some emphasize that as its territory
embraces the Pripet as well, it is just as likely to have been
Baltic. The neighboring Przeworsk culture to its west is taken
by some as Slavic and others as east Germanic and it is possibly
during this period, if not slightly later during the Chernyakovo
culture, that a series of Germanic loanwords passed into Slavic.
The disparity in interpretations here is quite old as there
has long been a school of thought, often dubbed the “Polish
Struve, K. W (1986) Die Ethnogenese der Slawen aus der Sicht der
Vor- und Friihgesehichte, in Ethnogenese europaischer Volker,
eds. W Bernhard and A. Kandler-Palsson, Stuttgart and New York,
Gustav Fischer, 297-321.
Trubachev, O. (1985) Linguistics and ethnogenesis of the Slavs. JIES
13, 203-256.
Vlasto, A. P. (1970) The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
SLEEP
*der- ‘sleep’, in the various enlargements: (1) *drehi- , (2)
*derdh-, and (3) *drem- [IEW 226 (*dre-); Wat 15
( *drem-)\ Buck 4.611. (1) Olnd driti ‘sleeps’; (2) Grk eSpadov
‘slept’; (3) Lat dormid ‘sleep’, OCS dremljQ ‘doze’. Cf. Arm
tartam ‘slowly’. Old in IE though the underlying verb has not
survived, only derivatives of PIE age.
SLIMY
*ses- ‘rest, sleep, keep quiet’ (pres. *s6sti). [GI 256
(*ses-); Del 287]. Hit sesmi ‘sleep’, sassnu- ‘put to bed’, Av
hahmi ‘sleep’, Olnd sasti ‘sleeps’, sasvarta ‘stealthily’. Not
widely attested though its geographical distribution demon-
strates that it is old in IE. It is almost surely onomatopoeic in
origin — derived from the sound of gentle snoring (cf. NE
counting z’s) or from an interjection similar to NE sh! This
word seems to have been the “external” word for sleep, sleep
as seen by the onlooker.
*syep- ‘sleep, dream’ (vb). [ IEW 1048 ( *suep-)\ Wat 68
( *swep-)\ GI 100 ( *swep h -)\ Buck 4.61; BK 197 ( *saw -/
*S3W-)]. (1) Pres. *suepti ‘sleeps, dreams’: ON sofa ‘sleep’,
OE swefan ‘sleep’, OCS supati ‘sleep’, Hit supp- ‘sleep’, Av
x v ap- ‘sleep’, Olnd svapiti ‘sleeps’; (2) pres. *suopeieti ~
*suopeieti ‘lulls to sleep’: Lat sopio ‘lulls to sleep’, ON svefjan
‘lull to sleep, appease’, soefa (< *suopeie/o -) ‘kill’, OE swefian
‘lull to sleep, appease’, swebban ‘lull to sleep; kill’, OHG
antswebben ‘fall asleep’, Olnd svapayati ~ svapayati ‘lulls to
sleep’. Widespread and old in IE. In contrast to *ses-, this
form seems to have been the “internal” word for sleep, i.e.,
sleep as seen by the sleeper.
*sp6pnos ~ *s$€pnos ~ *supn6s ‘sleep, dream’ (noun).
[IEW 1048-1049 ( *suepno-s)\ Wat 68 ( *swep-)\ GI 107
{*swep^-)\ Buck 4.61; BK 197 ( *saw-/*s9w -)\ . (1) *suopnos:
Olr suan ‘sleep’, Weis hun ‘sleep’, Lat somnus (or < *suepnos)
‘sleep’, Lith sapnas ‘dream’, Latv sapnis ‘dream’, Grk vnvoq
‘sleep’; (2) *suepnos: ON svefn ‘sleep, dream’, OE swefn ‘sleep,
dream’, Av x v afna- ‘sleep’, Olnd svapna- ‘sleep’ (Indo-lranian
could be < *suopnos), TochA spam ‘sleep, dream’, TochB
spane ‘sleep, dream’; (3) *supnds\ OCS sunu ‘sleep’, Alb gjume
‘sleep’, Arm k‘un ‘sleep’, TochB sanmetse (< *supno-tio- ) ‘±
entranced’. Cf. Lat sopor (< *suepdr) ‘overpowering sleep’,
Grk VTtap ‘true dream, vision; walking reverie’, Hit suppariya-
‘dream’. All of these derivatives together suggest an ancient
derived noun *sp6pf ~ *suepor (gen. *supnos ) rebuilt as a
no-stem in several ways, already in late PIE. In any case
widespread and old in IE.
See also Dream. fD.Q.A.]
SLIDE
*(s)meug- ~ *meuk- ‘slip’. [IEW 744-745 ( *meug - ~
*meuk-)\ Wat 42 ( *meug-)\ GI 1 24; Buck 10. 1 1 ]. Lat -mungo
‘blow nose’, OE smugan ‘slide, slip’, Lith munkii ‘slip away
from’, Latv miiku ‘slip loose’, OCS mucati ‘chase’, ORus
muknuti sja ‘pass over’, Grk anopvooo) ‘wipe nose’, Olnd
muricati ~ mucati ‘lets loose, frees’, TochA muk- ‘desist’, TochB
mauk- ‘desist’, mak- ‘run’. Widespread and old in IE, though
the exact range of its original meaning is hard to determine.
*(s)leidh~ ‘slide’ (pres. *sl€idhe/o-). [IEW 960-961
( *(s)leidh-)\ Wat 61 ( *sleidh-)\ Buck 10.42], OE slidan ‘slide’
(> NE slide), MHG sliten ‘slide’, Lith slystu ‘slide, slip’, Latv
slist ‘slip’, OCS sledu ‘track (in the grass)’, Rus slezy ‘slip’,
Grk oXiodaivo) ‘slip’, Olnd sredhati ‘fails, errs’ (< *‘slides
off’?). If the Old Indie word belongs here, then *sleidh- is
clearly of PIE age; otherwise, a word of the west and center of
the IE world.
?*sleubh- slide’. [IEW 963-964 ( *sleub(h )-), Wat 61
( *sleubh-)\ Buck 10.42], Lat luhricus ‘slippery, smooth’, OE
slupan ‘slide, slip’, she fan ‘put on clothes’, slide ‘sleeve’ (>
NE sleeve), OHG sliofan ‘sneak, prowl, slink’, Goth sliupan
‘sneak, prowl, slink’. Possibly a late western dialect word.
See also Sumy; Smear. (D.Q.A.]
SLIMY
*(s)lei- sticky, slimy, slippery’. [IEW 662 ( *lei), 670-671
( *leip-)\ Wat 35-36 ( *lei - ~ *slei- ); Buck 15.77). This root
shows a pattern of extended forms, mostly verbal and with
meanings related to adhering or sticking, and sometimes the
distinction between this and homophonous *lei- ‘to pour,
flow’ (and possibly other roots of that shape) becomes blurred
or obscured. (1) *(s)lei-n-\ Olr as-lena ‘pollute, stain’, Lat
lino ‘to anoint, smear’, OCS slina ‘spit’, Grk dkivto'io anoint,
smear’. Olnd linSti ‘bends down, ducks, hides’ and then
presumably later ‘clings to’ has been traced back to a root Ii-
and sometimes placed here in spite of the semantic distance
between the root at hand and the apparent older meaning in
Indie. (2) *(s)lei-p -: ON lei fa ‘leave over’, OE belifan ‘remain,
stay’, OHG billban ‘remain, stay’, Goth bileiban ‘remain, stay’,
Lith hpti ‘to stick, be sticky’, Latv hpt ‘to stick, attach to’,
OCS pri-hpjp ‘stick on/to’, TochAB lip- ‘remain’. Other sug-
gested cognates have been Lat lippus ‘sore-eyed, bleary-eyed’;
Alb laparos‘1 sully, dirty’ or ‘stink’ has long been controversial
here while a set of variants including gelepe, glepe (< *ke +
*loipa) ‘eye secretion’ has been placed here as well with less
resistance; Hit lippanzi ‘lick, lap (up)’ was earlier considered
part of this etymology based on a meaning of ‘smear, paint’
but the more recent semantics make this very unlikely; Olnd
rip-' to smear, adhere (to)’ shows a frequent variant with initial
l- in later texts, e g., Olnd limpati ‘smear’, has been very
frequently connected here. (3) *(s)lei-m~: Olr slemon ‘slick,
slippery, polished’, Lat limus ‘mud’, ON slim ‘slime’, lim ‘glue’,
OE slim ‘slime’ (> NE slime), lim ‘lime, mortar, bird-lime’
(> NE lime), OHG slimen ‘to polish’, MHG. lim ‘glue’, Rus
slimak ‘slug, snail’. Lat Umax ‘snail, slug’ and Grk Xeipat,
‘snail, slug’ perhaps reflect a borrowing (direction uncertain)
while Grk Xeipdiv ‘damp meadow’ has also been placed here
but is also uncertain. The use of mud/clay in creating smooth
surfaces in construction has been understood as providing a
direct link between the meaning ‘mud’ and ‘slick, polished’,
in the context of a broader set of building vocabulary. This
group, most productive in the northwest, presents a strong
case for PIE status, notably with the p-suffixed forms.
*(s)meug- ~ *(s)meuk- ‘slick, slippery (from wetness)’.
[ IEW 744-745 (*meug-~ *meuk -); Wat 4 (*meug-), BK 521
(*maw-/*m9w-) ]. Olr mocht (< *muk-to) ‘soft, tender’, Lat
mungo (nasal form with -g-) blow nose’, mucus (with -k-)
‘mucus’, ON mugga ‘drizzle’, mjiikr ‘soft, malleable’, OE
smugan ‘creep’, MLG smucken ‘to adorn’ (< ‘make sleek’)(<
Proto-Gmc *(s)mug-), Grk pvooopai (< *muk-ie/o) 1 blow
my nose’. These forms have been connected, farther from the
527 —
SLIMY
sense central to this etymology, to forms meaning ‘to run away
slip away, flee’: Lith miikti ‘slip away from’, Latv mukl ‘slip
loose’, OCS mucati ‘chase’, ORus muknuti sja ‘pass over’, Olnd
muncati ‘looses, frees’, TochA muk- ‘to let go, give up’, TochB
mauk- ‘to let go, give up’, perhaps connected by a sense like
‘to slip off, away’, mak- ‘run’. The root is well attested in the
northwest with Greek providing the most immediate
connection outside of that area. From *meu- ‘damp’.
See also Anoint; Fish; Smear; Snail. [J.C.S.]
Further Reading
Trier, Jost (1951) Lehm: Etymologien zum Fachwerk. Marburg,
Simon.
SLING
?*(s)bhond-neh a ‘strap, sling’, [cf. IEW 989
(*sp(h)e(n)d-)]. Lat funda (< *bhond-eh a ) ‘sling’, Grk
GfpevSovT] (metathesized from *G(pov8evr 7 ) ‘sling’. The Latin -
Greek equation, though showing some phonological
irregularities, may betoken something of (late) PIE age.
Slings are probably among the earliest weapons and they
are depicted, at least, from the early Neolithic, e.g., in paintings
from Qatal Htiyuk in Anatolia. Neolithic sites have also yielded
both small stones and day pellets that have been interpreted
as sling stones.
See also Tool. [D.Q.AJ
Further Reading
Huld, M. E. (1993) Early Indo-European weapons terminology. Word
44, 223-234.
SLIP see SLIDE
SLOETREE
*dhergh-‘ sloetree, blackthorn (Prunus spinosa)' . [IEW 258
( *dheregh -)]. OIr draigen ‘sloetree, blackthorn ( Prunus
spinosa)\ Weis draen ‘thombush’, OHG dim(-baum)\c ornel)
cherry’, NHG (dial.) dimlein ‘cornel cherry’, Rus deren ~ deren
‘cornel cherry’, SC dren ‘cornel cherry’, Kashubian dron
'thorns’, Pol (dial.) dzron ‘barberry (Berberis spp.)’ (barberries
are shrubs with spines, yellow flowers, and oblong red berries)
(Gmc and Slav < *dherghno-). A northwestern IE term for
‘sloetree, blackthorn’ which shows semantic specialization to
‘thorn’ in both Celtic and Slavic and to ‘cornel cherry’ in both
Slavic and Germanic. The various reflexes suggest either an
old n-stem noun *dherghon (gen. *dhfghnos ) or an old root
noun *dherghs (gen. *dhfghos ) to which has been added,
independently in Celtic and Germanic-Slavic, the derivational
*-no- so common in IE tree names.
See a Iso Trees. [D.Q.A.]
SMALL
*men-u/yo-s thin (in density), sparse, fine’. [IEW 728-
729 ( *men-)\ cf. Wat 41 (*men-); Buck 12.661. (1) *men-u/
jjo-: Olr menb ‘small, tiny’, Lat minus ‘less’ (but may rather
be connected with *mei-), Grk paw ‘small’, Arm manr small,
fine’, Olnd manik'a little, slightly’; (2) *nienk- ‘lacking’. [IEW
729 ( *men-k-)\ . OHG mengen ‘lack’, kith mehkas ‘small,
unimportant, little’, ?Hil maninku- ‘short, near, narrow’,
TochA maiik ‘lack, debt’, TochB menki lack’. Very uncertain
is Lat mancus ‘crippled, maimed’ which has also been placed
here. The root itself is secure for PIE and both derived forms
show reasonable distributions.
?*dhebh- makes small?’. [Gl 684 (*d h eb l, -)\. Hit fepnu-
‘make small, lessen the size or quantity of’, tepu- ‘small, few’,
Av ddbdnaota ‘you deceive’, Olnd dabhnoti ‘harm, deceives’.
The semantic connection between Anatolian and I ndo- Iranian
is by no means sufficiently secure to ascribe IE status.
??*h a elpos weak’. [/EW33 {*alp-)\ Buck 12.561. Lith alpti
‘to lose consciousness’ was earlier placed here but now seems
related to lepti 1 be mollycoddled, spoiled; become effeminate’,
Grk ctXanaSvoc, ‘weak’ is more likely to be related to a family
of words meaning ‘empty’, Hit alpa(nt)- ‘sick, weak’, Olnd
alpa- ‘small’ has been placed here, assuming alp-a rather than
al-pa , and thence to Proto-Indo-Iranian *al-/ar -, cf. Olnd anu-
‘small’. Either solution is very uncertain and the connection
to this etymon must be rejected. The entire set, accepted in
earlier works, has nothing left to recommend it.
See also Thin; Weak. (J C S.)
SMEAR
*leip- ‘adhere, stick; smear’. I /EW 670-671 ( *leip-)\ Wat
36 (*leip-)\. ON leifa ‘leave over’, OE belifan ‘remain’, OHG
billban ‘remain’, Goth bileiban ‘remain’, af-lifnan ‘remain’,
bilaibjan ‘leave remaining’, Lith limpii ‘adhere’, Latv hpu
‘adhere’, OCS pri-lipjp' stick on’, Hit lipp- ‘smear, paint’, Olnd
limpkti ‘smears’, TochB lip - ‘remain’. Cf. Grk Xuzapoq fat,
anointed, strong’, TochAB lyipar ‘remainder’. Widespread and
old in IE.
*hslei- smear’ (pres. *h a lingh a ti) [IEW 662 ( *lei-)\ Wat
35-36 (*lei- ~ *slei-)\. OIr as-lena ‘stain’, Lat lino ‘smear’,
Lith laistau ‘smear’, Grk aXivto ‘spread, smear’, Olnd limit i
‘pastes’, TochB lina- ‘± stick, place’. Reasonably widespread
and old in IE.
?*smeid- ‘smear’. [IEW 966-967 (Lsme-)I. OE be-smitan
‘smear’, OHG (bi)smizan ‘smear’, Goth bi-smeitan ‘anoint’,
ga-smeitan ‘smear’, Arm mic (< *smidio-) ‘dirt’. Dubious. If
the Armenian word belongs here with the Germanic (by no
means a certainty), then we have evidence perhaps for a late
IE word of the west and center.
See also Adhere; Anoint; Sumy; Work. [D.Q.A.]
SMELL
*h 3 ed- ‘smell’ (= ‘give off a smell’). [IEW 772-773 ( *od-)\
Wat 45 ( *od-)\ Buck 15.21; BK 371 ( *ut V*ot '-)] . Lat oleo
‘smell, stink’, Lith uodziu ‘smell’, Latv uozu ‘smell’, OCzech
jadati ‘investigate, sniff out’, Grk o^co ‘smell’, Arm hotim
‘smell’. At least a word of the west and center of the IE world.
*pu- (*puhx-l) ‘stink’. [IEW 848-849 (*pQ-)\. Lat puteo
‘stink’, Lith pudau ‘rot’, Latv put ‘stink’, Grk kvOco ‘become
— 528 —
SNAKE
rotten’, Av puyeiti ‘rots’, Oind ptiyati ‘stinks’. An old word in
IE, almost certainly of onomatopoeic origin.
See also Nose; Pus; Rot. [D.Q.A.]
SMITH GOD
?*\i\kanos ‘smith god’. IDel 751. Lat Vo/can us (smith god),
Oss wxrgon (smith god). Although smith gods are found in
the mythologies of the various IE peoples, e.g., the Celtic
Goibniu and the Greek Hephaistos, these comparisons are
usually generic and may be found among non-IE peoples as
well. One of the few striking parallels among a number of the
smith deities of the various IE stocks is that he is described as
lame and/or a dwarf in Latin, Germanic and Greek tradition.
But the postulation of a PIE smith god from the -linguistic
evidence rests primarily on the similarity between the Latin
and Ossetic names. That the Latin form is cognate with the
Iranian is by no means secure. It is usually considered a
borrowing from Etruscan; and Raetic vely^nu is also compared
here. An Aegean origin has also been proposed where we
find the name feXyavoq on Crete. It has been suggested that
the Cretan form may be Luvian and hence compared with
Hit walhmi l l hit’. Previous attempts to associate the name
with Oind ulka ‘meteor’ should be rejected and there is no
evidence for a PIE *ulka ‘firebrand’ as has been sometimes
suggested. The comparison then remains etymologically most
obscure.
See also Craft God; Gold, Metal; Silver. [E.C.P1
SMOKE
*dhuh 2 mds ‘smoke’. [IEW 261 (*dhu-mo-)\ Wat 14
( *dheu-)\ GI 388 (*d h eu-H/s-)\ Buck 1 .83] . Lat fum us ‘smoke’,
OPrus dumis ‘smoke’, Lith (pi.) dQmai ‘smoke’, Latv (pi.) dumi
‘smoke’, OCS dymti ‘smoke’, Grk ‘ spirit’ , Oind dhuma-
‘smoke’. OHG toum (< *dhouh2mo -) ‘steam’ may be cognate
but not Mir dumach ‘sandbank, heap, mass, clouds, mist’.
The word is clearly PIE and derives from *dheuh2- with a
meaning difficult to establish, perhaps something like ‘be in
(com)motion, smoke’. The same root lies behind Hit tuhha(i)-
‘cough’.
*k w h a uep- or *k^ w ^uh a p- ‘smoke, seethe’. [ IEW 596
( *kuep-)\ Wat 34 ( *k w ep-)\ Buck 1.83; Schrijver 2601. Lat
vapor' steam’, Lith kupu ‘boil, seethe’, kvipti (with e) ‘breathe,
cough’, kvapas ‘breath’, Latv kupet ‘smoke, steam’, OCS kypeti
‘seethe’, Alb kapitem ‘am tired, exhausted’, Grk KotTtvoq (<
*kuh a ep-) ‘smoke’. The second root form *k^ w -uh a p- assumes
metathesis, secondary *k (w ^h a ep- > kuap- hence: Lat vap-
and Grk *kh a uep- or *kuh a ep- > *kh a ep-\ with b-vanant, or
rather -bn- > -pn-: Goth af-Lvapjan ~ al-Lvapnan ‘choke’. To
be rejected here are: Olr ad-cobra ‘want’, Lat cupid ‘wish,
desire’, Oind kopayati ‘makes tremble, shake’. Perhaps a late
IE term in Europe.
*(s)m(e)ug(h)- ‘smoke’. [IEW 97 1 ( *(s)meukh -); Wat 62
( *smeug-)\ Buck 1.83] . Olr much (with u) ‘smoke’, Weis mwg
(with 0) ‘smoke’, OE smoca (< * smug-on-), smeocan (<
*smeug-) ‘smoke’ (> NE smoke), Grk optyo) ‘burn in
moldering fire’, Arm mux (< *(s)mukho-) smoke’. The root
vowel was *eu/u with the long u unexplained; the Arm x is
also unclear. At least a word of the west and center of the IE
world.
See also Burn, Fire. [ R S P B . ]
Further Readings
Roider, U. (1981) Griech Mut’ — ai dhumah Rauch’. KZ 95,
98-109.
Schrijver, R (1991) The Reflexes of the PIE Laryngeals in Latin.
Leiden, Rodopi.
SMOOTH
*ghleh x dh-(ro)~ smooth’ < ‘shiny’. [IEW 431-432
( *ghladh-)\ Wat 21 ( *ghel -); Buck 15.771. Lat glaber smooth,
esp. without hair’, ON gladr ‘happy, shining’, OE glaed ‘shining,
happy’ (> NE glad), OHG glat ‘shining, bright clear’, OPrus
glosto ‘whetstone’, Lith glodus ‘smooth, smoothed’, Latv
glas(t)it ‘to stroke, caress’, OCS gladiti ‘smooth’, Rus gladkyj
‘shiny’. Northwestern development of the root *ghel-' shine’.
See also Shine. [J.C.S.]
SNAIL
*sleimak- snail, slug’. (/EVV663 ( *(s)lei -); cl. Wat 35-36
(*lei-)]. Rus shmak ‘snail’, Grk Xeigalq slug’. From *(s)lei-
‘be slimy’. A word of the center of the IE world.
See a Iso Animal; Shellfish; Sumy. [D.Q.A.]
SNAKE
*hidg w his (gen. *hi6g w his) ‘snake’ [IEW 43-45
( *og u hi-)\ cf. Wat 2-3 ( *ang w hi -); Gl 444 (*og^°i-). Buck
3.85 1 . Weis euod ‘sheepworm’, euon ‘horseworm’ (< Proto-
Celtic *eghi-), OHG egala ‘leech’, Grk exiq (< *eghi~) viper’,
eyiSva (< *eghidnih a ) ‘viper’, otpiq ‘snake’, Arm iz
(< *eg w hi-) ‘snake, viper’, Av azi- ‘snake’, Oind ahi- ‘snake’
TochB auk ‘snake’ probably belongs here as well, if Proto-
Toch *euk is metathesized from expected *ekij (much as
Proto-Gmc *aug-an- ‘eye’ is from PIE *h^dk xv ). The most
plausible reconstruction would seem to be an aerostatic
*hiog w hi- ~ *hieg w hi- ‘snake’. The lack of labio-velar in Grk
EXiq and k'xiSva must be attributed to contamination with
the word for ‘eel’. *h\og w his is probably the oldest word we
can reconstruct for ‘snake’ in PIE. Its semantic tield embraces
more than simply the reptile but also, apparently, a mythic
serpent or dragon that is slain by a great hero in Indo-
European myth. This is seen in a series of formulaic corres-
pondences in IE literature. In the Rgveda , one of the central
motifs is the slaying of the serpent (Vjrra) by Indra where
one finds the phrase ahann ahim ‘he killed the serpent’ on
eleven occasions. The cognate expression — Janat azim ‘[who]
killed the serpent’ — is found in the Iranian A vesta where
0raetaona slays the dragon Azi Dahaka. In Greek passages
depicting the slaying of monsters we also find both the same
word for ‘serpent’ and ‘kill’ which supports the existence ot
an underlying PIE phrase *(hie)g w hent h jog" him ‘he killed
— 529 —
SNAKE
the serpent’. In Germanic the corresponding dragon-slaying
motif retains the same verb but has replaced the word for
‘serpent’ with Proto-Gmc *wurmiz ‘worm, snake’. The next
word, *h a (e)ng w h(i)-, has replaced *hiog w his , or shunted it
into semantically marginal areas, in much of the west and
center of the IE world.
*h a ing w his (gen. *h a $g w heis ) ‘snake’. [ IEW 43-45
(*ang^(h)i-)\ Wat 2-3 ( *ang w hi-)\ GI 444 (*ang llo i-)\ Buck
3.85]. Olr escung(D!L escong) ‘eel’ (< * ‘water-snake’, where
ung< *ang w ho), Weis llysyw(en) ‘eel’, Lat anguis ‘snake’, OHG
unc ‘snake’, OPrus angis ‘non-poisonous snake’, Lith angis
‘snake’, Latv uddze ‘snake’, Rus uz ‘snake’, Pol w$z ‘snake’ (<
Proto-Slavic *pzi- ‘snake’), Illyrian (Hesychius) a/teig ‘snakes’.
Arm awj (gen. sg. awji ) ‘snake’. Note that the aspiration of
the final consonant is guaranteed by the Old Irish and
Armenian forms.
*n6hitor (gen. *rd}itrds), Italo-Celtic *n^jtrik- ‘snake’.
[IEW 767 ( *ne-tr)\ Wat 44 (*netr)\ Gl 445; Buck 3.85], Olr
nathir (gen. nathrach ) ‘snake’, Weis neidr snake’, Lat natrix
‘watersnake’, ON nadr ~ nadra ‘snake, adder’, OE nzedre
‘snake, adder’ (> NE adder , by misdivision of a nadder), OHG
nat(a)ra ‘snake, adder’, Goth nadrs ‘snake, viper’. From
*(s)nehi- ‘sew’, as ‘the twister’. A word of the western part of
the IE world. There appears to have been at least an incipient
semantic division between *h a eng w his and *nehi tor in those
areas where both were found, the former being ‘snake’ in
general while the second tending to be the poisonous ‘adder
( Vipera berus )’. The attestation of an inherited ‘snake’ word
in Ireland, a land famous since classical times for the absence
of snakes, indicates how cultural vocabularies may extend
beyond the geographical borders of a language (snakes are,
however, known from Britain).
See also Animal; Crawl; Dragon; Eel;
Three-headed Monster. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1995) Howto Kill a Dragon. New York, Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
SNEEZE see COUGH
SNORE
?*srenk- ‘snore’ . [ IEW 1 002 ( *srenk-)\ Wat 64 ( *srenk -)] .
Olr sreinnid (< *srenk-n - ) ‘snores’, Grk peyKto ‘snore’.
Certainly originally an onomatopoeic word. The close equi-
valence of Old Irish and Greek gives some evidence that the
formation is of PIE age.
See also Dream; Moan; Sleep. [D.Q.A.]
SNOW
*sneig w h- ‘to snow’. \1EW 974 ( *sneig u h-)\ Wat 62
( *sneig w h-)\ GI 587 ( *sneig/ 1 °-) ; Buck 1 .76] . Olr snigid ‘rains,
snows’, Weis nyfio ‘snows’, Lat nivit ( ni-1 ), ninguit ‘snows’,
ON snyr‘ snows’, (past participle snivenn ), OE snlwan ‘snows’,
OHG snlwan ‘snows’, Lith sniega, sniegti ( sninga , snigti )
‘snows’, Latv snieg , snigt ‘snows’, OCS osneziti snows’, Grk
veitpei ‘snows’, Av snaezaiti ‘snows’, Olnd snehayati ‘causes
to fall (?)’, (aor.) a-snih-at ‘remain lying (?)’. Distribution
assures PIE status. There is no evidence for s-mobile (Olnd
nihaka- ‘snow-storm?’ cannot, therefore, be cognate). Old
Indie has no old present, the other languages have the full-
grade except for Celtic, and the length of the i in Lat nivit is
uncertain. It has been supposed that the verb, clearly of PIE
status, was originally athematic and ablauting, but as the 3rd
sg. was the only form in regular use (cf. ‘it snows, it is
snowing’), perhaps the Celtic forms are denominal. The Latin
nasal present is no longer supported by Umb ninctu , as this
form is of uncertain interpretation and had it been truly
cognate, it should have begun with *sn-. Lith sninga is
probably recent. The Old Indie meaning can be derived from
‘(let) fall like snow’. It is improbable that Olnd snihyati was
originally ‘is moist, sticky, attached to’ and that all the other
languages innovated in the same way; moreover, the later Indie
languages as well as Iranian retain the meaning ‘snow’.
*snig w h-s (fern.), *sndig w h-os (masc.) ‘snow’. (/EVV'974
( *sni^h-)\ Wat 62 ( *snig w h-)\ GI 587 ( *sneig ho -)\ Buck 1 .76] .
Olr snige (neut.) ‘drip, flowing’, snecht(a)e ‘snow’, Weis nyf
(< *snig w h -) ‘snow’, Lat nix , nivis (fern.) ‘snow’, OE snaw
‘snow’ (> NE snow), OHG sne(o), snewes (masc.) ‘snow’, Goth
snaiws ‘snow’, OPrus snaygis ‘snow’, Lith sniegas ‘snow’, Latv
sniegs ‘snow’, OCS snegu, SC snijeg ‘snow’, Grk (acc.
fem.)vi(pa ‘snow’, vitpaq, vnpezog ‘snowstorm’, (pi.)
‘snowflakes’, Shugni zini] ‘snow’, Olnd sneha - ‘slime, grease’,
Prakrit sineha- ‘snow’, TochB sincatstse (from implied noun
*since ‘snow’ < *snig w hi- or *snig w hen - ) ‘snowy’. The
Germanic and Baltic and Slavic forms derive from *snoig w hos
as well as Olnd sneha-, if this is old, Baltic, Slavic and Old
Indie also agree on root-accented *snoig w hos. The form with
the zero grade must be old, and Latin and Greek point to a
feminine root noun.
See also Ice, Seasons. [R.S.PB.]
Further Reading
Hoffmann, K. (1965) Idg *sncig w h-. MSS 18, 13-28.
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
The social organization of PIE society is relatively opaque
given the few terms that can be reconstructed to PIE and
even there semantic discrepancies between phonologically
cognate words often renders the reconstruction of the proto-
meaning hopelessly vague. Also, social structures of any IE
community and the terms which were employed to describe
them were in a constant state of evolution so that whatever
has survived to be reconstructed can be but a fragment of the
original system. For example, B. Schleraths experiment in
reconstructing Germanic social terms from the Heliand and
Beowulf found that of twenty-seven words or compounds
cognate to both, only two have survived in each of the
descendant languages a thousand years later, i.e. , OF eorl(d.
OHG erl) > NE earl, OE cyning > NE king, OHG sea Ik ~
— 530 —
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
scalch (cf. OE scealc ‘servant’) > NHG schalk ‘scoundrel,
servant, OHG kuning> NHG konig ‘king’.
The Four-Tiered System
Emile Benveniste proposed a widely accepted hierarchical
system for PIE society comprising four social tiers. The lowest
and smallest unit was the *dom(h a )~ ‘household, nuclear
family’, and this term had a corresponding designation for its
social head, the *dems-pot- ‘master of the house’. The families
were gathered together into a *uik- ‘clan’ which also had a
corresponding head, *uikpots , and the clans were grouped
together into a single *gen- ‘tribe’. The territorial expression
of where a people lived as well as the largest social collective
was provided by Av dahyu and OInd dasyu- (< *das - ). But
such a structure only occurs in canonical order in the Avesta
(e.g., Y 31, 18) and its attribution to PIE rests primarily on
the presence of cognate terms in other IE languages; there is
no solid evidence for the actual “system” in another IE stock
(e.g., the Greek cognate of *gen- is yevog and means ‘family’
rather than ‘tribe’). Moreover, critical examination of the
Iranian terms reveals that there is considerable imprecision
of meaning of any word above the level of the family. That
the *uik- designates something larger than a nuclear family
there is little doubt but there is no evidence that it must be
interpreted as a ‘clan of related families sharing a common
ancestor’ or any other more precisely defined larger unit of
social organization. Similarly, the Indo-lranian *zantu- has
far too broad a semantic range to permit the reconstruction
of an Indo-lranian word for ‘tribe’ much less a PIE term al-
though it must have designated something larger than a uik-
and smaller than a ‘country’. Some form of kingship has been
widely accepted for PIE with reconstruction of *h 3 regs ‘king’.
Tribal System
The system proposed by E. Benveniste rests largely on east
IE material and has been challenged by Kim McCone who
has proposed a social system in which the primary levels of
discrimination are based on the social organization of warfare
and its relationship to the *teuteh a -, generally translated ‘tribe’
or ‘people’, which is unaccounted for in Benveniste’s system
but which McCone regards as an essential feature of PIE social
organization. The structure envisaged by McCone
distinguishes between warriors who operate outside the remit
of tribal society and those who live within its system. This
sets into opposition the *korios ‘war-band’ of youths who
engage in predatory behavior, living like wolves by hunting
and raiding. In terms of the reconstructed lexicon, character-
istics of this group would comprise concepts such as ‘youth’
( *h a iuh x -n-ko~') which often covers the meaning of ‘young
warrior’ in the various IE stocks, e.g., Olr oac ‘youth; warrior’.
Here he would also include *morios ‘deadly (one)’ which
McCone takes to underlie both Olr muire ‘leader’, and the
Indo-lranian words associated with the youthful war-bands,
e.g., Av mairyo ‘villain, scoundrel’, Olnd marya- ‘young man’.
Finally, to this group would be assigned the entire complex
associating warriors with wolves. A characteristic of this group
would be the achievement of wealth (or at least subsistence)
by raiding for booty for which IE retains at least one
designation in *soru.
At about the age of twenty, the young man was recognized
as a marriageable adult ( *uih x ros or *h a nef) and capable of
owning and defending his home and possessions ( *potis ).
His place was then in the ‘tribe’ ( *teuteh a - ) which consisted
of three or four ‘clans’ ( *uikes ) under the rulership of a *h jregs
‘king’. In terms of warfare, the man graduated from light
foot-soldier to chariot-fighter or some other form of more
advanced military unit. Later, he became an ‘elder’ ( *senos or
*gerh a dnts ) and he was absolved from military service but
could be required to give advice ( *medonts) based on his age
and experience.
The system here, which offers an alternate structure to that
proposed by Benveniste, is obviously founded on the function
of males in society largely to the exclusion of females.
Moreover, the reconstruction of the position of ‘king’ to a
position of secular rather than religious leadership is by no
means certain. Finally, there are other social terms, even those
pertinent to the structure proposed such as *leh 2 Uos ‘people
(under arms)’, which need to be incorporated into an
explanatory framework.
Social Complexity
Social organizations when represented in a hierarchic scale
are often crudely divided into four broad categories of social
complexity. The lowest is that of the band or egalitanan society.
This form of society correlates broadly with hunter-gatherers
(in archaeological terms, the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic) who
are marked by small social units, bands consisting of a number
of families. Status is based on one’s age, sex or own personal
achievements but cannot be inherited. Economic relations
tend to be reciprocal. As the economic basis of the
reconstructed PIE lexicon is clearly that of agriculturalists and
there are sufficient terms for “leaders” and other social
categories, it seems clear that PIE social organization was more
complex than a simple band/egalitarian society.
The second level of complexity is termed ranked or tribal
and this type of society does correlate with simple agricultural
communities (Neolithic in archaeological terms) although it
may also comprise certain hunter-gatherers, especially those
occupying areas of abundant and stable resource availability.
Residential populations may run to the hundreds and there
may be some degree of craft specialization. Status positions
are limited and are based on such factors as line of descent
and order of birth. Society is to some extent fragmented into
sodalities, subunits of society engaged in specific tasks
(religious, military, social), and clans. Exchange within such
systems may involve redistribution of goods extracted from
family members or others by a person in authority Authority
itself is familial or sacred, i.e., it is sanctioned by “norms”
recognized by the society but compliance is not based on
coercion. There is nothing in the second ranked level of society
SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
that could not be accommodated in our reconstructions of
the IE lexicon (agriculture, crafts, sodalities, war-bands,
leaders, concepts of inheritance, etc.).
The third level has been termed stratified or a chiefdom
and reflects increased organization over that of the earlier
ranked or tribal society. Here there are institutionalized differ-
ences according to the subsistence economy (these may be
reflected, for example, in early Mesopotamia and Indus Valley
towns or, in a more explicitly IE context, in the palace
economies indicated by the Linear B tablets of Mycenaean
Greece with its many craft-specialists). The aristocracies in
such systems have preferential access to goods and authority
tends to be based on the territorial unit rather than the family.
Urbanism and the explicit statement of laws, usually written,
have been seen as characteristics of this level of social complex-
ity In general, many although not all of these characteristics
appear to conform more easily with Bronze Age societies of
some regions of Eurasia, e.g., the Aegean, Central Asia, Indus
Valley, although there is certainly evidence for some concen-
tration of power elites already by the later Neolithic of some
regions. It would seem that if PIE society had to be fixed
somewhere on a scale of complexity, it would fit comfortably
into the second level or between the second and third broad
categories.
Finally, there are states in which there is a concentration
of both economic and political power in the state. The
authority of the state is such that it has the monopoly on the
use of force. Urbanism and other characteristics of what one
would generally term a “civilization” are also required features
of state societies.
The level of social complexity that we generally attribute
to the period of the proto-language would fall very short of a
state-level society and there are no linguistic nor comparative
cultural grounds whatsoever for attributing an urban back-
ground to the Proto-Indo-Europeans. T. Gamkrelidze and V
Ivanov have assigned to PIE a high level of social organization
that lacked some of the features of the state societies of the
Near East yet nevertheless must have been in contact with
them to account for the high degree of PIE social complexity.
There are, however, no grounds for assuming such complexity
since there is nothing in the social organization or material
culture of PIE that could not be ascribed to most societies
over a broad area of Eurasia during the fourth millennium
BC.
See also Age Set; Army; Comparative Mythology; Leader;
King; Kinship; Warfare. [J.RM.l
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) Indo-European Language and Society. Coral
Gables, Florida, University of Miami, 239-261 .
Fried, M. (1967) The Evolution of Political Society. New York,
Random House.
McCone, K. (1987) Hund, Wolfund Kriegerbei den Indogermanen,
in Studien zum Indogermanischen Wortschatz, ed. W Meid,
Innsbruck, 101-154.
Polome, E. C. (1992) Comparative linguistics and the reconstruction
of Indo-European culture, in Reconstructing Languages and
Cultures , eds. E. Polome and W Winter, Berlin and New York,
369-390.
Schlerath, B. (1987) Konnen wir die urindogermanische Sozial-
struktur rekonstruieren?, in Studien zum Indogermanischen
Wortschatz , ed. W Meid, Innsbruck, 249-264.
Service, E. (1971) Primitive Social Organization. New York, Random
House.
Zimmer, S. (1987) Indogermanische Sozialstruktur? Zu zwei Thesen
Emile Benvenistes, in Studien zum Indogermanischen Wort-
schatz, ed. W Meid, Innsbruck, 315-329.
SOFT
*melh n- ‘soft’. [7EW 716-717 ( *mel-)\ Wat 40 (*me/-);
Buck 15.75; BK 518 ( *mul-/*mol-)\. (1) without extension:
Olnd mliyati ‘withers, fades’; (2) *melhi-k ‘weak, foolish’
[1EW 7 19 ( *meh-k-)\: MDutch malsch ~ mals ‘reckless, soft’,
OSax malsk ‘proud’, Goth un-tila-malsksTeck\ess (Germanic
forms with additional -sk suffix), Grk paXaKoq
(< *mlehik-) ‘soft, weak’, Hit malisku- ‘weak, light, unim-
portant’. Also placed here may be Lith mulkisTool, idiot’ and
perhaps Olnd malva- ‘thoughtless, foolish’ with similar
semantic developments proposed from the same root; (3)
*m\dus [ I EW 7 18 (*mel-d -)] Buck 15.75]: Weis blydd' tender,
juicy, soft’, Lat mollis ‘soft’, OPrus maldaV young’, OCS mladu
‘young, soft’, Rus molod ‘young’, Grk fiXadvq slack’, dfuaXog
‘tender, weak’, Arm me/TCsoft, limp’, Olnd mpdu- ‘soft, tender,
mild’. Reasonably broad attestation and clear semantics makes
this a very probable PIE root with several distinct formations.
*l(e)nto- ‘soft’. I/EW'677 ( * lento-)] Wat 36 ( * lento-)] Weis
llathr(< *lantro-< *h}t-ro-) ‘smooth’, Lat lentus ‘soft, tender’,
OE tide's* oft, lithe’ (> NE lithe), OHG //7?d(/)‘mild, soft’. Earlier
attempts to connect Lith lentas ‘quiet, calm’ (more recently
seen as a loanword) and Olnd lata- ‘creeping, climbing plant’
are doubtful, leaving this only securely reconstructed to the
northwest area. See also the tree-name ‘linden’.
?*menkus soft’. [7EW730-731 ( *mcn(d)k -); Buck 15.751.
Latv mikst ‘soft’, OCS mpkukQ ‘soft’, Alb (Gheg) mekan ‘weak’,
(Tosk) mekur ‘weak’. Olnd manku- ‘weak’ has been set with
this series but the word occurs only once and is very’ uncertain
(perhaps meaning ‘tottering, frail’ or ‘stupefied’) and is without
secure etymology. Everything but the Albanian is either highly
questionable or derives directly from a verb ‘to knead’, cf.
Lith minkyti ‘to knead’, Latv mlcit ‘to knead’. The sparse
attestation seems confined to Baltic, Slavic and Albanian, and
may be a regional isogloss, possibly connected with the root
‘to knead’.
See also Linden; Melt; Slack, Weak. U C.S.]
SOMA see SACRED DRINK
SOME
*sijim6s ‘some, any; someone, anyone’. |7EVV' 903
( *s e mo-)\ Gl 740-741 (*se/om-\ Wat 57 (*scm-), BK 184
— 532 —
SOUND
( *sam-/*S9m-)\ . ON sumr'some’, OE sum ‘someone, a certain
one’ (> NE some , indefinite -some in ‘three -some’), OHG sum
‘some, any’, Goth sums ‘anyone’, Grk agog ‘anyone’, agcbg
‘somehow’, ov8agog ‘no one’, Arm amen(-ain) ‘all, each’, Av/
OPers hama- ‘anyone’, OInd sama- ‘anyone’. From *sem - ‘one’.
See also Alone ; Same . [ C . F. J . ]
SON
*putlds ‘son’ . [ IEW 842-843 ( *pu-tlo-s)\ Buck 2.41; Szem
3.1]. Osc puklum ‘son’, Paelignian (dat. pi.) puclois ‘to the
sons’, Arm ustr ‘son’ (< *usl remodeled after dustr ‘daughter’),
OPers puga- ‘son’, Av puOra-'sori, Oss fyrd ‘son’, Olnd pulra-
‘son’. Distribution suggests PIE status. Traditionally taken as
*p(a)u- ‘small’ plus *-do- (a diminutive suffix), hen'ce ‘small
one’ or the like.
*suh x nus ‘son’. [ IEW 9 1 3 ( *sunus , *suius ); Wat 58 ( *su(d)-
nu-)\ G1 667 ( *suyo-/*sunu-)\ Buck 2.41; Wordick 149-150;
Szem 3; BK 169 (*s y aw-/*s y 9W-)\. ON sunr ‘son’, OE sunu
‘son’ (> NE son), OHG sunu ‘son’, Goth sunus ‘son’, OPrus
souns 1 son’, Lith simus ‘son’, OCS synu ‘son’, ORus synQ ‘son’,
Rus syn ‘son’, Av hunus ‘son’, OInd sunu- ‘son’, TochB somske
‘(young) son’. Cf. also *suh x ius ‘son’ in Myc i-ju ‘son’, Grk
mu<;‘son’, TochA se‘son’, TochB soy ‘son’. From *seuhx~ ‘bear,
beget’. Clearly of PIE status.
The widely dispersed *putlos , which lacks clear morpho-
logical analysis, was possibly the earliest PIE designation for
‘son’, a term that may have included ‘brother’s son’ as well if
the PIE kinship system can be reconstructed as of the Omaha
type. The biological son was further distinguished by the
special designation ‘offspring’ *suh x nus. Attempts have been
made to interpret this derivation as suggesting that only the
son (in contrast to the daughter) was valued as the true
offspring; alternatively, it has been suggested that the more
active sense ‘to give birth’ was also the underlying metaphor
in a patrilineal society where it was the males who perpetuated
the line and were the procreators of future generations.
See also Daughter; Kinship; Young. [M.E.H.]
SON-IN-LAW
*gomhx-ter- ‘son-in-law’. [IEW 369 (*gem(e»; cf. Wat
19 ( *gem9-)\ GI 775; Buck 2.63; Wordick 241-242; Szem
20; BK 215 ( *tj’im-/*t}’em -)]. Alb dhender (Gheg dhanderr)
‘son-in-law’, Av zamatar- ‘son-in-law’, Sog z”m ”r’r‘son-in-law’,
OInd jamatar- ‘son-in-law’. Related are Av zamaoya - (< *zama-
vya -) ‘son-in-law’s brother’, Pashto zam ‘son-in-law’. A word
of the center and east of the IE world. From *gemh x - ‘marry’.
*gipmh x -ro-s ~ *gip-ro-s ‘son-in-law’. [IEW 369
( *gem(e)-)\ Gl 664; Szem 20; BK 215 (*t£’i irn-/*tf ’em-)]. Bret
gever ‘son-in-law’, Lat gener ‘daughter’s or sister’s husband’
(once sister’s son), Grk yagppog ‘son-in-law; brother-in-law;
father-in-law’. A word of the west and center of the IE world
and as with the preceding entry, derived from *gemh x - ‘marry’.
*gemh x -to-s ‘son-in-law’ (confused with the root *genhi-
‘beget’, cf. Sogd z'lyy ‘son’ < *gphi-lo-ko- y cf. OInd jataka-
‘birth’). [IEW 373-374 (*gen-)\ Gl 664; Szem 20; BK 215
(*d’im-/*d’em-)\. Lith zentas ‘daughter’s husband’, Latv znuots
‘daughter’s husband’, OCS z?ti son-in-law’, Rus zjati
‘daughter’s husband; sister’s husband; husbands sister’s
husband’. From *gemh x - ‘marry’.
All of these words appear to be built on the same root
*gemhx- which is usually taken to indicate ‘to marry’, i.e.,
‘the one who married, the son-in-law’. However, it has also
been suggested that the underlying root meant specifically
the payment of the bride-price by the groom (cf. the related
Pashto zdman ‘payment’).
See also Kinship; Marriage. | M . E . H . 1
SONG see SING
SON’S DEATH
A recurrent narrative structure in the epics of a number ol
IE stocks is the death of a son who is killed unwittingly by
his father. The best known Old Irish version involves the hero
Cu Chulainn who sires a son abroad in Scotland who is
enjoined not to reveal his name until he meets his father
Raised apart, he comes to Ireland in search of his father and
when he fails to reveal his name (Connla) when challenged,
he unknowingly must confront his father who is charged with
the defence of Ulster and the son is killed in the combat.
Similarly, in the Germanic Hildebrandslied , the warrior
Hildebrant must inadvertently kill his own son Hadubrant.
The theme recurs in Russian epic where Ilya of Muron must
kill Sokolnichek, his son, who was raised apart. In the Iranian
epic Shahnameh it is Sohrab who must unknowingly confront
his son Rostam. Similar examples are found replicated within
these various stocks and in several others, e g , in the
Mahabharata of ancient India Arjuna kills his son
Babhruvahana. The theme, widespread as a folkloric motif,
has been ascribed to Indo-European by some. The vanous
versions reflect different motifs associated with the IE hero,
the killing of the son effectively places limitations on the
achievement of warrior prowess, isolates the hero from time
by cutting off his generational extension, and also re-
establishes the hero’s typical adolescence by depriving him of
a role (as father) in an adult world.
[j PM. |
Further Reading
Miller, D. A. (1994) Defining and expanding the Indo-European
Vater-Sohnes-Kampf theme. JIBS 22, 307-327.
SOON
*molcs‘soon’. [/EW747 (*moks)]. Olr mo ‘soon’, MWels
moch ‘soon’, Lat mox ‘soon’, Av mosu ‘as soon as', OInd maksu
~ maksQ ‘soon’. Although not abundantly attested, this root
is at least of PIE antiquity.
See also Time. [PB.J
SOUND
♦dhuen- ‘sound’. [lEW277(*dhuen-)\Wat 15 {*dhwcn-)\
— 533 —
SOUND
BK 75 (*daw-/*ddw-)]. ON dynr ‘ din, noise’, OE dynian
‘resound’, dyne ‘noise, loud sound’ (> NE dm ), Lith dundeti
‘rumble, roar, thunder’, OInd dhvanati ‘sounds, roars’.
Sufficiently widespread on the peripheries of the IE world to
make PIE status likely.
*syenh]r ‘(re)sound’. [IEW 1046-1047 ( *suen -); Wat 68
( *swen-)\ G1 106; Buck 15.441. Olr seinnid ‘plays a musical
instrument’, Lat sono ‘resound, make a noise’, OE swinsian
‘sing, make music’, swinn ‘music’, Latv sanet ‘sound, make
noise’, Av apa-h v ana- ‘turn back sound’, Olnd svanati ‘roars,
makes sound’, prasvanita- ‘emitting a noise’. Cf. the derivative
*suonhx6s in Lat sonus ‘sound’, OE swan ‘swan’ (< *‘singer’)
(> NE swan), OInd svana- ‘sound’. Attested only in the western
and eastern margins of the IE world but clearly of PIE date.
*klun- ‘resound’, [cf. IEW 550 ( *k(e)len -); VW 200]. OE
hlynn ‘sound, noise, roaring stream’, hlynnan ~ hlynnian
‘resound’, OSax gihlun ‘din, uproar’, TochAB kaln-
(< *klan-) ‘resound’. The semantic similarity of the Germanic
and Tocharian words makes for a likely PIE word.
*gerg- ‘± crack, resound’. [IEW 384 (*ger-)\ cf. Wat 20
( *ger 9 ~) ] . OE cearcian ‘creak, gnash’, cracian ‘resound, crack’
(> NE crack), OHG krahhon ‘crack’, Lith girgzdziu ‘creak’,
Arm karkac ‘noise, OInd garjati ‘roars, growls, howls’.
Onomatopoeic but widespread.
*ghuonos a sound, voice’. [IEW 490 ( *ghuono-s)] . OCS
zvonQ ‘noise’, Rus zvon ‘ring’, Alb ze ‘voice’, Arm jayn ‘voice’,
TochA kam ‘melody’, TochB kene ‘melody’. A derivative of
*gheu(hx)- ‘call, invoke’. At least dialectally present in late
PIE.
*k Uutiom ‘a sound’. [IE W60 5-606 {*kleu-tro-m)\ cf. Wat
3 1 ( *kleu-)\ BK 260 ( *k[ h ]ul-/*k[ h ]ol~) ] . OE hleodor ‘sound’,
OHG hliodar ‘sound’, Av sraoOram ‘song’, OInd srotra- ‘tone’.
From *kleu- ‘hear’. We have here a regular derivation that
might have occurred independently in Germanic and Indo-
Iranian.
?*d(h)eup- i ± resound loudly’. [IEW 22 1-222 ( *deup -)].
Latv dupeties ‘resound heavily’, SC dupiti ‘strike (of noise)’,
perhaps TochAB tap- ‘announce, proclaim’. The Tocharian
word seems semantically distant. If it belongs here, we have
evidence for a word at least of the center and east of the IE
world.
See also Animal Cry; Bird Cry; Moan; Noise. [D.Q.A.]
SOUP see BROTH
SOUTH see RIGHT
SOW
*sehi- ‘sow’. [IEW 890 (*se(i)-)\ Wat 56 (*se-); GI 594
( *seH(i)-)\ Buck 8.31], Lat sero (if < *sisd) ‘sow’, ON sa ‘sow’,
OE sawan ‘sow’ (> NE sow), OHG sa(w)en ‘sow’, Goth saian
‘sow’, Lith seju ‘sow’, OCS se/p ‘sow’, Hit sa(i)- ‘sow, throw’,
and perhaps OInd slra- ‘(?seed-)plow\ From a nominal deri-
vative *sohif(l ): Lith sora ‘millet’, Latv sara ‘common millet
( Panicum miliaceum)', TochAB sary- (< *soh ir-ie/o-) ‘plant',
sarm ‘seed; cause’. Widespread and old in IE. Ultimately the
same as *seh\- ‘throw’.
See also Agriculture ; Seed . [ D . Q . A . ]
SPACE
*Tiuhxes- ‘open space’. [IEW 874 ( *reues-)\ Wat 55
( *reu9-)\ BK 594 ( *raw-ah-/*rdw-ah-)\ . Olr roi(D!L roe) ‘field,
open land’, Lat rus (gen. ruris) ‘country-side, open fields’, Av
ravah- ‘space’. From *reuhx~ ‘(be) open’, preserved as such
only in TochAB ru- ‘(be) open’. Cf. also OCS ravfnO ‘level’
and pre-Gmc *ruh x mo-\ ON rum ‘room’, OE rum ‘space
(extent or time); room’ (> NE room), ry r man clear, open up;
retire, yield’, MHG rum ‘room’, Goth rums ‘open space’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*gjtidhiros ‘gap, empty space’. IVW 196] . Grk x&poq ~
X(bpG ‘free space, area between, land, etc.’ (cf. also x^P^
‘without’, ‘separate’), TochA kar ‘hole’, TochB kare
‘pit’. An e-grade (i.e. , *ghehireh a -) is reflected in Grk XVP&
‘widow’. Distribution, although limited, suggests IE antiquity.
*telp- ‘have room’. [IEW 1062 ( *telp-)]. Olr -tella
( do-alla ) (< *-t\p-neh a -) ‘have room for something’, lath telpii
‘find or have room enough; enter’, talpa ‘capacity, holding
power’, OCS tlupa ‘heap, troop, group’, OInd talpa- ‘bed’,
TochB La Ip- ‘be emptied, purged’ (< *‘have room [inside]’).
Distribution suggests PIE status.
IA.D.V, D.Q.A.l
SPARROW
*sper- ‘some type of small bird, ?sparrow’. l/EW 991
( *sper-(g-)-)\ Wat 63 ( *sper-)\ Gl 458 ( *sp h er-k-)[. Corn frau
‘crow’, ON spprr ‘sparrow’, OE spearwa ‘sparrow’ (> NE
sparrow ), OHG sparo ‘sparrow’, Goth sparwa ‘sparrow’, Grk
(Hesychius) onapdoiov ‘starling’ , TochA spar' a kind of bird’,
TochB spara- ‘kind of bird’. Although the sparrow is the most
commonly seen of birds throughout Eurasia, there is no certain
evidence for cognates outside of Germanic although there
are phonological cognates in other stocks but with consistently
different or, in the case of Tocharian, uncertain semantics that
render the meaning of PIE most uncertain
The lack of a common word for a bird, Passer domesticus,
that was little differentiated from India to Ireland is perplexing,
ft seems clear that the ancient IE tribes abandoned their IE
term and took on words presumably borrowed from the
indigenous inhabitants of the European or west Asiatic regions
into which they migrated.
See a Iso Birds . [] . A . C . G . ]
SPAWN see FISH
SPEAK
*yek w - ‘speak’ (pres. *\}6k w ti) [IEW 1135-1136
( *uek' J -)\ Wat 75 ( *wek w -)\ Gl 733-734 ( *wek ho -)\ Buck
18.21], Olr loculi (DIL focal) (< *uok w tlo-) ‘word', Lat vocd
‘call’, ON vatta (< Gmc *wahta-) ‘talk, recall’, Of IG giwahanem
— 534 —
SPEAK
‘recall’, OPrus wackitwei ‘entice’, enwackemai ‘we invoke’,
Grk einov (< *eweik w om < *e-ue-uk w -om which = Olnd
aorist avocam ) ‘spoke’, Arm gocem ‘call’, Av vak- ‘say’, Olnd
vivakti ‘speaks, says’, TochB wesk- (< *uok w ske/o -) ‘speak,
say’, TochAB wen- (< *uok w neu -) ‘will speak, say’. Widespread
and old in IE. To be found at least in the center and east of
the IE world is the derivative *yek w es- ‘speech’: Grk enoq
‘speech’, Av vacah- ‘speech’, Olnd vacas- ‘speech’. Cf. also
putative PIE *n-uk w -tos ‘unspoken’ which appears in OIr
anocht (a metrical fault) and Olnd anukta- ‘unuttered’.
Widespread and old in IE. Either this word or the next would
appear to have been the word for ‘speak, say’ in PIE. There is
some evidence that *(s)uer- may have formed the present
and *yek w - the aorist of a single paradigm- (such is the
situation in Greek for instance).
*(s)uer- ‘say, speak’. [IEW 1049 (*suer-), 1162 (*yer-);
Wat 68 {*swer~), 77 ( *wer-)\ Gl 200 ( *wer-)\ Buck 18.26;
BK492 ( *war-/*w3r -)]. From *uer-( pres. *uerie/o -): OPrus
wertemmai ‘we swear’, Rus vru ‘lie’, Grk el'pco ‘say’, Hit
wer(i)ye- ‘call, summon’, Palaic werti ‘calls’; cf. OE word ‘word’
(> NE word), Goth waurd ‘word’, Lith vardas ‘name’. From
*uerh\- : Grk pfjpa ‘word, phrase, speech’, Av urvata- ‘law’.
From *suer-: Lat sermo (< *suermd by dissimilation of the
two labials) ‘conversation, lecture’, sors (< *sufti~) ‘promise,
oracle’, Osc sverunnel 1 to the spokesman’, ON sverja ‘swear’,
OE swerian ‘swear’ (> NE swear), OHG swerien ‘swear’, Goth
swaran ‘swear’, OCS svariti ‘despise; battle’, svaru ‘battle’,
Lydian sfarwa- ‘± oath’, TochA sarm ‘origin’, TochB sarm
‘origin’ (Toch < *suermn). In one form or another, extremely
widespread and obviously old in IE.
*hieg- (or *hieh 1 g-) ‘say’. [IEW 290 (*eg-); Wat 16
(*eg-); Buck 18.22], Lat aid ‘say’, adagium ‘proverb’, axare ‘±
call by name, give a name to’, axamenta ‘songs, prophecies’,
Grk 77 ‘said’, avorya ‘I ordered’, Arm asem (rebuilt from *as
‘he said’ < *ac) ‘say’, ar-ac ‘proverb’, TochAB aks- ‘announce,
proclaim, instruct’. Widespread and old in IE.
*bheh a - ‘speak’ (pres. *bh6h a ti). [IEW 105-106 (*bha-)\
Wat 5 {*bha-)\ Buck 18.22; BK 21 ( *bah-/*bah-)\ . Lat for
‘speak’, fatum ‘utterance, prophetic declaration, oracle’, ON
banna ‘prohibit, curse’, OE bannan (< *bhh a -n\}-e/o-)
‘summon, proclaim’ (> NE ban), bogan ‘boast’, Rus baju
‘relate’, Grk (prfgi ‘say’, Arm bay ‘says’. Both Greek and
Armenian show a derivative *bhfr a ti- ‘word’ (Grk <pdcnq , Arm
bay)\ Greek and Latin reflect a *bheh a meh a ~ ‘saying’ (Grk
(pfigr] ‘saying, speech’, Lat fama ‘talk, reputation, fame’; Greek
and Old Norse reflect *bhoh a no/eh a - l sound, something said’
(Grk (pc&vfi ‘voice, sound’, ON bon ‘prayer, request’). At least
a word of the west and center of the IE world. One would
like to include Olnd bhasate ‘speaks, says, tells’ here though
the presence of -s- rather than -s- is not well explained. If the
Old Indie word does belong then the distribution of
attestations would seem to guarantee PIE status.
*ter- ‘± speak out’. [IEW 1088-1089 (*tor-)\ Buck 18.22;
Weeks 249], Mir to(i)rm (< *tor-smen-) ‘noise, din, uproar’,
OPrus tarin ‘noise’, Lith tariu ~ tarau ‘say’, tarmi ‘utterance’.
OCS trutoru ‘sound’, Rus torotoritl chatter, prattle’, Arm
t‘rt‘ra/c ‘good speaker’, Hit tar- ‘say’, tarta- ‘curse’, Luv tatariya-
(< *totone/o-) ‘curse’, TochB tar- ‘± plead, implore’. Wide-
spread and old in IE. Often taken to represent a semantic
specialization of *ler- ‘pierce’, but more probably an independ-
ent though homophonous root.
*y ed- ‘raise one’s voice’. [/EW76 (*au-~ *aijed-), Wat 73
( *wed -); Buck 18.21], OHG far-wazan ‘deny, disavow’, Lith
vadinu ‘call, name’, OCS vaditi ‘accuse’, vada ‘calumny’, Grk
(Hesychius) yoddeo (i.e. , (f)oSdco) ‘lament’, Olnd vadati
‘speaks, says; raises one’s voice, sings’, vadayati ‘lets sound,
plays a musical instrument’, vadman- ‘speaker, singer’, vada-
‘sound, statement’. Widespread and old in IE.
*mleuhx- ‘speak’. [Buck 18.21, 18.22], OCS mlQxiti ‘create
a disturbance’, mlQva ‘disorder’, Rus molviti ‘say, express’,
molva ‘talk, report, cry’, Czech mluviti ‘utter’, Av mraoiii' says,
recites’, Olnd braviti ‘says’, ?TochB palwarn (< *m}uh x -eh a -)
‘mourns’. The denasalization of *ml- to *bl- apparently in
both Old Indie and Tocharian is unusual in both languages.
The archaic morphology of the Indie and Iranian words
suggests a certain antiquity within IE; at least a later word of
the IE world.
*spreg- ‘speak’. [IEW 996-997 ( *(s)p(b)ereg -); Wat 64
( *spreg-)\ Gl 101; Buck 18.21], OE sprecan ~ specan ‘speak’
(> NE speak), OHG sprehhan ~ spehhan ‘speak’. Alb shpreh
‘express, voice, utter’. Perhaps related to *sperhxg- make a
noise’. In any case the agreement in this word for speak’ by
both Germanic and Albanian is a significant shared innovation.
*rek- ‘speak’. [IEW 863 (*rek-), BK 600 ( *rak[ b ] -/
*rdkfr)-)]. OCS resti ‘say’, reel ‘speech’, roku ‘term’, manlike’,
TochA rake ‘word’, TochB reki ‘word’. Perhaps here, but only
very doubtfully, is (late) Olnd racayati ‘produces, forms,
causes’. The Slavic and Tochanan agreement suggests at least
a late PIE word.
*tolk w - ‘speak’. [IEW 1088 (*fo//c y -); Wat 71 ( *to!k w -)\
Buck 18.21]. OIr ad-tluichetbar ‘gives thanks, rejoices’, do-
tluchethar ‘prays’, Lat loquor{< pre-Lat *tIoquor) ‘speak’, OCS
tluku ‘meaning, explanation’, Rus tolk ‘sense’. Perhaps we
should add Olnd tarka- ‘presumption, conjecture’, tarkayati
‘guesses, reasons about, intends’ but these arc more usually,
and probably rightly, taken as specialized semantic uses of
*terk w - ‘wind’. Thus a word only of the west and center of
the IE world.
‘say’. [IEW 480-481 (*g iJ et-), Wat 25 (*g w et-);
Buck 18.22; BK 343 (*k w u^/ h /-/^ w ot>7 h /-)]. ON kveda' say’,
OE ewedan ‘say’ (cf. [archaic] NE quoth), OHG quedan ‘say’,
Goth qifran ‘say’, Arm koe'em ‘call’, Sogd zut ‘says’, Olnd gadati
(if < *gatati) ‘says’. If all of these words belong together, we
have evidence for a word of PIE antiquity.
Speak solemnly
*keh j- ‘declare solemnly’ (pres. *k6hiti). [cf. IEW 566
( *kens-)\ . Alb thote ‘says’, Grk ctktjv ‘silently’ (i.e., not
speaking’), Av satar- ‘one who commands’, OPers Oatiy ‘says,
proclaims’, perhaps Olnd smasi if it means ‘we proclaim’ (and
— 535 —
SPEAK
if < *Rhi-mes-i). Reasonably widespread; clearly old in IE.
*lcehjs- ‘instruct’ (pres. *R6h\sti). [IEW 533] (*R as-). Av
sah- ‘instruct, call’, OInd sisti ‘punishes, controls, commands,
instructs’, TochA kas- (< *kohis- ) ‘chides, reprimands’. An
enlargement of the previous word, confined to the east of the
IE world.
*ke(n)s- ‘declare solemnly’. \1EW 566 {*kens-)\ Wat 29
( *kens-)\ GI 704 (*K h ens-)\. Lat censed ‘proclaim solemnly,
judge, assess, estimate, tax’, Osc kenzsur ‘censor’, Av sdnghaiti
‘proclaims’, OInd samsati ‘recites, praises, declares, vows’,
samsa- ‘recitation, invocation, praise’. The variant without
-n- occurs in Germanic: OE herian ‘praise’, OHG haren ‘call’,
Goth hazjan ‘praise’. Related in some way to the previous
two entries though just how is not clear. Widespread and
old. In all stocks which preserve it there are religious and/or
juridical associations with this word which should be
reconstructed for PIE.
*h i/ 4 dr- ‘speak a ritual formula’. [/EW781 (*or-); Gl 703
( *or-)]. Lat oro ‘address, solicit (the gods)’, draculum ‘oracle’
(< *‘place of soliciting [the gods]’), Rus oru ‘cry out’, Grk dpd
‘prayer’, dpdogai ‘pray’. Hit ariya- ‘consult an omen,
determine by oracle’, OInd aryati ‘acknowledges, praises’.
Distribution indicates PIE status.
*sek w ~‘ say, recount publicly’. [ IEW 89 7-898 (*sek u -)\ Wat
57 ( *sek w -)\ Buck 18.22], OIr insce ‘discourse’, seel ‘news,
recitation’, MWels hebaf' say’, ch wedl ‘recitation, news’, Lat
Inseque ‘say!’, ON segja ‘say’, OE seegan ‘say’ (> NE say),
OHG sagen ‘say’, Lith sakau ~ seku ‘say’, pasaka ‘story,
recitation’, OCS sociti ‘indicate’, Grk evvenco ‘say’. At least a
word of the west and center of the IE world. Whether
ultimately related to homophonic roots meaning ‘see’ and
‘follow’ cannot be determined.
*(s)pel- ‘say aloud, recite’. [IEW 985 ( *(s)pel-)\ Wat 63
( *spel-)\ Buck 18.43]. ON spjall ‘speech’, OE spell ‘speech’
(> NE spell), OHG spel ‘speech’, Goth spill ‘speech, story’
(Gmc < *spelnom). Alb fjale (< *spelnom) ‘word, tale,
statement’, Arm ara-spel ‘saying, riddle’; without *s~: La tv
pelt ‘revile, slander’, Grk diteiXeco (if < *n-pelnd) ‘hold out
in promise or threat’, TochAB pal- ‘praise’. With or without
the Greek, sufficiently widespread as to be certainly of PIE
date.
*iek- ‘± express, avow’. [ IEW 503 ( *iek-)\ Wat 79 ( *yek~),
Gl 186 (*yek h -) |. MWels ieith (< *iekti~) ‘speech’, Lat iocus
‘jest, joke’, Umb iuka ‘prayers’, Osc iuklei‘± in the (formula
of) consecration’, OHG jehan ‘express, explain’, jiht
(< *iekti-) ‘expression, avowal’, OInd yicati ‘asks, solicits,
entreats’ (< earlier * ‘offer, present verbally’). Widespread and
old in IE.
There is a large number of words that we can reconstruct
for PIE that apparently meant either ‘speak’ (where the em-
phasis is on the ability to speak) or ‘say’ (where the emphasis
is on the result of speech) or both. Quite probably there were
nuances of meaning, e.g., as in NE speak, say, talk, converse,
that we cannot recover now. Nonetheless, the large number
of verbs with this general meaning does suggest the import-
ance that PIE speakers gave to the ability to speak. Indeed,
Gl have suggested that in PIE society there was a dualistic
separation between speaking/non-speaking which equated
with human/animal. They based this on the observation that
the root *men- ‘think’, the rational act which is (they suggest)
uniquely human, also yields terms for ‘speaking’, e.g., Lith
mind ‘call, name’, Latv minet ‘recall, name', ORus meniti
‘speak’, Hit memma- ‘speak’, Luv mammanna- ‘speech’. While
this connection may be so, it must also be noted that there is
a proliferation of the noises emitted by animals (barking,
howling, grunting, etc.) that might also be attributed to early
IE if not PIE itself
In the exercise of speech, there is a widespread poetic trad-
ition found in various IE stocks that recognizes a distinction
between a higher or marked register of speech and a lower,
unmarked form as one might, for example, find in NE steed
versus the unmarked horse. This distinction is generally
presented as a reflection of the differences between the
language of gods and that of humans It is found in the Old
Norse Poetic Edda where in the Alvissmpl we find that the
earth is called jord ‘earth’ by men but fold (‘land’) by the
divine /Esir and there are a string of other such examples,
e.g., (with the words used by humans/gods) himinn/hlymir
‘heaven’, mani/mylinn ‘moon’, sdl/sunna ‘sun’. There are some
slight traces of this practice in Greek, e.g., in Homer, an
unidentified bird is called a KvpivSiq by humans but a xaA-Ki'q
by the gods. In Old Indie, there are also traces of this practice
to be found where the Satapatha-Brahmana employs in
opposition the unmarked asva ‘horse’ with the divine haya.
Rather than human vs. divine opposition, there are traces in
Irish literature for the ascription of terms to the various
mythical peoples who were believed to have invaded Ireland.
Somewhat similar is the Avestan restriction of the reference
of certain words to demons as the result of the religious
reformation associated with ZaraGustra. Thus Proto- Indo-
lranian *daiva- ‘god’ (cf. OInd deva- god’) has come to mean
at first ‘pre-Zoroastrian god’ and then demon’ or karpan-,
originally ‘priest’, is in Avestan ‘non-Zoroastrian priest’ or
‘priest to demons’.
See also Ask; Babble; Call; Murmur; Noise, Poetry; Pray;
Sound; Stammer. [D.Q.A., J.PM ]
Further Readings
Buck, C. D. (191 5) Words of speaking and saying. American Journal
of Philology 36, 1-19, 125-154.
Watkins, C. (1970) Language of gods and language of men, in Myth
and Law among the Indo-Europeans, ed. J. Puhvel. Los Angeles,
1-18.
SPEAR
*g w iru spear, spit’. [IEW 479 (*g^eru-)\ Gl 203
(*k’ c, eru-)[. OIr hiur ( DIL bir) ‘spear, spit’, Weis ber spear,
spit’, Lat veru ‘spit’, Umb berva ‘spit, javelin’, ?Goth qairu
‘thorn, spike’ (if this hapax legomenon is not to be read pairu ),
Av grava- (< *g w reuo-) ‘staff’. Though the Germanic cognate
— 536
SPECKLED
is doubtful, the presence of the original derivative in Avestan
as well as Celtic and Italic strongly suggests that this word
was once widespread in PIE.
*h a eiksmo/eh a - spear, pointed stick’. [1EW 15 Buck
20.261 . OPrus aysmis ‘spit’, Lith lesmas spit, spear’, Latv iesms
‘spit’, Grk aixjuri ‘point of a spear, of an arrow; spear’. Without
any other certain cognates or root connections, it is very likely
that we have a word at least of the center of the IE world.
*kuh x los ‘spear, spit’. [Mayrhofer II, 651], Arm slak‘ (<
*sul- ) ‘pike, spear, dagger, arrow’, MPers swl'ck (+ Isuracay/)
‘grill’ (< ^'complex of spits’), Olnd stila- ‘pike, spit, javelin’. A
word of the IE southeast.
*Kel(hx )~ l ± (spear)point’. [IEW 552-553 ( *kel-)] . Mir cail
‘spear’, celtair(< *kel(h x )i- or *kjio-) ‘spear(point)’, ON hali
‘point of shaft, tail’, OPrus kelian ‘spear’ (borrowed from or
at least influenced by some western IE language in the
preservation of */c-), Lith silas ‘heath’ (as a prickly place), Alb
thel (< *kol-ni- or *k\-ni-) ‘big nail, spike’, Grk (pi.) fcrjhcc
‘arrowshafts’, Olnd sala- ‘staff’, salya- ‘spear or arrowhead’,
saru- ‘missile, dart, spear, arrow’, sila- ‘ear of grain left in the
field’, Mind sill- ‘arrow’. Widespread and old in IE.
*ghais-6-s ~ *ghaises- ‘throwing spear’. [IEW 410
( *ghaiso -)] . OIr gae ‘spear’, Weis gwayw ‘spear’, Gallo-Roman
gaesum ‘spear’, ON geirr ‘spear’, OE gar ‘spear’ (cl . gar spear’
+ leac ‘leek’ > OE garleac > NE garlic ), OHG ger spear’, Goth
Gaisa-reix ‘spear-king’ (personal name)(< Gmc *gaizaz ), Grk
Xoc tog ‘herdsman’s staff’, Olnd hesas- ‘missile’. Zero-grade from
*ghh a i- ‘throw’. The geographical distribution on the western
and eastern peripheries of the IE world strongly suggests PIE
status for this word.
?*hinegh-es- ‘± spear’. [IEW 760 ( *negh-)[ . OCS noli
(< *hinogh-io-) ‘knife’, Grk eyxog ‘spear’ (if < *hienghes-
with new full grade). Cf. also Mir nes(s) ‘wound’. A word of
the center of the IE world, apparently derived from a *h inegh-
‘stab’.
The range of underlying meanings for this series of cognate
sets parallels the range of possible referents in the archaeo-
logical record. Terms for ‘spear’, for example, that also embrace
‘spit’ (*g w eru, *h a eiksmo/eh a -, and *kuh x los ) may be accom-
modated by fire-hardened spears (or spits) which are known
in the archaeological record since c 200,000 years ago.
Spearheads of stone are known from at least about a 100,000
years ago and during the Mesolithic bone spearheads are
occasionally recovered from the Baltic region. Other than the
points fashioned from some form of organic material, it is
likely that the earliest referents to spears comprise stone
spearheads and possibly early metal spearheads. The latter
appear by at least 3000 BC. Tanged bronze spearheads are
known from the Maykop culture while the Corded Ware
horizon yields a number of socketed copper spearheads. Later
in the early Bronze Age these are typically made of bronze
and comprise one of the most typical weapons across Eurasia.
One might expect a certain proliferation of words relating to
spearheads since they may have been distinguished according
to use, e.g., thrusting spear versus javelin, halting mechanism
(tang, peg, loop, socket), and size.
See also Point; Post; Shield; Sword
[D.Q.A., M E H J.PM.l
Further Reading
Huld, M. E. (1993) Early Indo-European weapons terminology. Word
44, 223-234.
SPECKLED
*perk- ‘speckled’. [IEW 820-823 ( *perk-): Wat 50
( *perk-)\ Gl 454 (*p h erk h -)- BK 46 (*p[ h }ar-/*pl b ljr-)\. Mir
ere ‘speckled’, Weis erch ‘speckled’, Lat pulcheriO Lat polcher
dissimilated from *porcer< *porcros ) ‘beautiful’, NHG farhe
(< *pork-uo -) ‘color’, Grk nepKvog ‘dark-speckled’, npaKvov
‘black’, Olnd pfsni- ‘speckled’. Distribution indicates PIE
status.
*rei- ‘striped, spotted’. [IEW 850 (*ret-); Wat 54 (*re/-)].
OIr riabach ‘streaked, striped’, perhaps OE ra (< *roiko-)
‘roedeer’ (> NE roe), OPrus roahan ‘striped’, Lith rainas
‘striped, streaky’, Latv raibs ‘spotted’, Rus rib) 7 ‘variegated’.
Though the attested reflexes are all independent formations,
their geographical distribution would seem to assure at least
northwestern status for the underlying *rei-.
— 537 —
SPECKLED
?*p\hiu-poik/kos ‘many-colored, variegated’. [IEW 795
( *p 3 lu-poiko-)\ BK 54 ( *p[ h ]al-/*p[ h ]9l -)] . Goth filu-faihs ‘very
diverse’, Grk TtoXvTtoiKiXoq ‘very varied’, Olnd puru-pesa-
‘multi-formed’. While the two elements are clearly built from
IE forms, the case for the entire formation deriving from PIE
is marred by the suggestion that the first element of the Gothic,
which is found in one codex, was created to imitate the basic
Greek text being translated. An Avestan reference ( Yast 5 127)
to the goddess Anahita as *pouru-paxsta has been interpreted
as being connected here (meaning ‘aux nombreux ornements
[ou broderiesD but the absence of direct support for this
reading of the second element leaves this extremely
speculative.
See also Color; Deer. [M.E.H., D.Q.A., J.C.S.]
Further Reading
Benveniste, E. (1928) Le groupe -xs-devant consonne en Avestique.
BSLP 29, 103-107.
SPEW
*gimh x mi ‘spew, vomit’. [IEW 1146 ( *uem-)\ Wat 76
( *wem 9 -)\ BK 490 ( *wum-/*wom -)]. Lat vomo ‘vomit’, Lith
vemti ‘vomit’, Latv vemt ‘vomit’, Grk egero ‘vomit’, Av vam-
‘vomit’, NPers vatak ‘spittle’, Olnd vamiti ‘vomits, spews out’.
Archaic in morphology and widespread; clearly of PIE status.
*(s)pi(e)uh x - spew, spit’. [IEW 999-1000 ( *(s)p(h)ieu -);
Wat 64 (*spyeu-)\. Lat spud ‘spit’, ON spyja ‘spew, spit’, OE
splwan ‘spew, spit’ (> NE spew), OHG splwan ‘spew, spit’,
Goth speiwan ‘spew, spit’, Lith spiauju ‘spew’, OCS pljujp
‘spew, spit’, Grk 7m>G>‘spit out, disgorge’, Olnd sthtvati ‘spews’.
With further extensions we have OE spittan ‘spit’ (> NE spit).
Arm f‘uk“spittle’, TochB pitke (< *pyuT-sk-o-) ‘spittle’. Like
the preceding word, widespread and certainly PIE in status.
Because of its expressive meaning it has been subject to various
morphological extensions and certain phonological
deformations.
[D.Q.A.]
SPIN see TEXTILE PREPARATION
SPIRIT
*dhroughos ‘phantom’. [7EW276 ( *dhrougho-s)\ Wat 15
( *dhreugh-)\ cf. GI 658 ( *d h reu^ ] -)) . OIr airdrech ~ aur-drach
‘phantom’, ON draugr ‘phantom’, OSax gidrog ‘apparition,
deceive’, cf. OPers drauga- ‘lie, deception, treason’, Av druj-
‘the Lie’ (applying to the principle of “falsehood” of the world
to the daevas), Olnd drogha- ‘deceiving’. From *dhreugh-
‘deceive’. Though sometimes taken as the same word as
appears for instance in Lith draugas ‘friend’, the semantic
difference is very great and the two sets are probably best
kept apart.
?*lem- ‘(nocturnal) spirit’. [IEW 675 (/era-); Wat 36
(*Iem-)\. Lat (pi.) lemures ‘nocturnal spirits’ (< *‘devourers
of the dead’), Grk Xagia ‘female devourer of infants’ (borrow-
ed into Latin as lamia ‘vampire, female ogre’). Though attested
in only two stocks, and then in morphologically dillerent
shapes, there is some reason to suppose that the image ot the
open-mouthed, devouring spirit is a PIE one. One might
further compare Grk Xapvpoq ‘avid, voracious’ and Latv
lamatas ‘mouse-trap’. Further afield yet are comparisons with
Weis i/ef‘v oice’, Lith lemoti ‘be eager for, yearn’, Latv Iamaties
‘swear at; call names’.
?*dhges- ‘± spirit’. [IEW 269 (*dheue$-)\ Wat 14
( *dheu-)\ GI 388 ( *d h eu-H/s -)] . MHG getwas ‘phantom’, Lith
dvasia ‘spirit’. Probably independent developments in the two
stocks from *dhijes- ‘breathe’.
See also God. [E.C.R, D.Q.A.]
SPIT see SPEW
SPLEEN
*spelgh- ‘spleen’. [IEW 987 ( *sp(h)elgh(en , -a)); Wat 63
( *spelgh -); GI 715 ( *sp h elg? 1 -)', BK 651 (*p[ h ]al-/*p[ h IaI-)[.
OIr selg ‘spleen’, Lat lien ‘spleen’, OCS slezena ‘spleen’, Grk
onXr\v ‘spleen, milt’, unXdyxvocipl.) ‘internal organs, entrails',
Aim p‘aycaln ‘spleen’, Av spomzan- ‘spleen’, Olnd plihan-
‘spleen’. The PIE form of this word is impossible to reconstruct
because of multiple cases of phonological deformation
(perhaps taboo-induced?). Whatever its form, clearly the PIE
term for ‘spleen’.
See also Anatomy. [ D . Q . A . |
SPLINTER
*Rdkolos ‘splinter’. [IEW 523 {*kak-)\. Lith sakalys
‘splinter, sliver; split wood, firewood’, Latv sakaji ‘logs which
are burned in sections to illuminate threshing; resinous chips
of pinewood’ (Baltic < *kokolio-), Olnd sakala- chip,
fragment, splint, log’. Distribution suggests at least late PIE
status.
See also Plants. [PE]
SPLIT
*bheid- ‘split’ (pres. *bhinicEti) [IEW 1 16 ( *bheid-), Wat
6 ( *bheid-)\ Buck 9.27]. Lat fmdo ‘split’, ON blta ‘bite’, OE
bitan ‘bite’ (> NE bite), OEIG bizzan ‘bite’, Goth beitan bite'.
Grk (peidopai ‘spare’ (< * ‘separate oneself from’), Olnd
bhinadmi' split’. Cf. the derivative *bhid s tos: Lat fissus ‘split’,
Olnd bhitta- ‘a split’. Widespread and old in IE.
*gag- ‘split’. [IEW 1110 (*yag-); Wat 73 ( *wag -) ] . Lat
vagina ‘sheath’, Grk ayvvgi ‘break apart, snap, crush’, Hit
waki ‘bites’, Olnd vajra- weapon of Indra (i.e. , ‘cudgel’, or
‘thunderbolt’), TochAB wak- ‘split open, separate but remain
attached; bloom’. Reasonably widespread; certainly old in IE.
*skel- ‘split (apart)’. [IEW 923-925 ( *(s)kel-)\ Wat 59
(*skel-~ *kel-)\ GI 102; Buck 9.27], Mir scoiltid ‘chips’, ON
skilja ‘separate’, skil ‘distinction’ (borrowed > NE skill), OF
a-scelian ‘separate, part’, Goth skilja ‘butcher, Lith skeliu
‘chip’, Latv sjcelt ‘chip’, OCS skala ‘stone’ (< *‘splitter’), Grk
c jkciXXcd ‘hoe, stir up’, Arm skalim ‘split, be splintered’,
perhaps celum ‘split’ (though the initial consonant is not well
— 538 —
SPRING
explained), Hit iskalla- ‘slit, slash, tear’. Attested widely
enough to be of PIE antiquity.
See also Cut. [D.Q.A.l
SPONGY
?*S]}ombhos spongy’ 1/EW1052 ( *suomb(h)o-s)\ Wat 68
(*swombho~) ]. ON svpppr ‘mushroom’ (with difficult *b
rather than *hh), OE swamm ‘mushroom’, OHG swamm ~
swamp ‘fungus’, Grk crogipog (supposing *sw- to s -) ‘spongy’.
Limited to two stocks, with additional formal problems, this
is not probable although still accepted by some as IE.
U-C.s.i
SPREAD
*peth a - ‘spread out (the arms)’ (pres. *p e tn6h a ti). [IEW
824-825 ( *pet-); Wat 51 {*petd-)\ BK 38 ( *p[ h }at[ h }-/
*p[ h ]at[ h ]-)]. ScotsGaelic aitheamh ‘fathom’, OWels etem
‘fathom’ (Celtic < *peth a imeh a -), Lat pando ‘spread out,
unfold, unfurl’, pateo ‘extend, reach to’, passus ‘step, fathom’,
ON fadmr ‘fathom’, OE faedm ‘fathom’ (> NE fathom ), OHG
fadam ‘fathom’, OPrus pette ‘shoulder’, pettis ‘shovel,
shoulderblade’, Lith petys ‘shoulder’, Grk nhvr\pi ~
KEravvvpi ‘spread out, unfold, unfurl’. Cf. the derivative
*petp a Iom in OHG fedel-gold ‘goldleaf’, Grk nexaXov ‘leaf,
petal’. At least a word of the west and center of the IE world.
*pleth 2 - ‘spread out’. [/EW833-834 (*pMt-); Wat 51-52
(*plat-)]. OIr lethaid ‘extends, expands’, Weis lledu ‘extend,
expand’, Lat planto ‘plant’, Lith spleciu ‘widen, spread out’,
pletoti ‘expand’, plantu ‘become wider’, Av fraOah- ‘breadth’,
Olnd prathati ‘spreads out’, prathas- ‘breadth’. Widespread
and old in IE. Even more widely attested is the derived
adjective *plth 2 us ‘broad’.
*ster- ‘spread out’. [IEW 1029-1031 ( *ster-)\ Wat 66
( *ster-)\ Buck 9.34; BK 113 ( *t[ h ]ar-/*t[ h ]9r -)]. From *ster-
we find two enlargements: (1) *streu- (pres. *stpieuti ) and
(2) *streh 3 - (pres. *stfneh 3 ti). The first occurs in OBret strouis
‘have opened out’, Lat strud ‘build up’, st rues ‘heap’, ON stra
‘strew’, OE streowian ‘strew’ (> NE strew), OHG strewen ~
strouwen ‘strew’, Goth straujan ‘strew’ (Gmc < *stroijeie/o -) ,
SC strovo ‘heap (of fruit scattered by a storm)’, Grk oxopvvpi
‘spread out’, Av starmaoiti ‘spreads out’, Olnd stpioti ‘spreads
out’. The second occurs in OIr fo-sern ‘spread under’, Lat
stemo ‘spread out’ (Lat and OIr < *stpn(h 3 )e/o-, with some
rebuilding of the root vowel). Alb shtrij (< *strn(h 3 )ie/o-)
‘stretch’, Av staranati ‘spreads out’, Olnd stfndti ‘spreads out’.
Presents without *-n- occur in OCS *pro-stirp ‘stretch’. Alb
shtie (< *sterie/o-) ‘lay down, throw, miscarry’. Though not
occurring in Hittite or Tocharian, this verb is otherwise
widespread and surely old in IE.
*kleh a - ‘spread out flat’. [IEW 599 (*kla-)]. Lith kloju
‘spread out, over’, Latv klaju ‘spread out, cover’; from
*kleh a dh- we find Lith klodas ' layer’, OCS kladp ‘load, lay’;
from *kl(e)h a t- we find ON hlada ‘load’, OE hladan ‘load’ (>
NE lade), hlop ‘group, troop’, OHG hladan ‘load’, Goth af-
hlapan ‘overburden’, Lith klote ‘layer’. A dialectal word of the
IE northwest.
?*sperhxg- ‘strew, sprinkle’. [/EW996 ( *(s)p(h)ereg~), Wat
64 ( *(s)preg-)\ GI 177 ( *sp h ert1k’-)\ . Lat spargo 'strew,
sprinkle’, OE spearca ‘spark’ (> NE spark), NE sprinkle.
Perhaps a word of the far west of the IE world.
See also Broad; Extend; Fiat; Scatter. I D.Q.A.l
SPRING
*bhithiuf{ge n. *bhruh inds) ‘spring’. [ IEW 1 44 (*bh reuf),
Wat 9(*bhreu-), Buck 1.37; Schrijver 253-256; BK 4 (*bar-/
*bar-)}. ON brunnE spring’, OE brunna spring’, OHG bmnno
‘spring’, Goth brunna ‘spring’ (< Gmc *brunnon), Grk (ppeap
‘fountain’, Arm albiwr ‘spring’. From *bherhi-u- ‘agitate’ as
in Lat fervere ‘to boil, be hot’. At least a word of the west and
center of the IE world. The Germanic forms must have been
reshaped on the basis of *bhjfh \ u-n- > *bhruh i-n-, from which
an n-stem was formed. Perhaps the word has a root without
a laryngeal, for which there is other evidence. Mir tipra ‘spring’
has been interpreted as *to-ess-bru-nt-, but if this is correct,
it is an Irish creation and not relevant to PIE (cf. topar-
‘fountain’).
*h a elmos spring’. IMayrhofer l, 1 201 - Olnd arma- ~
armaka- ‘spring’, TochB a/me ‘spring’. The Old Indic-Tocharian
agreement is surely significant of a late dialectal IE word.
Although formally similar, European river names such as
Almus and Alma and the Lith almes ‘serum, pus’, almud ‘pus’
cannot be placed here with certainty. Semantically related
perhaps is Latv aluogs ‘spring’, Arm altiwr ‘moist area, slough,
swamp’.
?*kpsneh a ~ ?krosno/eh a - ‘spring, wave’. [Del 185] . ON
hrpnn ‘spring’, OE hraen ~ haem ‘spring’ (< Gmc *hrazno <
*krosna), Grk Kpf]vj] (Aeolic) Kpavvct ‘spring’ (there are
problems deriving Grk pi 7 from *krasna ), Kpovvog ‘spring’.
For the fluctuation in meaning between Germanic ‘wave’ and
Greek ‘spring’, cf. NHG welle ‘wave’: NE well. The word could
well be PIE.
?*h a ev(o)nt- ‘spring’. [ 7FW 78 (*au(e)-), BK 382 (*haw-/
*haw-)]. Lith ?Avanta (river name), Latv amots(< *auontos)
‘spring’, Olnd avata- ~ avata- ‘spring, fountain’. The Baltic
forms could derive from *auont~. The Old Indie word has
been considered to be non-IE because of its t. Further
connections, like a Gaulish river nymph Aventia, are even
more uncertain as is the case for this being PIE.
?*g w eleh a - spring’. [IEW 47 ( *guel-)\ BK 361 ( *q' w ur -/
*q’ w or-) 1. ?OE ge-collen-ferhp ‘proud’, OHG quella source,
spring’. OHG quellan has been connected with Olnd gal(0-
‘drip’, but this verb is late. MWels bala ‘efflux of a river from
a lake’ has been derived from *belago- < *g w elh x -. Quite
uncertain is Thracian ke X k- in place names like KcAAai and
Grk AeAAoi ‘spring of the Eryx river’. Too uncertain for
ascription to PIE.
See also River; Sea; Water. [R.S.PB )
SPRING (SEASON) see SEASONS
— 539
SPRINKLE
SPRINKLE
*pers- ‘sprinkle’. [IEW 823]. ON fors ~ foss ‘waterfall’,
Lith purslas ‘drivel; spray’, OCS prachQ ‘dust’ (< *porsos),
prist f (< *pfsti-) ‘heaped up soil’, Slov prh ‘dust, ash’, prhati
‘strew; drivel’, Hit pappars- ‘sprinkle’, OInd prsat- ‘drop’,
pfsant- ‘sprinkled, speckled’, TochAB pars- ‘sprinkle’ TochB
prants- ‘spatter’. Widespread and old in IE.
See also Pour; Rain. [D.Q.A.]
SPROUT see LEAF
SQUIRREL
*ye/yer- ‘squirrel ( Sciurus vulgaris)' . [IEW 1166 (*yer-
yer-); Wat 77 (*wer-); GI 441 ( *we(i)wer -)] . NIr iora rua
‘squirrel’ ( rua ‘red’), ScotsGaelic fedrag ‘squirrel’, Lat vJverra
‘ferret’, OE ac-weoma ‘squirrel’ (< * ‘oak-squirrel’), OHG eihh-
umo ‘squirrel’, OPrus we ware ‘squirrel’, Lith veveris ~ voveris
~ vaiveris ‘squirrel, polecat’, Latv vavere ‘squirrel’, ORus
viverica ‘squirrel’, Rus veverica ‘squirrel’, OPers varvarah
‘squirrel’. Widespread and old in IE. However, both the mean-
ing in Latin and the Germanic compounds ‘oak-“squirrel’”
suggest that *yeryer-, or whatever its exact shape, may have
meant something more general than just ‘squirrel’ in PIE.
The red squirrel ( Sciurus vulgaris) is now the most
commonly encountered wild mammal across the temperate
forest regions of Eurasia. Although exploited in Russia today
for its fur, the numbers of squirrel bones from Neolithic
archaeological sites rarely suggest anything other than chance
capture; occasionally, in the Ukraine for example, the number
of squirrel bones may be comparable with those of hare. The
squirrel was once employed to exclude the Pontic-Caspian
steppe from the homeland area because the squirrel is not
resident in the steppe lands; however, it is known in the forest-
steppe of the Ukraine and the southern Urals. Its distribution
continues across the forest zone to China and Japan. The red
squirrel is thus absent from Iran. There the Persian squirrel
( Sciurus anomalus) is known.
See also Mammals; Tail. [D.Q.A., J.PM.J
SREDNY STOG CULTURE
The Sredny Stog culture flourished in the middle Dnieper-
lower Don area c 4500-3500 BC. The culture is known from
about a hundred sites, primarily situated along the river banks
of the Ukraine and southern Russia. Settlement remains sug-
gest small social groups who built both sub-surface and surface
dwellings. The economy included domestic cattle, sheep/goat,
pig and dog and wild animals, predominantly red deer, roe
deer, wild boar, elk, otter, wolf, fox, beaver and wild ass. There
is also considerable evidence for fishing. The abundance of
horse remains on some Sredny Stog sites along with objects
which have been interpreted as cheek-pieces has given it
special prominence with regard to the origin of horse do-
mestication, widely seen as one of the more diagnostic markers
of the early Indo-Europeans. The technology includes pointed-
Sredny Stog b. Pointed based vessel: c. Antler hammer-ax;
d. Fishhook; e. Flint arrowhead; f. Flint knife.
— 540 —
SRUBNA CULTURE
based vessels with shell temper, large flint knives, and antler
tools that have been variously interpreted as mattocks, ham-
mers or “battle axes”. Some grinding stones and querns have
been recovered and indicate plant processing, and small
amounts of domestic plants have been recovered, i.e., emmer
wheat (Triticum dicoccori), barley ( Hordeum vulgare ), millet
( Panicum miliaceum ) and the pea ( Pisum sativum). Burials
are in small cemeteries, graves sometimes arranged in small
groups or, occasionally, with several burials in the same pit.
The deceased are in the supine position with their legs flexed
and accompanied by ocher and occasionally grave goods. A
recent review of the various sites attributed to the Sredny
Stog culture by Yuri Rassamakin has led to the suggestion
that both the chronological and regional distinctions are so
great among various sites attributed to the Sredny Stog culture
that the name itself should be regarded as merely a cover
term for at least four distinct local archaeological cultures
(i.e., the Skelanska, Stogovska, Kvitanska, and Dereivka
cultures).
The Sredny Stog culture was in direct contact with the
settled agriculturalists of the Tripolye culture to its west. In
terms of material culture, economy and burial rite, the Sredny
Stog culture is widely regarded to be related to the contem-
poraneous Khvalynsk culture of the middle Volga and to have
played an important part in the formation of the Yamna
culture. According to the “Kurgan solution” to the homeland
problem, an expansion of the Sredny Stog population pro-
vided one of the earliest waves of Indo-European speakers
into southeast Europe.
See also Dereivka; Horse; Khvalynsk Culture;
Kurgan Tradition; Yamna Culture. (J.PM.l
Further Readings
Rassamakin, Y. Y. (1994) The main direction of the development of
early pastoral societies of the northern Pontic zone: 4500-2450
BC (pre-Yamnaya cultures and Yamnaya cultures), in Nomadism
and Pastoralism in the Circle of Bahic-Pontic Early Agrarian
Cultures: 5000-1650 BC, ed. A. Kosko (= Baltic-Pontic Studies
2), Poznafi, 29-70.
Telehin, D. Ya (1973) Seredn’o Stohivs’ka Kul’tura Epokhy Midi.
Kiev: Naukova Dumka.
SRUBNA CULTURE
The Srubna culture is the middle Bronze Age (sixteenth-
twelfth centuries BC) culture of the steppe and forest-steppe
region north of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. The Srubna
culture, which takes its name from the use of timber con-
structions within the burial pit (Rus sruh ‘timber framework’),
was the successor to the earlier Yamna, Catacomb and Poltavka
cultures and is co-ordinate, if not closely related to the Andro-
novo culture east of the Caspian. Settlements consisted of
semi-subterranean one and.two-roomed houses. More obvious
are its cemeteries consisting of five to ten kurgans. Burials
included ritual hearths, and the skulls and forelegs of animals;
in addition to timber structures, stone cists were occasionally
Srubna a. Distribution of the Srubna culture.
Srubna b. Srubna village of Usovo Ozero.
— 541 — 1
SRUBNA CULTURE
Srubna c. House reconstruction; d. Hut reconstruction;
e. Srubna burial including animal sacrifice.
employed. The presence of grinding stones, bronze sickles
and not only domestic cattle and sheep but also the pig
indicates mixed agricultural-stockbreeding settlements.
Historical testimony indicates that the territory of the Srubna
culture was later occupied by Kimmerians and Scythians. For
this reason, and its links with the Andronovo culture, the
Srubna culture has been seen as the archaeological correlate
of those Iranian dialects that first spread through the north
Pontic region. The culture has also been regarded by some as
the staging area from whence Iranians migrated across the
Caucasus into northwest Iran. The origins of the Srubna
culture are very much disputed with at least three hypotheses:
local evolution over the entire region north of the Black Sea;
restricted origin in the Volga region and expansion westwards;
and origin in west Siberia, related to the Andronovo culture,
followed by a migration into Europe.
See also Andronovo Culture, Catacomb Culture;
Poltavka Culture; Yamna Culture. (J .PM.J
STAFF see POST
STAKE see POST
STALK
*K6lhxOm (gen. *kli} x mds) ‘stalk, stem, straw’. (/EW612
( *kobmo-s)\ Wat 3 ( *kohm-)\ . Lat culmus ‘stalk, stem, straw’,
ON halmr ‘stalk, stem, straw’, OE healm ‘stalk, stem, straw’,
OHG halm ‘stalk, stem, straw’, OPrus saline ‘stalk, stem,
straw’, Latv salms ‘stalk, stem, straw’, OCS slama ‘stalk, stem,
straw’, Rus soloma ‘stalk, stem, straw’, Grk KaXapoq reed’,
TochA kulmamts- ‘reed, rush’. Widespread and reflecting an
ancient morphological class. Clearly PIE in date.
*kaulds stalk’. [ /EW537 ( *kau-l-)\ Wat 27 (*kaul-)\. Mir
cuaille (< *kaulmio-) ‘post’, Lat caulis ‘stalk’, OPrus caulan
‘bone’, kaules ‘thorn’, Lith kaulas ‘bone’, Latv kauls ‘bone’
(the Baltic accent is secondary), Grk KavXoq ‘stalk’. A word
of the west and center of the IE world. Younger, in appearance
at least, than the previous word. From *kul- hollow’.
See also Plants ; Vegetables . [ D . Q . A . |
STAMMER
*balba-~ *baIbal-~ *barbar- ± stammer, speak in a foreign
way’. \1EW 91-92 ( *balbal-)\ Wat 4 (*baba-)\. Lat balbus a
stammer’, balbutid ‘stammer’, ME bab(e)len babble’ (> NE
babble ), Lith blebenti ‘stammer’, balbasyii babble’, Rus
bolobolitl ‘chatter’, Czech beblati ‘stammer’, Grk papfiapoq
‘non-Greek speaker’, OInd barhara- ‘stammerer, non-Indic
speaker’, balbala-karoti ‘stammers’. Cf. Grk fiapfiaiva)
‘stammer’. Obviously an onomatopoeic formation, but one
likely to be old in the IE tradition even if continuously remade.
The agreement of Greek and Old Indie in the use of this
lormation for a speaker of a foreign language is significant.
See also Babble; Murmur; Speak 1D.Q.A]
STAND
(s)teh 2 - ‘stand (up)’. [IEW 1004-1010 ( *sta-~ *sta-)\ Wat
64-65 ( *sta -); GI 49 ( *sl h (a)H -); Buck 12.151. Descendants
of a present *stlsteh 2 ti are seen in Olr -sisseclar ‘stands’, Lat
sisto ‘stand up’, Grk iot ppi ‘stand’, Av histaiti ‘stands’, OInd
tisthati ‘stands’. Nasal presents, possibly as old as late PIE,
are seen in Lat prae-stinare ‘establish a price, sell’, OPrus
postan- ‘become’, OCS stanp ‘take one’s place’, Alb shtoj
‘augment, increase’, Grk (Cretan) otccvvo) ‘place’, Arm slanam
‘arise; acquire’, Av fra-stanva- ‘come forward’. A late PIE
dialectal stative *stae- is to be seen in Lat sto ‘stand’, OCS
stojp ‘stand’ and probably OHG sten ~ stan ‘stand’. Other
presents are represented by ON standa stand’, OE standan
j
9 ,
542 —
STEAL
‘stand’ (> NE stand), OHG stantan ‘stand’, Goth standan
‘stand’, Lith stoju ‘step’, OCS stati ‘take one’s stand’, TochB
ste (< *sth 20 ) ‘is’ (pi. stare ‘are’), taka- ‘will be’. Hit tiyezzi
‘steps’ and tittanu ‘set up’ are sometimes put here but are
more likely to be from PIE *dhehi- ‘put’. Practically universal
in PIE, with numerous enlargements and derivatives, and
certainly ancient.
*stembh- ‘make stand, prop up’. [1EW 1012-1013
(*steb(h)-)\. Lith stembti ‘produce a stalk (of plants)’, Grk
darepiprfg ‘imperturbable, firm’, Av stambana- ‘support’, Olnd
stabhnati ~ stabhnoti ~ stamhhale ‘prop, support; hinder,
restrain’, stambha- ‘post’, TochAB stam- ‘stand’, TochB
s(c)anm- (< scam-n-) ‘bind Isomethmg] (up/together), tie
IsomethingJ into a bundle; bind [something! on; establish;
proclaim; produce [of fruit J’. At least a word of the center
and east of the IE world. Related to *steh 2 ~ ‘stand’.
See also Stiff. [A.D.V]
Further Reading
Cowgill, Warren (1975) The source of Latin stare, with notes on
comparable forms elsewhere in Indo-European. JIES 1, 271-303.
STAR
*h 2 st£r , -(e)r- ‘star’. [JEW 1027-1028 (*ster-)\ Wat 66
( *ster-)\ GI 591-592 (Hastier-); Buck 1.541. Mir ser ‘star’,
Weis (collective) ser, (singulative) seren ‘star’, Bret ster(enn)
‘star’, Lat Stella (< *ster(o)la, *stel-na? ) ‘star’, ON stjama (fern.)
‘star’, OE steorra (masc.) ‘star’ (> NE star), OHG sterno ‘star’,
Goth (fem.) staimo (< *stem-dn) ‘star’, Grk (mascjdcmjp
‘star’, Arm astF star’, Hit hasterz(a) (< *h 2 ster-s) ‘star’, Av (acc.)
staram ‘star’, Olnd (pi.) tarah ‘stars’ (inst.) stfbhih , TochA
(pi.) srefi ‘stars’, TochB (fem.) gcirye ‘star’. The initial *h 2 s- is
now certain which makes the commonly accepted Olnd tarah
‘stars’ difficult. Grk r eipea = repeal ‘signs, portents’ has
nothing to do with the word for ‘star’ while Grk dcrrepoKri
‘lightning’ is of non-IE origin. The initial *h 2 - is decisive in
establishing further connections to which a derivation from
the root *h 2 eh x -s- ‘burn’ fits perfectly for what is obviously
the PIE word for ‘star’.
This word has long been cited by proponents of lE-Semitic
(or Sumerian) relations and attempts to locate the IE homeland
in the vicinity of the Near Eastern cultures. The similarity
between the IE form and the Semitic * attar- *a0tar ‘goddess
(Istar) > star (actually Venus)’ has been commented upon
many times as a diacritic linking the earliest Indo-European
speakers with the Near East where Semitic is generally
regarded as the donor language. Igor Diakonov has criticized,
the comparison as the underlying meaning of the word in
Semitic concerned a specific deity who was then identified
with a specific celestial object (when Akkadian Estar became
identified with the Sumerian Inana who was associated with
Venus) and it never meant ‘star’ in general. More importantly,
if PIE *h 2 ster ‘star’ < *h 2 ehx-s- ‘burn’, there is no reason to
seek a Semitic origin for this word.
See also Burn. [R.S.PB.; D.Q.A., J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Adams, D. Q. (1995) Tochanan A astar, B astare ‘clean, pure’ and
PIE *h2eh x (s)- ‘burn’, in Analecta Indocuropaea Cracoviensia,
vol. 2 (= Kurylowicz Memorial Volume, Part One), ed W
Smoczynski, Cracow, Universitas, 207-211.
D iakonov, l. (1985) On the original home of the speakers of Indo-
European. JIES 13, 92-174.
Parvulescu, A. (1977) Le nom indo-europeen de letoile. KZ 91,
41-50.
Watkins, C. (1974) l.-E. star'. Die Sprache 20, 10-14.
STARLING
*storos ‘starling’. [JEW 1036 (*storos~ *stomos), Wat 67
( *storo -)]. Lat sturn us ‘starling’, ON stari ‘starling’, OE stier
‘starling’ (> NE star-ling), OHG star starling’, OPrus starnite
‘gull’. At best a late “westernism” in IE. Other stocks derive
their terms from different roots, e.g., Mir truit ‘starling’ from
the root that generally means ‘thrush’ or Grk (Hesychius)
onapdoiov ‘starling’ (and by metathesis if/ap ‘starling’) from
the polyvalent root that also provides ‘sparrow’ and other
birds. Armenian has tarmahaw, literally ‘Hocking bird’.
The starling differs from the other black birds such as the
crow and raven particularly in behavior for it is less heavy-
footed, more active, and raises more young. The bird is as
ubiquitous as the sparrow.
See also Birds . [J . A . C . G . 1
STEAL
*(s)tehi- ‘steal, bring secretly, conceal’ (pres. .
[IEW 1010 ( *(s)tai-)\ GI 651 ( *(s)t h aHi -); Buck 11.571. OCS
fajp'hide’, Hit tayezzi ‘steals’. Cf. the widespread derivatives:
(1) *(s)teh4u- ‘secret’/ *(s)teh4hs ‘thief’ in OCS taj ‘secret’,
Grk rrfvoir] oSog ‘vain road’, Av tayu- ‘thief’, Olnd (s)tayu-
‘ ‘thief , TochB ene-stai ‘in secret’; (2) *(s)teh 4 tis ‘thief’ in OIr
taid ‘thief, OCS lat! ‘thief’, Grk rprdopai ‘deprive, rob’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*ster- ‘steal’. [IEW 1028 (*sfer-); Wat 66 (Aster-); Buck
11.56], Mir serb (< *steryos) ‘thief’, Grk crrepea) deprive,
rob’, arepopai ‘be deprived’; cf. ON stela ‘steal’, OE stelan
‘steal’ (> NE steal), OHG stelan ‘steal’, Goth stilan ‘steal’ which
may have Gmc *-l- rather than *-r- by crossing with *kel-
‘deceive’. Even without Germanic the existence of this word
in both Greek and Celtic would seem to assure its PIE status,
at least in the west and center of the IE world.
*mus- steal’ (pres. *musn6h a ti). [/EW743 ( *meu-s-)\ Buck
11.46], OHG ( LexSalica ) chreo-mdsido' grave-robbery’, Olnd
musnati ~ mosati ‘steals’, TochB mus- (pres, musna-) ‘steal’.
The more original meaning is probably to be seen in TochAB
mus- ‘lift, move (aside)’, from which the meaning ‘steal’ had
developed even in late PIE. Widespread and old in IE.
*teubh- steal’. ON pjofr ‘thief’, jayfi ‘theft’, OE jieof' thief’
(> NE thief), OE piefe-feoh ‘stolen goods’ (< * theft -
possession’), OHG diob ‘thief, diuba ‘theft’, Goth piubs' thief',
piubi ‘theft’, piubjo ‘secretly’, TochB cowai tark- ‘steal’ (lit.
‘commit a theft’). Although limited to Germanic and
— 543 —
STEAL
Tocharian, it would appear that this word is at least of late
PIE status.
Words for ‘steal’ in PIE are characterized by their connec-
tions with secrecy and stealth — the characteristics that
distinguish stealing in the PIE legal system from (open)
robbery.
See also Touch. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1970) Studies in Indo-European language, institutions
and mythology, in Indo-European and Indo-Europeans, eds. G.
Cardona, H. M. Hoenigswald and A. Senn, Philadelphia, Univ.
of Pennsylvania Press, 321-354.
STELAE
During the Copper Age (c 4000-2500 BC) various regions
of Europe carved and erected stone stelae. These are primarily
concentrated in southern France, the Alpine regions of Italy
and in the southern portion of the Black Sea steppe and north
Caucasus. During the Bronze Age stelae were also erected in
Asia, particularly in the Minusinsk basin. The European stelae
vary greatly in the degree to which they are representational
of the human form, which gender (if any) they depict, and in
terms of the cultural content of what is engraved upon them,
e.g., clothes, weapons, animals, geometric patterns. Many of
the west Mediterranean stelae play little or no role in
discussions of the early Indo-Europeans as they are assumed
to depict female deities which cannot be convincingly
accommodated by our evidence for Indo-European religion.
Some of those found in northern Italy and all of those recorded
in the Black Sea area, however, have been regarded as part of
the overall evidence of the early Indo-Europeans.
The Italian stelae arise out of a well known tradition of
engraving images on stone that is found in the Alpine region,
e.g., the Val Camonica rock art with its numerous images
from the Neolithic through the historic period. Although the
stelae are normally chance finds, there is some evidence that
their original context may have involved some form of
sanctuary where they were erected in a circle.
The Ukrainian stelae are divided into two broad classes.
The great majority of the some three-hundred stelae known
so far are simple stelae which carry very little detail other
than a vaguely anthropomorphic shape with a slight projection
where the head should be. These occasionally bear some
ornament, e.g., belts, “foot-prints”, and are often found as
covering slabs in Yamna burials. It is suspected that this roofing
of burial pits was not their original function but that they
were expropriated for use in burials by the Yamna people
because of their slab-like shape and also because they may
have retained sacred connotations. Their original context is
only hinted at by a few sites which have revealed stelae
arranged in a large circle which suggests that they originally
served in some form of sanctuary. Dmitry Telegin has
suggested that these stelae were originally carved and erected
by the Kemi Oba (and Lower Mikhaylovka) culture of the
southern Ukraine and Crimea and then reused by the tribes
of the Yamna culture.
The second class of Ukrainian stelae are the statue menhirs
which only comprise a little more than twenty examples.
These may depict various features of the human anatomy (in
order of frequency : eyes, nose, arms, hands, mouth, shoulder-
blade, breasts, ribs, spine and genitalia) and also weapons,
animals, and other scenes. These are generally chance finds
although several have been recovered from a mortuary
(Yamna) context.
The reason for assigning an IE identity to the makers of
these stelae are several. In some instances, the form or
ornament of the stelae are regarded as expressions of IE
religious or social concepts. In addition, the discovery of a
widespread tradition of stelae in the north Pontic region,
which itself is often presumed to have been occupied by the
earliest Indo-Europeans, naturally invites the application of
an IE interpretation to the stelae.
Indo-European Motifs
Discussions of Indo-European motifs on the Copper Age
stelae are generally prompted by two lines of interpretation:
Indo-European cosmogonic myths and the specific character
of various Indo-European deities who are believed to be
depicted on the stelae. The cosmogonic material concerns in
particular an origin myth that derives the creation of the
material and social world through the dissection of a
primordial giant, or, to give it its Vedic name, the Purusa.
Such an interpretation has been applied to both the north
Italian and Pontic stelae by several writers. M. Piantelli, for
example, has argued that Purusa-stelae can be seen in those
that have a solar disc in the top of the stela where the sun is
regarded as the allomorph of the eyes. The multiple arms
that appear on some primordial giants is believed to be
reflected in the engraving of multiple weapons on the stelae
(in the Italian case these are frequently daggers or halberds,
in the case of the Ukrainian stelae the “multiplicity” of the
divisions of the giant are supposedly indicated by the use of
several stelae to cover graves of the Yamna culture). A tripartite
division of the world has also been argued for the Italian stelae
with E. Anatis suggestion that they are carved in three registers
which correspond to the three divisions of Indo-European
cosmology: the upper register carries a solar disc or face which
should be equated with the heavens, the middle register finds
weapons or pendants (symbols of authority) which are
believed to reflect the earth and world of human activities;
and the lower part of the register, when not simply inserted
into the ground, may show wheeled vehicles, snakes, plows,
or other symbols which have been assumed to reflect the
underworld of the Indo-Europeans. The fact that this
interpretive key can be applied only to some stelae and that
the vanous motifs allegedly deciphered are so vague (or hardly
specific enough to be regarded as strictly Indo-European)
renders the cosmogonic interpretations highly speculative.
It has also been suggested that the stelae can be interpreted
as Indo-European deities, specifically solar deities, thunder-
or war-gods, etc. Such interpretations are also extremely
problematic since there is little or no evidence that there are
recurring sets of motifs that are exclusively found on some
stelae rather than others. Other than anatomical features, the
statue menhirs of the Ukraine depict necklaces or pendants,
belts, axes, (shepherds) crooks, bows, daggers, maces, spears,
animals (horses and or dogs) and what are taken to be “foot-
prints” or, perhaps, representations of shoes or sandals. These
do not seem to occur in combinations that reflect a set of
motifs ascribable to a particular deity to the exclusion of any
other. If one interprets the statue menhirs as deities but cannot
distinguish one from another (or must assume that each
reflects a different deity) then this interpretation must remain
entirely speculative Without the additional support of specific
patterning.
— 545
STELAE
One possible interpretation of the Ukrainian statue-
menhirs is that they may reflect a royal figure. A recurrent
motif observed in both Indie and Irish tradition associates
the inauguration of a king with the presentation of three
talismans: a garment (indicating the priest class), weapons
(the warrior class) and shoes or sandals (the feet as symbols
of fertility and the third Dumezilian function). As both
weapons and the “shoe” motif are found together on six of
the stelae, this may provide at least the beginning of an inter-
pretative basis. On two occasions these combinations are
augmented by the portrayal of a crook which might then fulfil
the expectations demanded by the literary evidence (assuming
one can replace the vestment of the priest with a shepherds
crook) but again the recurrence of such a pattern is not so
widespread to render it particularly persuasive.
In general, while the stelae have been regarded as represent-
ative of Indo-European ideology, there is no clear “system”
that supports such conclusions. Most interpretations derive
from individual motifs, e g., the ax or spear of a putative
thunder-god, and as the iconography of the Near East
emphasizes, such deities and symbols are by no means
exclusively Indo-European.
See also Comparative Mythology; Cosmogony;
Kemi-Oba Culture ; Yamna Culture . [j.PM.]
Further Readings
Anati, E. (1977) Origene e significato storico-religioso delle statue-
stele. Bollettino del Centro Camuno di Studi Preistonci 16, 45-
56.
Arnal, J. (1976) Les statues-menhirs: hommes et dieux Toulouse,
Editions des Hesperides.
Casini, S., R. de Marinis and A. Pedrotti (1995) Statue-stele e Massi
incisi nell’Europa delTEta del Rame = Notizie Archeologiche
Bergomensi 3.
Piantelli, M. (1983) Linterpretatizone di uno schema iconografico
complesso rinvenibile nelle stele monumentali Camune e
Valtellinesi. Bollettino del Centro Camuno di Studi Preistonci
20, 33-54.
Telegin, D. andj. P Mallory (1994) The Anthropomorphic Stelae of
the Ukraine: The Early Iconography of the Indo-Europeans.
Washington, Institute for the Study of Man.
STEP
*ghengh- ‘step, walk’. [/EW438-439 ( *ghengh-)\ Wat 22
(*ghengh-) ; Buck 10.45], OIr cingid (< *kengh- by
dissimilation from *ghengh- ) ‘steps’, Weis rhygyngu ‘amble’,
ON ganga ‘go’, OE gangan ‘go’, OHG gangan ‘go’, Goth gaggan
‘go’, Lith zengiii ‘stride, step’, Av zanga- ‘ankle’, OInd jamhas-
‘step, wingbeat’. Widespread and old in IE. The word for
‘buttocks’ is related.
*ghredh- ‘step, go’. [1EW 456-457 ( *ghredh-)\ Wat 23
( *ghredh-)\ Buck 10.45]. Olr m -greinn- ‘pursue’, Lat gradior
‘stride’, gradus ‘step’, Goth grips ‘step’, Lith gridyju ‘go, wander
about’, OCS gred<?‘ go’, Rus grjadu ‘go’, Av aiwi-garaS- ‘begin’.
Reasonably widespread, certainly old in IE.
*spleigh- ‘step, go’. [IEW 1000 ( *(s)pleigh-)\ . Grk
7iXi(7Gopai ‘stride out’, nXixdcg ‘space between the thighs’,
OInd plehate ‘goes’. Cf. OIr sliasait (< *splegh-s-onti ) ‘thigh,
shank’ and possibly OIr lingid (if < *pli-n-gh-) ‘jumps’. Its
attestations are widely spread; probably a word of PIE status.
See a Iso Buttocks, Go. [D.Q.A.]
STEP-FATHER see KINSMAN, UNCLE
STEP-MOTHER see AUNT, KINSMAN
— 546 —
STONE
STIFF
*ghers- ‘stiffen (of hair), bristle’. [7EW445-446 ( *ghers-)-,
Wat 22 ( *ghers-)\ BK 233 ( *gur-/*gor-)\ . OE gorst ‘gorse’,
Lat horred ‘bristle 1 , horridus ‘rough, shaggy, bristly’, Av
zarsayamna- ‘feathers upright’, OInd harsati ~ harsate ‘bristles,
becomes erect or rigid, becomes sexually excited’, harsa -
‘bristling, erection (especially of hair in the thrill of
excitement)’. Certainly related is *gher- ‘hedgehog’ and less
certainly so *ghor- ‘young pig 1 . The distribution would seem
to guarantee PIE status for this word.
*(s)terh i- ‘stiff’. [IEW 1022 ( *(s)ter -); Wat 66 (*ster-)].
ON starr ‘stiff’, OE starian ‘look at, stare’ (> NE stare), OHG
staren ‘stare’, OPrus stumawiskan ‘sternness’, Lith starinu
‘tighten, stretch, make stiff’, OCS strada ‘hard work’, Grk
cjTEpeoq ‘stiff, firm’; possibly also Weis trin ‘battle’, TochA
tsar ‘hard, rough’ and TochB scire ‘hard, rough’. While best
attested in the northwest, the secure Greek and potential
Tocharian connections support PIE status.
*sdi2ei- ‘become hard, fixed’. [ IEW 1010-1011 (*stai-)].
Lat stlria ‘icicle’, Fris stir ‘stiff’, Lith storas ‘stiff’, Olnd styiyate
‘becomes fixed, coagulated, hardens’, stlya- ‘stagnant water’,
stlma- ‘heavy’, stimita- ‘unmoving, fixed, silent’, TochB stinask-
‘be silent’. An extension of *steti2- ‘stand’. Sufficiently
widespread to be assured of PIE status.
*st(h2)eug- ‘stiff’. [IEW 1033-1034 (*(s)teu-g-)\. Lith
stukti ‘stand tali’, Rus stugnutV to freeze’ (< *‘become stiff’?),
TochB staukk- ‘swell, bloat’. Probably another extension of
*stdi2- ‘stand’. A word of the center and east of the IE world.
See also Firm; Stand. Q.C.S., D.Q.A.]
STIR
*menth2- stir’ (pres. *mptneh2- ~ *m$tnh2ie/o-). [IEW
732 ( *menth-)\ G1 49 ( *mont h -H -)]. ON mpndull ‘handle
on a pestle’, Lith mgsti ‘stir, agitate’, OCS mpsti ‘disturb,
molest’, motati sp ‘be agitated’, Rus motati ‘wind, shake;
vanish’, Olnd manthati ~ mathnati ~ math&yati ‘stirs, whirls;
chums; hurts, destroys’, TochAB mant- ‘remove (utterly) from
its place, destroy; pour out; disturb, meddle with; fall into
misfortune, be irritated, feel malice’ (TochB pres, mantana-l
mantann-). The exact double morphological equation in Olnd
mathna-l mathayati and Toch mantana-l mantann- is
remarkable. The first pair reflects PIE *mptneh2- while the
second reflects PIE *mptph2ie/o-. Widespread and old in IE.
*jeug- ‘stir up, incite; be unquiet’. [IEW 512 ( *ieug-)] .
MHG jouchen ~ jouchen ‘drive, hunt’, Goth jiukan ‘fight,
struggle’, Arm yuzem ‘incites’ (< Iranian), Av yaozaiti ‘stirs
oneself up’, TochAB yuk- ‘overcome, conquer; surpass’. The
geographical distribution would seem to assure PIE status.
See also Mix; Set in Motion; Shake. [D.Q.A.l
STONE
*h^Emon ‘stone’. [IEW 19 ( *ak-men-)\ Wat 1 {*ak-
men-)- GI 575; Buck 1.44]. Lith akmuo ‘stone’, OCS kamy
‘stone’, Grk ocKpcov ‘anvil’, Hit aku- ‘stone’, Av asman- ‘stone,
heaven’, OPers asman- ‘heaven’, Olnd asman- ‘stone’ (a
meaning ‘heaven’ is disputed). Except for the Hittite form,
the others point to *h^ekmon. In Baltic and Slavic *k was
regularly depalatalized before a resonant; Lith asmuo ‘sharp-
ness’ is a recent formation with a different meaning. The Slavic
forms OCS kamy ‘stone’ and SC kamen ‘stone’ are isolated
arid point to *keti 4 mdn which would seem to represent a
metathesis of *h^ek- which would also explain the non-palatal
velar. Attempts to connect Germanic words for ‘hammer’ here
(e.g., OE hamor) would require *kl)4m- but an r/n- suffix
preceded by the *m of *-men- is very improbable and the
connection is semantically unlikely. These theories should be
abandoned as well as those which connect Goth himms
‘heavens’, etc., with this word.
A perennial problem has been the association of this word
with the meaning ‘heaven’ as well as ‘stone’. Even if we may
exclude on formal grounds the Germanic terms that indicate
‘hammer, sky’, e.g., Goth himms ‘sky, heaven’, there is still
evidence relating to ‘sky’ in Avestan and possibly Old Indie
where the range of meanings for asman- range from ‘rock,
cliff; stone tool’ allegedly to sky’. Other celestial connotations
are taken from a Greek gloss of Eustathius where cxKpcov is
defined as 6 ovpavoq the sky’. It was once believed that this
association could be best explained by presuming a PIE
concept of the heavens as a stone vault or, more recently in
GI, that the PlE-speakers envisaged mountains and cliffs (of
stone) ascending into the heavens. On the other hand, J. P
Maher has argued that the connecting link between the
concept of stone and sky was the polished stone ax and the
widely attested folk belief that such axes were “thunder stones”
that had fallen from the sky, cf. Lith Perkuno akmuo Perkunas’
thunder-bolt’ or the Olnd asman which may also refer to
Indra’s ‘thunder-bolt’. But given the fact that PIE technology
also included the manufacture of polished stone axes, it would
seem highly unlikely that the early Indo-Europeans were
unaware of their true origins.
*p6ru ‘rock’. [Del 1881 . Hit peru (neut.) peru(na)- (com.)
‘rock’, perunant- ‘rocky’, Av paurvata ‘mountain’, Olnd
parvata- (< *peru-pt-o-) ‘rocky; rock, mountain’. If the
connection is correct, as it seems, the word is of PIE date.
?*hxond-~ *hxQd- stone, rock’. [ IEW 778 (*ond-) ;GI 574
( *ont’-)l . Mir ond ‘stone, rock’, Olnd adri- ‘stone (especially
one used in pressing soma)’. Poorly attested and uncertain.
?*le\}anks stone’. (7EW683 ( *leu-)\ Wat 37 ( *leu-), Beekes
17]. Olr lie, (gen. liac) (< *liuank-) ‘stone’, Alb lere ‘rubble,
mass of stone’, Myc ra-e-ja(Iaeia) ‘of stone’, Grk Xdaq ‘stone’.
The connection should be abandoned as the Greek word has
no *u- and its a and the Irish I cannot be reconciled. For Grk
Xaag a PIE origin has been claimed from *l(e)h a s-.
?*Korkeh a - ‘pebble, small stone’. [IEW 6 1 5 ( *korka) | . Grk
KpoKahr] ‘pebble’, Kpoicr], KpoKKCti ‘pebble(s)’, Olnd sirkara
‘pebbles, gravel; sugar’ (whence NE sugar). The Greek form
is supposed to exhibit metathesis but the suffix does not agree
with the Old Indie word because of the Grk a. There are
comparable forms in non-IE languages so this is probably a
substrate word. For the Old Indie word, an origin in the
— 547 —
STONE
Munda languages has been suggested. Therefore, both the
connection between the two words and the IE origin is
unlikely.
?*pel(i)s- (gen. *plsds ) ‘stone, rock’. \IEW 807 ( *peh-s-)\
Wat 49 ( *pelis-)\ GI 648 ( *p b el-)\ BK 36 ( *p[ h ]al-/*p[ h ]dl-)} .
Olr ail (< *pal-i-l ) ‘cliff’, Mir all (< *palso - < *pJso-l ) ‘cliff’,
ON [jail ~ fell (< *felza-< *pelso-) ‘cliff’, OHG /e/z's (< *pe/e/
zsa- < *paliso-? ) ‘cliff’, Macedonian EleXXa (place name,
explained as ‘stone’), Grk (Hesy chius) neXXa ‘stone’, Pashto
parsa ‘steep slope’, Kati parsi ‘cliff, mountain’, Waigali pash
‘rock’, Olnd pasana-, past- ‘stone’. If Mir ail represents
*pali~, the a of all cannot derive from *pJso-. There is evidence
for a pre-Romance *pal(l)a. The Germanic words have *pels-
beside *pelis-(*peles~?) or *palis- ( * pales-?). The Macedonian
TleXXa is probably a substrate word, cf. lleXXa/ri beside
FleXXpvrf (and probably (peXXevq ‘stony land’). Both the
European and the Indie words appear to be non-Indo-
European.
See also Ax. [R.S.RB.]
Further Readings
Maher, J. P (1973) *H a ekmon: ‘(stone) axe’ and ‘sky’ in I.E./Battle-
axe culture. JIES 1, 441-462.
Reichelt, H. (1913) Der steineme Himmel. IF 32, 23-57.
STORK
*(s)ter- ‘stork’. [7EW1023 (*(s)ter-)\ Wat 66 (*ster-)}. ON
storkr ‘stork’, OE store ‘stork’ (> NE stork), OHG storah ‘stork’,
Hit tarla ‘stork’. The related Arm tareln ‘stork’ is a loan from
an Anatolian language. Witczak has suggested that the
underlying Germanic form is *sturkaz which should derive
from PIE *sfgos ‘stork’, cf. Grk neXapyoq ‘stork’ {nek- ‘white’
+ *dpyoq < *sxgos ), Olnd sfiaya- ‘wading bird’, thus perhaps
of PIE status. In other IE languages the term for ‘stork’ is
from random sources, e.g., Lat ciconia ‘stork’ (< *kan- ‘sing’).
Indie has no preferred term, and indeed the common white
stork comes to India only during the winter months. When
these large birds have a common Indie name, it is usually in
reference to their physical features, e.g., ‘red-bill’ and ‘white-
neck’.
The white stork ( Ciconia ciconia) is a noticeable bird and
one fondly thought of. It was frequently confused by the
ancients with the swan and the heron, also large white birds.
In addition to the rather common white stork, there is a black
stork ( Ciconia ciconia nigra) which dwells in rushes and is
quite secretive.
See also Birds. [J.A. C.G.]
Further Reading
Witczak, K. T. (1991) Indo-European *sfC in Germanic. KZ 104,
106-107.
STRENGTH
*h a 6nf ‘(manly) strength, vitality’. [IEW765 ( *ner-(t-))\
Wat 44 ( *ner-)\ GI 703 ( *Hner-(t h )-)\ BK 558 ( *nir-/*ner-)] .
The underlying noun has survived nowhere but it has left
rich derivatives: Olr nar ‘noble, great-hearted’, Lith noras 'will',
Hit innara ‘violently’, innarahh- ‘make strong', mnarawant-
‘strong, forceful; sexually potent’, Luv annara/i- ‘forceful’
(Anatolian < *hien-h a nord- ‘having (manly) strength within');
more particularly there is the widespread derivative *h a ner
(gen. *h a pros) ‘man’ in Alb njeri ‘person’, Grk dvrfp (gen.
dvSpoq) ‘man’, Phryg avap ‘man’, Arm ayr ‘man, person’,
Luv annar- ‘man’, Av nar- ‘man, person’, Oss mel' man’, Olnd
nar- ‘man, person’. Widespread and old in IE.
*h a 6ius (gen. *haidus) ‘vital force, life, age of vigor’. \1EW
17 (*a/u-); GI 702 (*ayu-)\ Wat 1 (*aiw-)\ BK 446 £ *am /
*3/7i-)]. Olr aes ‘life, age’, Lat aews ‘lifespan, age’, ON ivvi
‘life, age’, ae (< *h a oiijo-) ‘always’, OE z(\v) ‘law, marriage’,
OHG ewa ‘eternity, law’, ewin ‘eternity’, io ‘always’, Goth aiws
‘time, eternity’, Grk aicbv ‘vitality, lifespan’, Av ayii (gen. yaos)
‘lifespan’, Olnd ayu- ~ ayus- ‘life, lifespan’. Cf. dokiyccicov
‘having a long life’, Av darag-ayu- ‘long-lasting’, Olnd dirgh-
ayu- ‘long-lasting’. Widespread and old in IE.
*]}6ihx(e)s - ‘strength, vitality’, f IEW 1123-1124 (*y/s-);
Wat 74-75 (*wi-)\ BK 508 (*wuy-/*woy~) ]. Lat vis ‘power’,
Grk iq ‘power’, Olnd vayas- ‘vitality, growth’, vidayati
(< *uih x s-d-eie/o-) ‘makes strong’. Particularly important is
the related *uih x ros ‘full of vitality, young’: Olr fer ‘man,
husband’, Weis gwr ‘man, husband’, Lat vir (grown) man,
husband’, Umb uerio- ‘man’, ON verr ‘man, husband’, OE
wer ‘man, husband’ (> NE werewolf), OHG wer ‘man,
husband’, Goth waff man’, OPrus wijrs ‘man’, Lith vyras'man,
husband’, Latv vlrs ‘man, husband’, ?Alb ri ‘young’ (if <
metathesized *urih x 6s ), Av vira- ‘man’, Olnd vira- ‘man,
husband’, TochA wir ‘young’. Widespread and old in IE.
See also Life; Man ; Strong ; Young . [ D . Q . A . 1
STRETCH see EXTEND
STRIKE
*g w hen- ‘strike’ (pres. *g w hinti) [/EW49 1-492 ( *g Ll hen-
(9)-)\ Wat 25 {*g w hen-)\ GI 644 (*gf 1G en-)\ Buck 9.21; BK
3 1 2 ( *g w an-/*g w m-)\ . Olr gonaid (< *g w honeie/o-) ‘wounds,
strikes’, Lat defendo ‘protect’, ON gunnr ‘combat’, OPrus
guntwei ‘drive (cattle)’, Lith genu ‘drive cattle; hunt’, gemu
‘prune (trees), trim (a hedge)’, Latv dzpnu drive cattle’, OCS
zenp ‘drive cattle’, gonjQ ‘pursue’, zIjq ‘harvest, cut’, Rus gon
‘a drive, a hunt’, Grk Oeivco ‘strike’, (povoq ‘murder’,
(Hesychius) dne<paro ‘died’ (< *‘was struck down’), Arm jnem
‘strike’, ganem ‘strike’, Hit kuenzi ‘strikes’, Av jainti ‘strikes’,
Olnd hand ‘strikes’, TochB kask- (< *g w hn-ske/o-) ‘scatter
(violently)’. Sometimes accepted here are ON ham ‘murder’,
OE bana ‘murder’, OHG bano ‘murder’ and ON ben ‘wound’,
OE benn ‘wound’, Goth banja ‘wound’, by those who accept
the notion that PIE *g w h- became Proto-Gmc *b- except
before *-u- (where it became *g-). Practically universally
attested and clearly old in IE, this is the archetypal verb for
‘strike’ in PIE.
*yen- ‘strike, wound’. \IEW 1108 (*uen-); Wat 76
548 —
STRIKE
( *wen~) ] . MWels gweint ‘bored through’ , Weis ymwan ‘fight,
do battle’, ON und ‘a wound’, OE wund ‘a wound; wounded’
(>NE wound), OHG wunt ‘wounded’, wunta'a wound’, Goth
wunds ‘wounded’, Arm vandem ‘destroy’, Hit wen - ‘copulate
with’, uwanisk- ‘± ravage’, wenal ‘± stick, staff’. Widespread
and old in IE.
*bher- ‘strike (through), split’ (pres. *bh6iie/o-). [IEW
133-135 ( *bher-)\ Wat 7 {*bher-)\ BK 3 (*bur-/*bor-)]. Mir
bem ‘gap, chasm’, Lat ferio ‘strike, pound’, ford ‘bore’, ON
berja ‘strike’, bora ‘bore’, OE borian ‘bore’ (> NE bore), OHG
berjan ‘strike’, boron ‘bore’, Lith bar(i)u ‘revile, abuse’, Latv
bapu ~ baru ‘revile’, OCS borjp ‘fight, struggle’, Rus borju
‘subdue, throw down’, Grk (Hesy chius) (pdpoai ‘split’, (papoco
‘plow’, Arm beran ‘mouth’ (< *‘slit’), brem ‘dig up’, hollow
out, bore’, NPers burrad ‘cuts’, OInd bhfnati ‘wounds’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*pleh a k/g~ ‘strike, strike one’s breasts in lamentation’ (pres.
*pl£h a gmi ‘I strike’, *pteh a kti ‘he/she strikes’). [IEW 832-
833 (*pIak-~ *plag-)\ Wat 51 (*plak-)\. From *p!eh a g-\ ON
flokinn ‘distraught’, OE flocan ‘strike, clap’, OHG fluohhan
‘curse’, Goth flokan ‘bewail’, Grk n\f}o<7(D ‘strike’, 7tkrfyri ‘a
blow’; reflecting a nasalized present *plh a -n-g-\ Mir len (<
*plang-smo-) ‘defeat, hurt, injury’, Lat plango ‘strike, strike
one’s breast in lamentation; bewail’, Grk jckd^co (< *plangio)
‘strike (down)’; from *pleh a k-\ Lith plakti ‘strike’, plokis ‘a
blow’, OCS plakati sp ‘weep, be sorrowful’. Similar in
phonology and identical in meaning are Lat plecto ‘strike,
punish’, Lith pllekti ‘strike’. Reasonably widespread and
certainly old in IE.
*keh a u- ‘strike, hew’ (> ‘forge’ already in PIE?). [IEW 535
(*Aau-); Wat 27 {*kau-)\ Gl 619 (*k h aHu-)- Buck 9.61], ON
hpggva ‘hew’, OE heawan ‘hew’ (> NE hew), OHG houwan
‘hew’ (cf. ON hey ‘hay’, OE hleg ‘hay’ [> NE hay], OHG hewe
~ houwe ‘hay’, Goth hawi ‘hay’), Lith kauja ‘strike, forge’,
kova ‘battle’, Latv kaut ‘strike, forge’, OCS kovp ‘forge’, TochA
ko- ‘kill, strike down, destroy’, TochB kau- ‘kill, strike down,
destroy’, TochA kost- ‘strike, kill by striking’; *keh a ud- in
Mir cuad ‘war’, Lat cudo ‘strike, forge’, TochA kot- ‘split off,
break; chop up/down; crush’, TochB kaut - ‘split off, break;
chop up/down; crush’. Widespread and old in IE.
♦per- ‘strike’. [IEW 818-819 ( *per-); Wat 50 ( *per-); Buck
9.21] . Lith periu ‘beat with brushwood, flog’, Latv pepu ‘beat
with brushwood, flog’, OCS perp ‘strike; wash (by beating)
clothes’, plrjp ‘contend’, Rus pru ‘press, oppress’, Arm han
‘struck’. With enlargements we have Alb pres (< *pretie/o-)
‘cut down, cut off, split’, Av parat- ‘battle, strife’, Olnd ppt-
‘battle, strife’. Widespread and old in IE.
*kreu(-s)~ ‘strike’. [IEW 622-623 ( *kreu-)\ Wat 32-33
( *kreua -); Buck 9.21], From *kreu-: OE hreowan ‘grieve,
distress, afflict’ (> NE rue), OHG (h)rieuwa ‘grieve, distress,
afflict’, Grk Kpoaivo (< *krounie/o~) ‘stamp, strike with the
hoof’ (of a horse), TochAB kam- (< *kru-neh a -) ‘± strike,
afflict’; from *kreus~: ON hrosti ‘mashed malt’, Lith krusu ~
kriausau ‘smash, crash; grind’, krusa ‘hail’, Latv krusa ‘had’,
OCS su-krusiti ‘shatter’, Grk Kpovco (< *krousie/o~) ‘strike
(together)’, strike a stringed instrument with a plectrum,
knock (at the door)’. Widespread and old in IE.
*piek- ‘strike’, [cf. IEW 797 ( *pek-), Wat 48 ( *pek-). Buck
20.11]. OE feohtan ‘fight’ (> NE fight), OHG fehtan ‘fight’,
Alb per-pjek ‘strike’, TochB pyak- ‘strike (downwards), batter;
beat (of a drum); penetrate (as a result of a downward blow)’.
Distribution suggests PIE status.
*temhx- ‘be struck, be exhausted’ [IEW 1063 (*tem-), BK
147 ( *ty[ h Jum-/*tY[ h )om -)]. Mir tarn (< *tomh x u-) ‘sickness,
death’, tamaid ‘dies’, Lat temetum ‘any intoxicating drink’,
temulentus ‘drunken, tipsy’, NHG damisch ~ damlich ‘foolish,
silly', OCS tomiti ‘torture, harass, tire’, Olnd tamyati ‘gasps
for breath; is faint, stunned, exhausted’, ramayati ‘robs of
breath’. Widespread and old in IE.
*g w el- ‘strike, stab’. [IEW 470-471 {*g*el-), Wat 24
( *g w el-)\ BK 359 ( *q' w aI-/*q w aE)\ . Weis ballu ‘die’, OE cwelan
‘die’, cwellan ‘kill’ (> NE quell and kill), cwield ~ cwild
‘destruction, death’, OPrus gallan ‘death’, Lith gelti ‘sting,
ache’, gela ‘torture’, Arm kelem ‘torture’. At least a word of
the west and center of the IE world. See also the derivative
*g w eIon ‘insect’s stinger’.
*bheud- strike, beat’ (pres. *bh6udei) [IEW 112
( *bhau-)\ Wat 6 ( *bhau-)\ Buck 9.21], OIr bibdu (< *bhe-
bhud-uot-s) ‘guilty; enemy’, Lat fastis' cane, cudgel’, ON bauta
‘beat’, OE beatan ‘beat’ (> NE beat), OHG buzzan ‘beat’. At
least a word of the northwest of the IE world.
*bheih a - ‘strike’ (pres. *bhm£h a ti (in the west of the IE
world] ~ *bhih a e/o- [in the center and eastl). [IEW 117
( *bhei(a )-)■, Wat 6 ( *bhei-)\ Buck 9.21]. OIr benaid ‘strikes',
Lat perfino ‘break through, shatter’, OCS bijp ‘strike’, Av
byente ‘they struggle, strike’. The geographical spread
guarantees PIE status.
*kelhi- ‘strike’. [/EW545 (*kel~), Wat 28 (*kel~), BK 354
(*q[ h ]al-/*q[ h ]al-) ]. Lat calamitas ‘loss, injury, damage,
misfortune’, per-cello ‘beat down, throw down’, OPrus kalo-
pei/is ‘chopping-knife, cleaver’, Lith kalu ‘strike, forge’, Latv
kalu ‘strike, forge’, OCS koljg ‘stab, slaughter’, Rus kolotV stab,
slaughter, hack, split’, Grk Kekeog(< *kelhiud$) ‘green wood-
pecker’. A word at least of the west and center of the IE world.
*b hlihxg - ‘strike’. [IEW 160-161 ( *bhlig-)\ Wat 9
( *bhhg-)[ . Lat fligo ‘strike’, Latv blaizit ‘crush, strike’, Grk
(pktpco(< *bhlihxg-u-) ‘press’. A word of the west and center
of the IE world.
*bhlag- ‘strike’. [IEW 154 ( *bhlag-)\ Wat 8-9 ( *bhlag -)] .
Lat flagrum ‘whip’, flagito ‘demand importantly’, ON blaka
‘strike one side and the other’, blekkja 'strike', Lith blaskau
‘throw, fling’. A word similar phonologically to the previous
one and found largely in the same stocks.
*tken- ‘strike 1 . (Mayrhofer 1, 4231 . Grk kteivo)' kill’, icrovog
‘murder’, (Ionic) dvdpo-Kraoia ‘manslaughter’, Olnd ksandti
‘hurts, injures, wounds’, ksati - ‘destruction, injury’. A word
of the southeast of the IE world.
?*slak~ ‘strike’. [IEW 959 (*slak-)\ Wat 61 ( *sIak-)\ Buck
9.21], Mir slacc ‘sword’, ON sla ‘strike’, OE slean ‘strike’ (>
NE slay), OHG slahan ‘strike’, Goth slahan ‘strike’. Found
— 549
STRIKE
only in Germanic and Celtic, this may have been a dialect
word of the far west of the IE world.
?*dephx- ‘strike’. [IEW 203 ( *deph -)]. SC depiti 1 strike’,
Arm top‘em ‘strike’. Sparingly attested and perhaps a dialect
word of the IE center. The relationship, if any, to Grk detpa)
‘scrape, soften (a hide); masturbate’, phonologically (with
-ph- rather than -p-) and semantically divergent, is hard to
determine.
[D.Q.A.l
STRIPED see SPECKLED
STRONG
*b6los ‘strong’. [IEW 96 ( *beI-)\ Wat 5 ( *hel-)\ Buck 4.81 ] .
Lat debilis ‘weak, infirm’, OCS bolljl ‘larger’, Grk fieArepoq
’better’, OInd balam ‘power, strength’. This may be the
strongest etymology containing the very rare PIE *b-\ as a
result, it has been scrutinized repeatedly but not definitively
rejected.
*yeg- ‘strong’. [ IEW 1117-1118 ( *peg-)\ Wat 74 ( *weg-)\
GI 206 ( *Huek'-)\ Buck 4.63; BK 499 ( *wak’-/*w3k’-)\ . Lat
veged\o enliven, stir up’, Olnd vd/a- ‘strength’, vajra- ‘(lndra’s)
thunderbolt, (later) diamond’. While a broad group of
Germanic terms has traditionally been included here: ON
vakna ‘to awaken’, OE waecnan ‘to wake up’ (> NE wake),
OHG wahhen ‘to wake’, etc., the vocalism is a problem. Also
TochAB wasir ‘thunderbolt, diamond’, sometimes included
here, may be an Old Indie loan. Uncertain IE status.
See also Club; Strength. [J.C.S.]
STUPID
??*mdr- [IEW 750 ( *mo(u)-ro-)', Wat 43 ( *md(u)ro-)\ Buck
17.21], Grk pcopoq 1 stupid’, Hit marla(nt)- ‘foolish’. Although
included in earlier works, Olnd mura- ‘foolish, stupid’ is not
now regarded as cognate, given the differences in vocalism
between the Greek and Indie words.
U.C.S.]
STURGEON
?*h 2 eke(tro)- ‘sturgeon (Acipenser spp. and Huso huso)’.
[cf. IEW 18-19 (*ak-)- BK 398 ( *fiuk[ h ]-/*hok[ h ]-)}. Lat
acipenser ‘sturgeon’, OPrus esketres ‘sturgeon’, Lith esketras
‘sturgeon’ (also Lith ersketas ‘sturgeon’ by contamination with
ersketis ‘thorn’; the Baltic -k- is also secondary in some way),
Rus osetr ‘sturgeon’, SC jesetra ‘sturgeon’ (Proto-Slavic
*jesetru). There clearly seems to be a tradition in various IE
groups of designating this fish with derivatives of *h 2 ek-
‘sharp’ (just as in the case of ‘perch’). It is, however, doubtful
that the evidence would allow the sure reconstruction of a
PIE term.
?*stf(hx)jon- ‘sturgeon’. Lat (< Gaul) sario (later 1 arid )
‘salmon trout’, ON styrja ‘sturgeon’, OE styri(g)a ‘sturgeon’,
OHG sturio (whence medieval Lat sturio ‘sturgeon’ and, via
OFrench, NE sturgeon). Perhaps a late dialect word of the far
west of the IE world. The exact phonological and
morphological mapping of the putative Celtic and Germanic
reflexes is encouraging. The semantic divergence is, however,
bothersome as the sturgeon and salmon (or trout) are not
perceptually similar. If related, the surprising change of
meaning in Celtic may be the result of the rarity of sturgeon
in western Europe.
Although lexically of no great antiquity, the distinctive
appearance of the sturgeon could well motivate those names
derived from the concept of ‘sharp’ as the snout is pointed
and the fish, which lacks scales but is covered instead with
sharp bony plates or scutes. There is a large variety of sturgeon
species but their primary distribution tends to be in central
and eastern Europe (Acipenser stellalus, ruthenus, etc.) while
Acipenser sturio is common in the rivers flowing into the
Baltic and Acipenser naccari (Adriatic sturgeon) might help
explain the reflex in Italic.
See also Fish; Perch. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
Witczak, K. T. (1991) Indo-European *sfC in Germanic. KZ 104,
106-107.
SUBGROUPING
The subgrouping of the various Indo-European stocks, or
the describing of their various interrelationships, remains an
enduring puzzle for Indo-Europeanists. The difficulty arises
however, not from a lack of evidence but rather from an over-
abundance of evidence whose import is not easily categorized.
Thus the model of Indo-European subgrouping has evolved
over time, an evolution that has resulted both from increasing
knowledge of Indo-European languages and from differing
methods of defining subgroups.
The earliest model of intra-Indo-European relationships
that gained a considerable currency was that of August
Schleicher (1821-1868). After a preliminary attempt that put
Celtic as the earliest PIE group to diverge from the parent
stock, he settled in 1861 on a model that placed Celtic
alongside Italic.
In general, establishment of a subgroup, say, Italo-Celtic-
Greco-Albanian, was predicated on the constituents of the
subgroup sharing some innovation or innovations unknown
elsewhere. The innovations could concern vocabulary,
morphology, phonology, or syntax. A lexical example might
involve the choice of the word for ‘fire’ in a particular stock;
was it a relative of English fire (as in Germanic, Umbrian,
Greek) or a relative of Latin ignis (as in Latin, Baltic, in Slavic
[in the form of derivatives], and Indie)? An important
morphological distinction was that between those languages
which marked the present tense of medio-passive verbs with
a suffixed *-i (Greek, Indie, Iranian, probably Germanic) as
opposed to those that marked it with a suffixed *-r (Celtic,
Italic, and Phrygian). Another well-known morphological
distinction was between those languages that showed a *-m-
in the dative plural of nouns (Germanic, Baltic, Slavic) and
those that showed a *-bh- (the rest, insofar as they preserve
550 —
SUBGROUPING
any ending at all). A good phonological example is the
retraction of PIE *-s to *-§- after *-r~, *-k~, and
something that is found in Baltic, Slavic, Iranian, and Indie,
but nowhere else.
The trick of course was deciding just what was an
innovation. If Albanian, for instance, lacked a particular
feature that was to be found in Celtic, Italic, and Greek (and
nowhere else), did that mean that the putative Celtic-Italic-
Greco-Albanian subgroup was to be further divided into a
Celtic-Italic-Greek group on the one hand and an Albanian
group on the other? Or did it mean that Albanian had simply
lost that particular feature at some point in its history? In
general it is not always easy to distinguish between a once
universal feature that has been lost in several groups from a
feature that was never universal, but rather an innovation
that was common only to a subset of stocks. Of our examples,
contemporary investigators are fairly certain that the dative
plural *-m- is an innovation as is the retraction of *-s-. The
medio-passive marker -i is probably an innovation vis-a-vis
the alternative *-r, while the choice of a word ‘fire’ is
idiosyncratic to each stock (or even each language, cf. the
different choices within Italic of Latin ignis but Umbrian pir ).
(It might also be noted that only the *-m- versus *-bh-
distinction fits well into Schleicher’s schema.) In practice, then,
single features were not very good evidence for subgrouping
and thus linguists looked for whole sets of features that
together might define subgroup membership.
The whole process is admittedly subjective and, as such,
might easily lead to disagreements among investigators. For
instance, some of Schleicher’s subgroups are more obvious
than others. If one considers just the ten well-attested Indo-
European stocks known in the nineteenth century (i.e. , Celtic,
Italic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Greek, Armenian,
Indie and Iranian), it was clear from the beginning that Indie
and Iranian bear an especially close relationship to one
SUBGROUPING
another. So close is the relationship that many an Avestan
sentence can be made into a perfectly acceptable Sanskrit
sentence merely by mechanically applying a few phonological
rules. The same is true in reverse, going from Sanskrit to
Avestan. It must be the case, then, that in the not very distant
prehistory of Indie and Iranian the two were mutually
intelligible. The two stocks even share a common self-
designation, arya- ‘aryan’. Thus, no one has ever doubted that
there was a more or less uniform Proto-lndo-Iranian
intermediate in age between Proto-Indo-European and the
attested Indie and Iranian.
While not so closely allied as Indie and Iranian, Baltic and
Slavic share many similarities of development, most
particularly in the restructuring of the verbal system and in
the development of the Proto-Indo-European accentuational
system. On the other hand, they go in different directions,
surprisingly often in the matter of vocabulary, and thus the
question arises as to the origin of their similarities: are those
similarities the result of inheritance from a common ancestor,
i.e., Proto-Balto-Slavic, intermediate Proto-Indo-European and
the attested Baltic and Slavic, or the result of the fact that the
two groups have apparently always lived side by side and
been in a position to influence one another linguistically?
Finally the resemblances between Italic and Celtic have
sometime been thought to necessitate an intermediate Proto-
Italo-Celtic but, probably as often, been thought to reflect
nothing more than shared, but independent, innovations or
retentions. As we have already noted above, this indeterminacy
of Italo-Celtic is reflected in Schleicher’s revision of his earlier
model, one in which Celtic diverged very early from an
otherwise undifferentiated Proto-Indo-European and his later
model, given here, where Italo-Celtic forms a close subunit.
Methods of Subgrouping
Schleicher’s models, like other similar models of IE sub-
grouping, were rather deliberately patterned after Darwin’s
biological model of speciation (i.e., the process whereby one
plant or animal species splits into two or more). Speciation
(and language split) was viewed as a more or less instantaneous
event in which a formerly unitary population was divided
(by migration, uplift of mountains, etc.) into two (or more)
reproductively isolated populations, each of which would then
undergo independent changes which resulted in a greater and
greater divergence between the newly established groups. Just
as in biology, the various splits and subsequent resplitting of
what had been a single linguistic community could be
represented by a Stammbaum or “Family Tree” model.
However, as the nineteenth century progressed, it became
increasingly clear that language “speciation” was not
necessarily an abrupt process, though it could be. Natural
languages were increasingly appreciated as congeries of
dialects rather than as monolithic wholes. A given dialect
would share linguistic features (e.g., pronunciation, lexical
choices) with neighboring dialects in a complex and
overlapping fashion. This complex pattern of sharing resulted
from the adoption by only certain portions of the larger
community of linguistic innovations that have run through
the community in a wave-like fashion (hence the designation
Wellentheorie “Wave Theory”) without necessarily affecting
all of its parts (one might compare in New English the “loss”
of /r/, or rather its shift at least originally to [<?j, which has
affected the English of the south and east of England, South
Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and certain areas on the east
coast of North America, but not the west of England, Scotland,
Ireland, or most of North America).
If such a complex dialect grid were eventually to come
apart and be resolved into two or more groups, each resultant
group would share certain features with other groups but the
pattern would not be reducible to that of a bifurcating tree.
Leonard Bloomfield (1887-1949) illustrated this kind of
pattern in a diagram that reconstructs the geographical
distribution of pre-Greek, pre-Germanic, etc., while they were
still parts of a single, complex, PIE linguistic community.
However, it does not have too much to say about the actual
process by which the single linguistic community, albeit one
divided into distinguishable dialect groupings, came to divide
into two or more independent groups.
Both sharp splits and more gradual dissolution are possible
modes of creating two linguistic units out of one. As a result
they are complementary processes whereby we can under-
stand how the linguistic situation presented by the Indo-Euro-
pean languages came to be, not competitive ones. The search
for sharp splits, however, remains the more popular choice
as the creation of a proper Stammbaum allows the possibility
of throwing some light on the history of the various Indo-
European groups after the initial period of unity was past.
|
552 —
SUBGROUPING
The Wellentheorie , like the Stammbaumtheorie, can be
criticized as overly subjective, being dependent on the investi-
gator’s judgements as to what are the significant innovations
that various subgroups might share. In the last fifty years or
so various mathematically based schemes have been suggested
in the hopes of making the Indo-European family tree (and
the family trees of other languages) more precise. The first
method to achieve widespread support is that called either
“lexico-statistics” or “glottochronology" and was analogous
to radiocarbon dating, in this technique the age of organic
material can be measured since it contains the unstable isotope
14 C which disintegrates at a constant rate (it has a half-life of
5730 years). Morris Swadesh (1909-67) argued that voca-
bulary replacement behaved very much like 14 C decay in that
it occurred at a constant rate. One could not predict, of course,
when a given word would be replaced by another but certainly
over time words were replaced and apparently at a more or
less steady rate, at least for what he termed the “core
vocabulary”. For Swadesh the core vocabulary consisted of
words, both nouns and verbs, for very familiar concepts and
actions (parts of the body, designations for nuclear family
members, natural objects, common actions) that, learned by
children as they were at the very earliest stages of language
acquisition, were most resistant to borrowing from other
languages. On the basis of some tests on known languages,
the following formula was developed:
t = log c/2 log r
where t = time since separation, c is the percentage of shared
cognates, and r the percentage of cognates that would remain
after a thousand years of separation (81%).
After being hailed, at least by some, as a great break-through
in historical dating, this method has fallen on hard times.
Critics have raised a number of substantial problems, two of
which are critical. First, how can one develop a truly universal
list of basic vocabulary? (‘Sun’ and the words for the first and
second personal pronouns seem remarkably “basic” and stable
in most of the world but in eastern and southeastern Asia
they are clearly subject to borrowing or other varieties of
replacement; ‘Yellow’ only occurs in more advanced color-
naming systems and is by no means “basic” in many of the
languages of the world, etc.) Secondly, how can one be certain
that vocabulary replacement really does take place at a
constant rate (when tested the actual rate seemed to vary from
0%, in Icelandic, to 67%, for Eskimo)? The answer to the
latter question may be that given sufficient time vocabulary
replacement does at least approach a constant rate, even
though in historically measurable periods of time the rate
shows a great deal of fluctuation (however, the existence for
longer or shorter periods of time or the custom of “taboo
replacement”, i.e., the deliberate disuse and replacement of
words resembling, say, the name of a deceased member of
the community, would seem to vitiate any notion of a constant
replacement, at least in the affected language groups); that
one can answer the first question satisfactorily at all seems
most problematic.
It is important, however, to note that Swadesh’s system
was designed to do two rather different things: ( 1 ) to subgroup
language families and build “trees” that would reflect the
process by which a single linguistic community had become
a language family, and (2) to give an absolute date to the
various splits. The second goal was the more exciting and
more ambitious one and the one most dependent on the
notion of a “constant”. It is also the goal whose claims to
success are demonstrably the weaker. When applied to Indo-
European data, the method seems to give unbelievable dates
(a separation of French and Italian in the mid sixteenth century
AD) or dates that contradict all other data (such as dating the
split between [pre-] Greek and [pre-1 Latin at 3000 BC but a
split between [pre-] Latin and I pre-] Irish at 3700 BC).
As a tool for constructing family trees, it may be more
viable. In what is certainly the most extensive test of lexico-
statistics ever made of known data, Dyen, Kruskal, and Black
used eighty-four different lists of Indo-European languages
or dialects to construct a family tree of Indo-European. (They
restricted themselves to modem languages, e g., Italian and
French, etc., rather than Latin, and thus Anatolian and
Tocharian of the twelve major Indo-European groups are
excluded altogether). If one translates their results into a family
tree pattern, it would produce a “shallow” tree that looks, in
many respects, like trees arrived at by other methods. Their
results strongly support the existence of Balto-Slavic as a well-
defined intermediate stage between Proto-Indo-European on
the one hand and Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic on the other.
They find evidence for a grouping of Italic, Germanic, and
Balto-Slavic but find no evidence in support of any special
Italo-Celtic group. Indeed Celtic, on the basts of their data
and methodology, would seem to be a distinct and early
offshoot of Proto-Indo-European. Most surprising is that they
find no evidence for the obvious grouping of Indie and Iranian.
Clearly in this one instance at least (as they readily admit)
lexico-statistics does not produce the correct answer, though
553 —
SUBGROUPING
they argue that their test has proven the method of sufficient
utility to be used as at least one tool in the arsenal of the
linguist trying to reconstruct a family tree.
Recently Donald Ringe and others have proposed a new
mathematical model for discovering the pattern of branching
in the prehistoric development of linguistic families. This
method is explicitly modeled on the contemporary practice,
called cladistics, by which biologists infer evolutionary history
for biological species. Their methodology involves three
essential components: (1) encoding linguistic information
using qualitative characters (i.e., a specific point of grammar
or lexicon where languages can agree or disagree), (2) using
an algorithm to find the optimal and near-optimal trees, (3)
and finding methods for discovering the common features of
the best trees generated by the first two steps. As they are the
first to admit, the first step, encoding linguistic information
as qualitative characters, involves linguistic judgements (that
may not be universally shared) as to whether a given piece of
information (“a character”) is or is not relevant to the
evolutionary tree. Even if all are agreed as to the relevance of
a given character, all may not be agreed as to how that
character should be encoded. Their choice of characters is
also constrained by a desire to exclude “natural” changes that
might occur independently in more than one branch. Thus
the phonological characters they include are restricted to two:
(1) the “ruki” retraction of PIE *s after PIE *k, *r, *i, and *u,
and (2) and the satam merger of velars and labio- velars. Their
method does not necessarily construct a single tree but rather
several trees (a small grove if you will) that meet or nearly
meet the goal of being minimal, i.e., that represent the
information forced by the data set and no other.
Since the full list of linguistic characters that they have
used (comprising forty-nine lexical, seven morphological, and
two phonological characters) has not yet been published, it
is hard to judge how good the methodology is. However, their
results do tend to match the results reached by less mathe-
matical and more intuitive methods (and by lexico-statistics).
Excluding Germanic which we will return to below, their best
tree was constructed where only two lexical and two
morphological characters did not fit and their second best
tree had four lexical and one morphological characters that
did not fit.
Largely because of loss, Albanian has relatively few charac-
ters in common with other Indo-European groups and thus
it can be placed anywhere on the tree, provided it is above
the “Satam Core” and not a member of the subtree containing
Greek and Armenian.
The position of Germanic is difficult to determine. Any
tree with Germanic included has many characters that do
not fit. Excluding Germanic allows trees, such as the two given
above, where the overwhelming majority of characters do fit.
It is also noteworthy that the lexical data from Germanic points
in a different direction, as it were, than the morphological
data. They attribute this “dual allegiance” as evidence that
pre-Germanic began to develop with the "Sat am Core” (more
!
\
i
\
i
]
i
i
554 —
SUBGROUPING
particularly paired with Balto-Slavic) but moved away from
that group early on (before many of the special innovations
defining that core group had developed) and into contact
with the western groups of Italic and Celtic from which it
borrowed a number of distinctive vocabulary items sufficiently
early that these borrowings cannot be distinguished from true
cognates. (They recognize that these “undetectable borrow-
ings” are worrisome for their model, and of course any other
that relies on lexical equations.) Beyond that they note that
this methodology strongly supports that notion that Anatolian
was the first of the subgroups to separate from the rest of
Proto-Indo-European and that the Italo-Celtic hypothesis is
“weakly denied” by the data.
The historical linguist, for whom the possibility of assigning
absolute dates to language splits or mechanically describing
the order of these splits may seem as distant as ever, can take
cold comfort in that neither radiocarbon dating nor biological
cladistics, the models for so much of the historical linguistics’
work in this area, have found as smooth a road in their “home
disciplines” as originally supposed. It turns out for instance
that the amount of 14 C in the atmosphere is not an absolute
constant and thus radiocarbon dating can underestimate the
true age of an object, unless the date can be calibrated with
the aid of tree-ring dating. Likewise, the determination of
speciation on the basis of comparing DNA sequences
(themselves very much analogous to Ringe’s “characters”) may
at times result in the same frustrating indeterminacy as the
corresponding linguistic analysis. As J. Marks observes:
“Analysis of DNA sequences has proven vexingly ambiguous
in attempting to discern the two closest relatives among
humans, gorillas and chimpanzees. Most analyses of mito-
chondrial DNA are so equivocal as to render a clear phylogeny
impossible, the preferred phylogeny relying critically on the
choice of outgroup and clustering technique.”
f?'
'sip
&
BU,
Conclusions
When all is said and done, there is probably a certain
amount of consensus around a view that sees the Anatolian
group as separating somewhat earlier from the rest of the
Proto-Indo-European than any other attested stock. The
departure of the pre-Anatolians would seem to have left a
largely undifferentiated “residual” Proto-Indo-European.
Subsequently the residual Proto-Indo-European expanded
geographically and developed into a long dialect chain from
“east” to “west” (the exact geography of the dialect chain
remains completely speculative). On one end we have Celtic
(which may or may not have had a special relationship with
Italic), Italic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic (these three with some
obvious close relationships), then the “southeastern” group
of Greek, Armenian, Iranian and Indie, from which Greek
and Armenian disengaged themselves sufficiently early to
allow Baltic and Slavic on the one hand and Indo-Iranian on
the other to forge new links between themselves. Albanian
apparently belonged somewhere in the center with Slavic
relatively close by while the position of Tocharian remains
problematic. It would seem not to be closely connected with
any other IE stock (and certainly not with Indo-lranian, its
closest attested neighbors), but what connections it does have
would seem to be with the west, with Germanic and Greek.
This dialect chain “fell apart” at different times and certainly
different places. Certainly Indo-lranian remained a single unity
until relatively late. Indeed, a larger “southeastern group”,
composed of Indo-lranian, Greek, and Armenian seems to
have remained something of a unit after a “northwestern
group” composed of Germanic, Baltic and Slavic, perhaps also
of Italic and Albanian, and less certainly yet of Celtic, had
broken off. Then to confuse the issue Indo-lranian and Slavic
seem to have, as we have had occasion to note, created new
connections. The loss of unity was presumably gradual and
episodic, though it need not have been a process, from the
first to last, of over a thousand years or so, and perhaps even
less (or more).
We must also remember that our knowledge of this dialect
chain and its successors is restricted to those stocks which
are historically attested. An untold number of separate stocks,
knowledge of which might enable us to flesh out the record
and close the gaps, say, between Italic and Germanic (or
Tocharian and anything else), may well have disappeared
before history and the written record caught up with them,
linguistically assimilated to other IE stocks or to non- IE
language groups.
Finally one may wonder just how important it is that we
have an answer to the question of IE subgrouping: are there
consequences to picking one model over another? The answer
to that question is that it does matter for our understanding
of what Proto-Indo-European was like. If it is true that Anato-
lian separated from an undifferentiated “residual” Proto-Indo-
European, then the agreement concerning some particular
feature (provided that feature could not be the result of inde-
pendent creation) of Anatolian and any other IE stock would
guarantee the reconstructibility of that feature to Proto-Indo-
European. A concrete example of just that possibility would
be PIE *domj‘fir’,attestedonlyinHitfanauandOHGmnnan-
If, as many assume, Tocharian is also a branch that separated
early from the rest of Proto-Indo-European, then an agreement
of Tocharian and either Italic or Greek, say, would be equally
compelling as an argument concerning the nature of Proto-
Indo-European. On the other hand, if with one of Ringes
models, Tocharian is a member of a subbranch with Greek,
then an agreement solely of Tocharian and Greek is not a
very strong argument about Proto-Indo-European while an
agreement of Tocharian and Italic remains compelling.
Since the full story of how Proto-Indo-European, a single
linguistic entity, came to be differentiated into at least twelve
separate stocks remains to be written, there is no “magic
formula” by which we can use the knowledge of subgroups
to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European. Each individual case
must be decided on its own merits. Obviously the more widely
spread a feature is, the more likely it is to reflect something of
Proto-Indo-European age. The discussion in the individual
555 —
SUBGROUPING
entries of the Encyclopedia however does tend to favor the
view that Anatolian is the earliest attested offshoot of Proto-
Indo-European.
See also Indo-European Languages; Proto-Indo-European;
Reconstruction; Time-Depth. [D.Q.AJ
Further readings
Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language. New York, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Coleman, R. (1994) The lexical relationships of Latin in Indo-
European, in Linguistic Studies on Latin, ed. j. Herman, Amster-
dam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 359-377.
Cowgill, W (1975) More Evidence for Indo-Hittite: the tense-aspect
system, in Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of
Linguists, ed. L. Heilmann, Bologna, Mulino, 557-570.
Dyen, I., J. B. Kruskal, and P. Black (1992) An Indo-European
Classification : A Lexicostatistical Experiment. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, Vol. 82, Pt. 5.
Hoenigswald, H. M. (1960) Language Change and Linguistic
Reconstruction. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Lees, R. B. (1953) The basis of glottochronology. Language 29, 1 1 3 —
127.
Marks, J. (1992) Chromosomal evolution of primates, in The
Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, eds. S. Jones, et
al. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 298-302.
Meillet, Antoine (1967) The Indo-European Dialects, translated by
Samuel N. Rosenberg. University, Alabama, University of Alabama
Press.
Porzig, W (1954) Die Gliederung des indoge rmanischen Sprach-
gebiets. Heidelberg, Carl Winter.
Ringe, D., T. Warnow, and A. Taylor (1995) Reconstructing
evolutionary history of natural languages. Institute for Research
in Cognitive Science Report 95-16. Philadelphia Institute for
Research in Cognitive Science.
Tischler, J. (1973) Glottochronologie und Lexikostatistik. (Inns-
brucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft, 11) Innsbruck.
SUCK
*dhehi(i)- ‘suck’. [IEW 241-242 ( *dhe(i)-)\ Wat 13
( *dhe(i)-)\ GI 487 ( *d h eH(i)-)\ BK 602 (*diy-/*dey-)}. OIr
dinid ~ denid 'sucks’, Weis dyfnu ‘suck’, Lat feld 'suck’, OHG
taju ‘suck’, MHG lien 'nurse, let suckle’, Goth daddjan ‘suck’,
Latv deju 'suck’, OCS dojp ‘suckle’, Grk (3rd sg aorist) Orjoaro
‘sucked’, Arm diem ‘suck’, Olnd dhayati ‘sucks, suckles’. The
PIE word for ‘suck’.
*seug/k- ‘suck’. {IEW 912-913 ( *seuk-/*seug-)\ Wat 58
(*seu9-)‘ GI 124 (*seuk^-)\ BK 190 ( *saw-/*s9w -)]. Olr
suigid ‘sucks’, Lat sugo ‘suck’, ON s(j)uga ‘suck’, OE sucan
‘suck’ (> NE suck), OHG sugan ‘suck’, Lith sunkiii ‘allow to
leak away’, Latv suzu ‘suck’, OCS susp ‘suck’. Less widely
distributed than *dhehi-, this appears to have been a
“northwesternism” in late PIE.
See also Breast; Eat and Drink; Lick. [D.Q.A.]
SUFFER see PAIN
SUMMER see SEASONS
SUN
*s6h a ul (gen. s& a y-£n-s) ‘sun’. [IEW 881 (*sdue/-); Wat
56 (*sawel-)\ GI 590 {*s(a)wHel-/n-)\ Buck 1 .52). OIr (fem.)
suil{< *suli -) ‘eye’, MWels heu/(< *sauhoQ) ‘sun’, huan ‘sun?’,
Weis haul 1 sun’, Lat sol (< *saul < *seh a uf) ‘sun’, ON (fem.)
so/'sun’, Goth (neut.) sauil{< *sowilo) ‘sun’, ON sunna ‘sun’,
OE sunne ‘sun’, OHG sunna ‘sun’, Goth (fem.) sunno ‘sun’,
OPrus saule ‘sun’, Lith saule ‘sun’, Latv saule (< *saulia ) ‘sun’,
OCS (neut.) slunlce (< *sulni-) ‘sun’, Alb diell (< *suel- <
*sh a uel-1) ‘sun’, Grk (masc.) fjeXiog- rjXiog(< *sawel-) ‘sun’,
Hit D UTU-/iya ( *saweliya ) ‘sun’, Av (neut.) hvara (= huar)
(gen. x v 9ng) (= huanh < *suans ) ‘sun’, Olnd svar (= suar)
(gen. svar) (< *suar-s), (masc.) sCirya -; (masc.) sura- ‘sun’.
The original neuter I/n- stem can be reconstructed as
proterodynamic *seh a u-l , with the genitive as *sh a u-cn-s. The
meaning ‘eye’ in Irish is understandable, as the sun was
considered as an eye in both the Rg\ r eda and in Homer and in
the IE creation myth, the sun and eye are allomorphs of each
other.
See also Cosmogony; Sky; Sun Goddess. IR.S.PB.]
Further Reading
Beekes, R. S. P (1984) PIE ‘sun’. MSS 43, 4-8
SUN GODDESS
The existence of an IE Sun goddess is supported by a series
of cognate names in Indie and Baltic.
The Indie sun-maiden Surya was the daughter of the Sun
god Surya (or of the stimulating power of the sun, Savitp) In
the Rgveda , Surya is sometimes described as the bride of the
twin Asvins, and sometimes the bride of the Moon god, Soma.
Surya’s mythology parallels that of the Latv Saules Meita, and
Saule(s) is cognate with Surya.
Saules Meita was the Baltic ‘Sun-maiden’, daughter of the
Sun goddess. She was married to the Dieva deli, the twin
sons of the Sky god, just as Surya was married to the Indie
twin Asvins. In another myth, the Dieva deli were members
of the bridal party, when Saules Meita married Meness, the
Moon god, as Surya married the Indie Moon god, Soma.
See also Divine Twins; Goddesses; Sun | M . R. D. )
Further Reading
Dexter, M. R. (1984) Proto-Indo-European sun maidens and gods
of the moon. Mankind Quarterly 25, 137-144
SURPASS see GO
SUVOROVO CULTURE
The Suvorovo culture takes its name from a kurgan burial
in Moldova. The culture as a whole, which is dated c 4500-
4100 BC, is found both in the northwest Pontic and the lower
Danube as far south as northeast Bulgaria. It is entirely defined
by its burials. These include both flat graves and kurgans,
(
SUVOROVO CULTURE
and as the Suvorovo burials are generally the initial burial
under their kurgan, they mark the spread of kurgan burials
into their historical region. The burials are placed in the supine
position with their legs either extended or flexed; orientation
is to the east or northeast. The roof of the burial chamber
may be covered with logs or stone slabs. All of these features
are characteristic of the burials found further east on the steppe
and forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. At
Suvorovo itself was found the burial of two individuals in a
joint grave, normally identified as a male and a female, with
the male accompanied by a stone “horse-head” scepter. Two
other burials were also found under the same kurgan, the
base of which was formed by a stone kerb some 13 m in
diameter. Typical grave goods include ceramics of' both the
Tripolye and Gumelni^a cultures and shell-tempered wares
typical of the steppe tradition. Flint tools and copper
ornaments are also encountered.
The culture provides evidence of the spread of steppe tribes
from the east to the west and in the “Kurgan” model of Indo-
European origins is seen to reflect the first wave of Indo-
Europeans from their homeland in the steppelands of the
Ukraine and south Russia.
See also Kurgan Tradition; Sredny Stog Culture;
Yamna Culture. [J.RM.l
Suvorovo a. Distribution of the Suvorovo culture.
— 557 —
SWAN
SWAN
*h\el- ‘waterbird, swan’. [1EW 304 (*e/-); GI 460
(*e/ol ~) ]. OIr ela ‘swan’, Weis alarch ‘swan’, Lat olor ‘swan’,
Grk eXia ' reed warbler’. Only the Celtic-Italic correspondence
is semantically plausible and speaks for a late westemism.
Baltic takes its term from the root *ghel- ‘be bright, golden’:
OPrus gulbis ‘swan’, Lith gulbis ‘swan’, Latv giilbis ‘swan’ while
Greek uses *k euk- ‘white, bright’ [ IEW 597 (*/ceu/c-)l, i.e.,
Kvicvog ‘swan’ which was borrowed into Arm kiknos ‘swan’
and Lat cygnus ‘swan’.
Surely the swan (genus Cygnus), a bird of great beauty,
was recognized as a discrete species by the Indo-Europeans
despite the lack of wide-spread correspondences. But, at least
in Indie, we note confusion between the ‘swan’ and the ‘goose’,
for they are both heavy-set white birds, the swan differing
principally in its long neck. In the Rgveda, the IE goose word
hamsa- (< *ghans- ‘goose’) appears to have been a swan.
See also Birds. [J.A.C.G.]
Further Reading
Prevost, R. (1992) Un oiseau sacr£ dans le domaine indo-europeen:
le cygne (Inde-Gr£ce). Etudes Indo-Europeenne 1992, 91-112
SWAT CULTURE
The Swat (or Gandhara Grave) culture was centered on
the Swat Valley of northern Pakistan, a fertile region which
one might predict as a major approach to the historical seats
of the Indo-Aryans and one which is mentioned in the hymns
of the Rgveda (Swat < OInd Suvastu- ‘having good dwelling’).
The beginning of the culture, designated Period IV in the
Swat Valley sequence, appears c 1800-1400 BC and continues
on through the transition period between the Bronze Age and
Iron Age down to c 400 BC (some would argue only down to
c 700 BC). The culture is primarily known from more than
thirty cemeteries which tend to be sited near rivers. Its burial
rites comprised flexed inhumation in a two-chamber pit, the
upper chamber filled with soil and charcoal while the lower
held the remains of the deceased and the grave goods. The
burials were normally in the flexed position, heads often
oriented to the north. Grave goods typically associated with
males (e.g., maceheads, spearheads, razors) are found with
burials flexed on their right sides while female-associated
goods (e.g., spindlewhorls) are found with left-sided burials.
This distinction reflects the same type of sexual dichotomy
in mortuary ritual also found among other cultures, e.g., the
Bishkent, Vakhsh, Tazabagyab, which have been associated
with the earliest lndo-lranians. In some instances there are
double burials, apparently of a man and woman together.
These burials appear to be sequential, i.e., the second burial
was sufficiently later than the first to disturb the bones of the
initial burial, and so they cannot be employed to suggest the
practice of suttee (the immolation of the wife on the death of
her husband). In fact, in some cases it would appear that the
woman predeceased the male. There is some evidence also
for fractional burial which has been more distantly linked to
the burials of the Cemetery H culture in the Indus Valley.
These burials, where the bones are placed in a heap in the
bottom of the grave, often find the skull deposited last on top
of the pile of bones.
Cremation burials in an um, sometimes decorated with a
face, are also known with cremation itself accounting for about
a third of all the burials. At the site of Katelai there was
discovered the remains of two complete horses buried in the
cemetery. That the region would later be associated with horses
can be seen in references to the Assakenoi who were reputed
to occupy the valley during Alexander’s march to India; the
name is clearly the same as Indie Asvakayana ‘horsemen’ and
other horse-associated tribal names are found within the
territory.
Grave goods included pots (up to eleven in a single grave),
especially drinking vessels, copper or bronze weapons
(spearheads, arrows) and ornaments (of copper, bronze, silver
and gold), bronze razors, spindlewhorls, and figurines (both
— 558 —
SWAT CULTURE
anthropomorphic and zoom orphic), made of bone or ala-
baster. Meat offerings included the remains of deer, sheep/
goat, hare and horse.
Settlements attest semi-subterranean houses and more
substantial walled structures. The ceramics of Period IV are
marked by a burnished black-gray ware, genetically similar
to that of the Iranian highlands and shapes find parallels with
pottery from Dashly and other sites of northern Afghanistan,
a region frequently favored as a staging area for lndo-lranian
migrations. Ceramics also include black on red decorated
wares depicting a variety of birds, including the peacock which
is also seen on ceramics of the Cemetery H culture of the
Indus. Another motif is the horse found on a sherd from Blr-
kot-ghwandai. It is depicted as being attacked by some
fantastic animal, a motif frequently associated with the early
Indo-Iranians. Horse bones were also found at the same site
and mark its earliest appearance in this region. There is
evidence of distant exchange in shell ornaments from the
Indian or Arabian seas, jade from southern Xinjiang, lapis
lazuli from Afghanistan, while one of the items of export was
the deodar cedar which may have been imported south to
the Harappan culture.
The economy included mixed agricultural and stock-
breeding with some hunting. Plant remains included grains
of wheat ( Triticum aestivum), barley (Hordeum vulgare ), rice
(Oryza saliva ), lentil (Lens), pea ( Pisum amense ), flax ( Linum
usitatissimum ), grapevine ( Vitis vinfera ), and presumably
weeds such as rye ( Secale ) and oats (Avena saliva). The
domestic animals comprised zebu cattle (Bos indicus ), sheep/
goats, pig and dog. Hunted species comprised some form of
wildcat, Panlherus (probably tiger or possibly lion), barking
deer (Munliacus munljak ), hog deer (Axis porcinus ), possibly
red deer (Cervus elaphus), grey goral (Noemorhedus goraf),
the markhor (Capra falconen ), the hare, and the Indian crested
porcupine (Hysirix indica) . As noted above, the culture also
sees the introduction into the region of the horse, including
559
SWAT CULTURE
horse-gear, as well as a distinctive gray ware. At the earlier
sites, there are also donkeys ( Equus asinus ) and these
outnumber the horses. Butchery marks on the bones suggest
that, among other uses, the animals were also eaten. The
presence of the horse and the mode of burial have been
connected to the Bishkent and Vakhsh cultures of Central
Asia while the ceramics have been controversially claimed to
share affinity with wares found in northwest India (although
they do not appear to parallel the more southerly ceramics in
terms of shape). Whether this affinity is true or not, the Swat
culture has been recognized to be in the right place at the
right time and bearing the right sort of culture to be identified
with a movement of Indo-Aryans or, given their specific
location, possibly Dardic or Nuristani-speaking people to the
northwest corner of the Indian subcontinent.
See also BMAC; Cemetery H Culture; Harappan Culture;
Indo-Iranian Languages . [J . P M . |
Further Readings
Miiller-Karpe, H. (1983) Jungbronzezeillich-fruheisenzeitliche
Graber der Swat-Kultur in Nord-Pakistan. Munich, C. H. Becker.
Stacul, G. (1987) Prehistoric and Protohistoric Swat , Pakistan
(c 3000-1400 B.C.). Rome, Ismeo.
SWEAR
*h a emh 3 - ‘lays hold, grasps; swears’. [IEW 778 (*oma-)}.
Grk ogvOfii ‘swear’ (the present is probably a Greek inno-
vation; the aorist is opooai), OInd amiti ‘lays hold of, grasps;
swears’. Probably ‘swear’ is a late semantic specialization,
found only dialectally in late PIE, of ‘lay hold, seize’. Another
semantic specialization of this same root, also found only in
the southeast of the IE world, is seen in *h a emh 3 -iueh a -
‘suffering’.
See also Blame, Oath; Pain. [D.Q.A.]
SWEAT
*syeid- (pres. *s$6ide/o- ~ *syidi6/6) ‘sweat’. [IEW 1043
( *sueid-)\ Wat 68 ( *sweid-)] . Lat sudd (< *sueido) ‘sweat’,
OE swat (noun) ‘sweat’, swZtan ‘sweat’ (> NE sweat), OHG
swizzen (< *suidie/o-) ‘sweat’, Latv svlstu ‘sweat’, Alb dirsem
‘sweat’ (denominative of dirse [< *suidrVtieh a - 1 ‘sweat’
Inoun]), Grk idico ‘sweat’, Arm k‘irtn ‘sweat’ (noun), Av
xvaeda- ‘sweat’ (noun), OInd svedate ~ svidyali ‘sweats’, TochB
syelme (< *sijidio- + abstract-forming suffix *-elme ) ‘sweat’
(noun). Widespread in IE, clearly of considerable antiquity
in PIE though absent in Hittite.
*h^elhi-n- ‘sweat’ (noun). [Puhvel I: 281. OIr alias *a1a-
n-asso -?) ‘sweat’ (noun), Hit allaniye- ‘sweat’ (vb.). Cf. Grk
ahea ‘warmth, body heat’, TochB alask- ‘be sick’ (< *‘be
feverish’). Probably from *h 4 elhi~ ‘burn’. Though only
sparsely attested, the probable formal equation of Old Irish
and Hittite makes it likely that we have another PIE word for
‘sweat’ (< * ‘product of {excessive | body heat’ or the like).
See also Anatomy; Burn. [D.Q.A.]
SWEET
*syeh a dus ‘pleasing (to the senses), tasty’. [IEW 1039-
1040 ( *suadu-s)\ Wat 67 ( *swad-)\ G\ 100 (*swai’-)\ Buck
15.35). Gaul Suadu-rix (personal name), Suadeuillus
(personal name), Lat suavis ‘pleasant (to all senses)’, ON soetr
‘sweet’, OE swete ‘sweet, pleasant’ (> NE sweet), OHG swuazo
‘sweet, pleasant’, Grk t]8vq ‘what is pleasing to the senses,
sweet’, OInd svadu- ‘sweet’, TochA swar ‘sweet’, TochB sware
‘sweet’. The zero-grade is reflected in Lith sudyti ‘to salt,
season’, OInd sudayati ‘make tasty’ (cf. also other verbal forms
as Lat suadeo ‘advise, persuade’). The root *sueh a d- is well
attested, particularly in the formation *sueh a d-us, thus PIE
status appears safe. Note the variety of semantic developments
here. Germanic (to some extent), Indie and Tocharian show
the very specific ‘sweet’ and Baltic attests ‘to season, salt’, thus
‘to make tasty’; Latin and Greek (and presumably Celtic as
well) have the more general meaning ‘pleasing’.
?*dlkus ~ *glukus ‘sweet’ [IEW 222 ( *d[ku -); Wat 15
( *d\k-u -); Buck 1 5.351 Lat duids ‘sweet’, Grk y&VKvq ‘sweet’.
Traditionally, this equation has been based on an assumption
of Greek dl> gl, driven by distant assimilation. More plausible
is the reverse development of gl- > dl-, parallel to the well-
established Lat *glakt-> *dlakt-, but avoiding later simplifica-
tion of *dl- to 1- by prior metathesis to *dulk-. Even accepting
this proposal though, there is little reason for proposing an
IE form given that the distribution is limited to neighbors
with a long history of contact.
See also Favor; Please; Taste. [J.C.S. , D.Q.A.l
SWELL
*keuhi~ ‘swell (with power), grow great with child’ (pres.
*kuhi6ie/o). [IEW 592-594 ( *keu -) ; Wat 31 (*keua-)\ cf.
Gl 87J. Lat mciens(< *in-cuient-) ‘pregnant’, Grk KrucctCam
pregnant’ (eyicvoq ‘pregnant’), OInd svayati ‘swells, becomes
strong/powerful’. A verbal noun *kduh\r (gen. *kuhinds) is
reflected in OIr coraid ‘heroes’, Weis cawr ‘giant’, Lith saunas
~ saunus ‘robust, doughty’, Grk ocKVpoq ‘invalid, void’ (<
*‘without power’), KOpioq ‘powerful; lord’, Av sura- 'strong,
powerful’, OInd sura- ‘powerful; hero’. Cf. also . *keuh ies-
‘swelling’ in Weis cyw ‘young of an animal’, Grk teboq ‘fetus',
OInd savas- ‘strength, power; heroism’, or *kuh j nos ‘swollen’
in ON hunn ‘young one’, OE him ‘young one’, perhaps Hit
kunna- ‘right(hand)’, OInd suna- ‘swollen’. (The Hittite word,
if it belongs here, would seem to argue for *keuh 2 - while the
Greek word would point to *keuhi~.) Widespread and old in
IE.
*teuh a - ‘swell (with power), grow fat’. [IEW 1080-1081
( *teu -); Wat 71 ( *teuo-)\ Buck 11.26; BK 104 ( *tl h Jaw -/
*t[ h Jdw-)\. ORus tyju ‘become fat’, Grk craoq ~ ertoq (<
*tufr a ijos) ‘safe and sound, healthy’, aropc t ‘body’, Av tav- be
capable of’, tavah- ‘strength, power’, OInd tav'ni ‘is strong,
powerful’, ta vas- ‘strong, powerful; strength', fa visa- ‘strong’.
Cf. the word for ‘thousand’ in Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic:
ON pus(h)und , OE pusend{> NE thousand), OHG dusunt,
Goth pusundi, OPrus tusimtons, Lith tukstanns, Latv
560 —
SWORD
tukstuots , OCS tus^sta, all from *tuh a s-krpto- ‘fat hundred’
or ‘strong hundred’, and TochA tmam ‘ten thousand’, TochB
tumane ‘ten thousand’. Widespread and old in IE.
*bhleu- ‘swell, overflow’. [IEW 158-159 ( *bhleu-)\ Wat 9
( *bhIeu-)\ BK 10 ( *buI-/*bol -)] . Lith bliauju ‘roar, bleat, low’,
OCS bljujg ‘spew, vomit’, Grk (pXm ‘gush, teem, overflow’,
(pXoico ‘overflow with words, talk idly’. From the enlarged
*bhleud - we have Grk (pXvdoto) ‘have an excess of moisture’,
TochAB platk- ‘arise, develop, swell, overflow’, TochA plutk-
‘arise, develop, swell, overflow’. From an enlarged *bhleug-
we have Lat fluo ‘flow’, flumen (< *bhleugsmen- ) ‘river’,
fluvius ‘river’, Grk (pXv £(o ‘boil up, boil over’. Reasonably well -
attested geographically; certainly old in IE.
*bhelgh- ‘swell’. [IEW 125-126 ( *bhelgh-)\ Wat 7
( *bhelgh-)\ BK 10 (*buI-/*bol~) 1. Olr bolgaid ‘swells’ (this
verb is possibly denominative), ON bolginn ‘swollen’, belgja
‘make swell’, OE belgan ‘be angry’, OHG belgan ‘swell up’.
Though only attested as a verb in Germanic, its derivative
*bho]ghis ‘bag’ is to be found the length and breadth of the
IE world and thus the verb itself must be old in IE.
*h a eid~ ‘swell’. [IEW 774 ( *oid-)\ Wat 45 (*oid-) ]. Lat
aemidus ‘swollen, protuberant’ (the second and third syllables
of this word are modeled after tumidus of the same meaning),
OHG eiz ‘abscess’, eittar ‘pus’, Grk oiSeco ‘swell’, oidpa
‘swelling’, Oidijtovq ‘Oedipus’ (lit. ‘swollen-foot’). Arm
aytnum ‘swell’, ayt ‘cheek’. This word is certainly to be found
in only these three stocks where its presence is sufficient to
guarantee that it was a word of at least the west and center of
the IE world. More speculatively one might add OCS jadu
‘poison’ (< * ‘abscess’ or ‘pus’?) and/or. With a nasal infix, OInd
Indu- ‘drop (of water)’ and Indra ‘Indra’ (as the one ‘swollen
with power’ or the like).
*bhreus- ‘swell’. [IEW 170-171 ( *bhreu-s-)\ Wat 9
( *bhreus-)\ BK 4 ( *bar-/*bar-)\ . Only found in nominal
derivatives: Olr bru (< *bhrusd(n)) ‘belly, breast’, bruinne (<
*bhrusnio- ) ‘breast’, Weis bru (< *bhreuso- ) ‘belly’, bron (<
*bhrusneh a -) ‘breast’, ON brjost ‘breast’, OE breost ‘breast’
(> NE breast), OHG brust ‘breast’, Goth brusts ‘breast’, Rus
brostl ‘bud’, brjukh (< *bhreuso-) ‘belly, paunch’. A word of
the west and center of the IE world.
See also Abdomen; Bag; Breast. [D.Q.A.]
SWIM
*sneh a ~ ‘swim’ (pres. *sn 6 h a ti) [ IEW 971-972 (*sna-);
Wat 62 ( *sna -); Buck 10.35). Olr snaid ( DIL snaid) ‘swims’,
Lat no ‘swim’, Grk vrjxo) ‘swim’, Av snayeiti ‘washes’, Olnd
snati ‘bathes’, TochB nask- ‘bathe, swim’. Widespread and
old in IE.
*pleu- ‘float, swim; wash’. [IEW 835-837 ( *pleu-)\ Wat
52 ( *pleu-)\ GI 587 ( *p h leu-)\ Buck 10.34). Olr lu'id ‘moves’,
Lat pluit ‘it’s raining’, perplovere ‘rain through; admit rain’,
OE flowan ‘overflow’ (> NE flow), OHG tlouwen ‘wash’, OCS
plovQ ‘flow’, Grk 7rA£(/r)ft) l swim’, Arm luanam ‘wash’, Av us-
fravaya- ‘swim away’, fra-fravaya- ‘swim toward’, Olnd plavate
‘swims’, plavayati ‘causes to swim, bathes, submerges’, TochAB
plu- ‘soar’, TochB plus- ‘float’. Widespread and old in IE.
?*sjj.em- ‘swim’. [IEW 1046 ( *suem -); Wat 68 (*swem-);
Buck 10.35). Olr do-seinn (if < * -suem-d-ne/o-) ‘moves’, Weis
chwyf ‘movement’, ON svi(m)ma ~ symja ‘swim’, svamla
‘splash’, OE swimman ‘swim’ (> NE swim), OHG swimman
‘swim’, Goth swumfsl ‘pool’. Widespread in Germanic and
possibly attested in Celtic. Not certainly PIE in date and, if
so, only as a western dialectal term.
See also Boat; Clean; Dive, Wade [D.Q.A.)
SWORD
*h 2 / 3 Qsis large (offensive) knife, dagger, ?sword’. [/ZrVV’77 1
( *ps/-s); Wat 45 ( *nsi-)\ GI 643 ( *nsi-)\ Buck 20.27). Lat
ensis ‘sword’, Palaic hasira- ‘dagger’, Av ai?hu- ‘sword’, Olnd
asl- ‘sword, slaughtering knife’; sometimes Grk aop ‘sword’
is also attributed to this series (< *h 2 /sQsor) but it is more
likely to derive from *srp-suor ‘hang’, i.e., hang at the warrior’s
side as also Germanic *swerda-z ‘sword, that which hangs’
(ON sverd , OE sweord l> NE sword], OHG swert). The
geographical distribution and the rare zero-grade /-stem
suggests PIE antiquity for the form, the earliest attested lorm
in Palaic probably indicates the earliest meaning of this word.
?*skolmeh a - sword’. [IEW 923-925 (*skol-ma)\. ON
skplm ‘sword’, Thracian a KaXgr] sword, knife’. Though
confined to only two stocks, the meaning and form match
exactly. Perhaps a late word of the IE west, perhaps a
borrowing from one stock to another at an early age.
P. Thieme rejected the Latin-Old Indie cognate set as
independent parallel developments from *h 2 / 3 QS 1 - black’ (i.e.,
the iron one) > ‘sword’ but the phonological and semantic
agreement across the cognate terms is too strong to be so
easily dismissed and the Palaic word underwrites the antiquity
of this word in PIE. The problem rests with the semantic
agreement since metallic swords are not commonly known
in Eurasia prior to the later Bronze Age, i.e., c 2000-1500
BC, and, therefore, we have a reconstructed meaning that
should not have come into existence until after the divergence
of the Indo-European languages. Thus the underlying
meaning was more likely to have been large knife’ or dagger’.
The possibility of the term denoting a dagger is strengthened
by the Palaic derivative which means ‘knife’, and subsequent
semantic developments in historically attested IE languages,
e.g., Olnd sastra- ‘knife, sword, weapon’ (< *kes- ‘cut’)
Metal knives which may be identified as possible offensive
weapons are known from southeast Europe before 3500 BC
and by the period c 3300-2900 BC daggers are well known
in eastern Europe and the Caucasus with corresponding
daggers manufactured from flint known from the same period.
The earliest bronze daggers in the Aegean are generally dated
to about 2900 BC. Within the European sequence by c 1800
BC the daggers are followed by rapiers, long narrow thrusting
weapons, and then by slashing swords by c 1 500 BC in Greece
and south central Europe and later elsewhere. Asia offers
somewhat earlier (c 2000- 1 500 BC) swords as copper swords
with antenna hilts appear over a broad area, including the
SWORD
Sword a. Flint knife from Sredny Stog culture; b. Flint dagger
from Yamna culture; c. Bronze dagger of Usatovo culture; d.
Bronze dagger of Yamna culture; e. Copper “sword” from Klady,
Maykop culture (63.5 cm); f. Late Bronze Age Urnfieid (short)
sword (50 cm.).
BMAC and the Copper Hoard culture of India. But if they
must be assigned to the continuum of IE evolution, it is most
likely that we are speaking of already differentiated Indo-Aryan
or perhaps Indo-lranian, rather than Proto-Indo-European.
The most economical solution to the semantics of PIE
*h 2 / 3 $sis then is to presume that it originally referred to the
metal (or flint) daggers that emerged in the late fourth millen-
nium BC and that the original meaning was retained in
Anatolian but shifted to more technologically advanced
weapons in both Italic and Indo-Aryan. In fact, the Harappan
culture has yielded several copper weapons with blades in
excess of 40 cm long, some form of sword may have already
existed in third millennium India prior to the arrival of the
Indo-Aryans (presuming that the Indus towns were pre-lndo-
Aryan). In the subsequent period of the Copper Hoard culture,
there are a number of long swords known from India. The
sword appears in Italy during the mid second millennium
BC.
Although less likely there is the remote possibility that the
original referent was actually a ‘sword’ rather than a dagger.
The distinction here is between a short thrusting weapon and
a longer slashing weapon. A unique “sword” accompanied a
burial at Klady, kurgan 31, in the north Caucasus. It measured
63.5 cm long and should date to c 3500-3300 BC. Although
this might provide a suitable archaeological “fit” for a PIE
reconstruction, the absence of swords from the penod between
the fourth and second millennia over most of Eurasia renders
the reconstruction of a PIE ‘sword’ less likely.
See also Knife; Shield; Spear; Tool. [M.E.H., J.PM1
Further Readings
Huld, M. E. (1993) Early Indo-European weapons terminology’ Word
44, 223-234.
Mallory, J. P (1991). The Proto-Indo-European ‘sword’?, Orpheus
1, 99-101.
Thieme, P. (1964). The comparative method for reconstruction in
linguistics, in Language in Culture and Society , cd. Dell Hymes,
Harper and Row, New York, 585-598.
— 562 —
T
TAIL
*])6los ‘tail hair (of a horse)’. [IEW 1139-1140 (*ue/-)].
Lith vala'i (pi.) ‘tail hair of horse’, OInd vala- ~ vara - ‘tail hair
of a horse, horsehair’. A word of the center and east of the IE
world.
*puk(eha)- ‘tail’. [ IEW 849 ( *pok-)\ Wat 53 ( *puk-)] . ON
ft da (< *fuho- ) ‘fox’, OE fox (< *fuhsa-) ‘fox’ (> NE fox'), OE
fyxe (< *fuhsjdn- ) ‘vixen’ (oblique case fyxen > NE vixen),
OHG fuhs (< *fuhsa- ) ‘fox’, foha (< *fuho-) ‘vixen’, Goth fauho
(< *fuho -) ‘fox’, Torwali pus(< *pucchin- ‘having a tail’) ‘fox’,
Olnd puccha- (< *puk-sko~) ‘tail’, TochB paka- ‘tail; chowrie’.
The distribution, in Germanic, Indie, and Tocharian, suggests
PIE status.
See also Anatomy; Fox; Hair; Horse; Mammals; Squirrel.
[D.Q.A.]
TAKE
The Indo-European languages, and apparently Proto-Indo-
European itself, show a certain interchange of words for ‘take’
and ‘give’. Certainly this is so in part at least because taking
and giving are reciprocal relationships, labeling either end of
a single transaction. A witness to the transaction could describe
the situation using either verb, e.g., “She gave it to him”, or,
“He took it from her." A single verb, given the right context,
may do the labeling for both, e.g, NE take to vs. take from.
In addition, given that the notion of exchange (between
people, between people and the gods) was apparently very
important in PIE culture, it is perhaps not surprising that a
given verb may show up in one stock with the meaning ‘take’
but in another with the meaning ‘give’. Perhaps the classic
instance of this phenomenon is *defi 3 - which means ‘take’ in
Hittite but ‘give’ in all other stocks where it appears. It also
appears that in PIE we can divide the words for ‘take’ into
two large groups: (1) those that emphasize the physical nature
of taking (grasping, taking away, seizing, etc.) and (2) those
that center on the social nature of the transaction.
Physical Taking
*hiep~ ‘take, seize’. [/EW50-51 ( *ap-)\ GI 187 ( *ep h -)\.
Alb jap (< *h iepie/o- ) ‘give’, Arm unim (< *hiopn-) ‘possess’,
Hit epzi ‘takes’, appala- ‘snare’, appatariya- ‘seize (as a pawn
to compel payment of debt), take in pledge, distrain’, Av
apayeiti (< *hiopeie/o-) ‘obtains’, OInd apnoti ‘obtains’, TochA
ype ‘land, country’, TochB yapoy (pi. ypauna) ‘land, country' 1
(Toch < *hiep-o-uen , pi. *h jep-o-unehj ‘± dominion’). Wide-
spread and old in IE. Its probable derivative *h iop~ ‘desire’ is
also found widely. This is likely to be the oldest word for
‘take, seize’ that can be reconstructed for PIE.
♦leap- ‘seize’. {IEW 527-528 {*kap-)\ Wat 27 (*kap-)\ GI
125 ( *k h ap h -)\ Buck 11.13; BK 242 (*k[ b lap[ b j-/
*k[ h ]op[ b j-)\ ■ OIr cain ‘law, tribute’, Lat capio ‘take’, ON ha fa
‘have’, hefja ‘lift’, OE habban ‘have’ (> NE have), hebban ‘lift’
(> NE heave), OHG haben ‘have’, heffan ‘lift’, Goth haban
‘have, hold’, hafjan ‘lift’, Latv kampju ‘seize’, Alb kap ‘catch,
grab, seize’, Grk Ka7iTco‘gu\p down’, OInd (dual) kap all ‘two
handfuls’. Widespread and old in IE.
*ghabh- take, seize’. [IEW 407-409 ( *ghabh -); Wat 20
( *ghabh-)\ GI 125 ( V^-); Buck 1 1.13]. Oh gaihid ‘takes’,
Corn cafos ‘have’, Lat habed ‘have’, perhaps Goth gabei ‘riches’
(if not related to give), Lith gabenu ‘present’, Pol gabac ‘seize’,
OInd gabhastin- ‘hand’. Widespread and old in IE.
*ghrebh~ grasp, take, enclose’. [/EVV455 ( *ghrebh-)\ Wat
23 ( *ghrebh-)\ GI 42-43] . MDutch or MHG grabben ‘seize’
(borrowed > NE grab), OHG garb sheaf’, Lith grebiu ‘rake’,
Latv grebju ‘seize’, OCS grabnpti grope’, grabiti ‘snatch up’,
grebp ‘paddle’, Rus grebu ‘paddle’, Hit k(a)rap- devour’, Av
563
TAKE
garawnaiti ‘takes’, OInd gfbhnati ‘grabs’. With apparent PIE
*-b- rather than *-bh- are ON grapa ‘snatch’, OE grseppian
‘snatch’. Widespread and old in IE.
*ghreib- ‘grip’ (pres. *ghreibe/o- and *ghroibheh a - ) [IEW
457-458 {*ghreib-)\ Wat 23 ( *ghreib-)\ Buck 11.57; BK 222
(* gar-/* gar-)}. ON grlpa ‘seize, take’, greipa ‘grope, touch’,
OE gripan ‘seize, take’ (> NE gripe), grapian ‘grope, touch’ (>
NE grope), OHG gnfan ‘touch, take hold of’, greifon ‘grope,
touch’, Goth greipan ‘seize’, Lith griebti ‘seize’, graibo ‘seizes
(repeatedly)’, Latv greibt ‘seize’, gribet ‘desire’ (< *‘be
grasping’). Though limited to only Germanic and Baltic this
extension of (unattested) *gher- ‘grasp’ (but note OInd harati
[< *gher- ] ‘takes, carries, holds’), otherwise seen also in
*ghrebh-, has, because of the exact double morphological
equation in Germanic and Lithuanian, a good chance of being
at least a late PIE word.
*hirep- ‘snatch, pluck’. [IEW 865 ( *rep-)\ Wat 54
( *rep -); Buck 1 1 . 1 4] . Lat rapo ‘snatch away, carry off, plunder’,
Lith ap-repti ‘seize, embrace’. Alb rjep ~ rrjep ‘flay, rob’, Grk
ipEKTopai ‘browse on, feed on’ (< *‘pluck’). A word of the
west and center of the IE world.
*la(m)bh- ‘seize, take into one’s possession’. [IEW 652
( *labh-)\ Buck 1 1 . 1 3; BK 588 ( *lab-/*Iab-)} . OPrus labs ‘good’,
Lith lobis ‘possessions, riches’, lobti ‘become rich’, labas
‘goods; good’, Latv labs ‘good’, Grk Xagfidvco (with somewhat
obscure -(3-, rather than -<p-) ‘seize, take’, Xd(pvpov ‘booty’,
OInd lambhate ~ labhate ~ rabhate ‘seizes, takes’, labha-
‘acquisition, profit’, rabhas- ‘impetuosity, violence’. At least a
word of the center and east of the IE world.
*ghe(n)dh- ‘seize, take in (physically or mentally)’ (pres.
*ghe(n)d(i)e/o~). [IEW 437-438 ( *ghendh -); Wat 22
( *ghendh-)\ BK 226 ( * gat’-/* gat’-)} . Olr ro-geinn (< *ghendne/
o-) ‘finds a place in’, Weis gannaf ‘finds a place in’, Lat
pre(he)ndd{< *prae-hendd) ‘grasp’, ON geta ‘attain, produce,
guess’, gata ‘riddle’, OE (be-)gietan ‘receive, produce’, for-
gietan ‘forget’ (> NE forget), be-girman (< *ghendne/o-) ‘begin’
(> NE begin), OHG pi-gezzan ‘uphold’, fir-gezzan ‘forget’, bi-
ginna ‘begin’, Goth bi-gitan ‘find’, du-ginnan ‘begin’, Lith
godoti ‘guess, suppose’, OCS gadati ‘imagine, guess’, Rus
gadatEg uess, imagine’, za-gad-ka ‘riddle’. Alb gjej (< *ghednie/
o-) ‘find, obtain’, Grk xavbdvoa ‘take in, comprise’. Wide-
spread in the west and center of the IE world; certainly old
there.
*hjem- ‘take, distribute’. [/EW310-311 (*em-); Wat 17
( *em-)\ GI 657 {*em-)\ Buck 11.11, 11.13; BK 426 (*im-/
*em-)\. Olr ar-folm ‘take’, Lat emo ‘take’, OPrus imt ‘take’,
Lith imii ‘take’, Latv jpmu ‘take’, OCS imp ‘take’. At least a
word of the northwest of the IE world.
*kagh- ‘catch, grasp’. [IEW 518 ( *kagh-)\ Wat 26
(*kagh-)[. Weis cau ‘close, clasp’, Lat cold (< *cahoI6) ‘tend,
take care of, Osc kahad ‘may he seize’, ON hagi ‘meadow’,
OE haga ‘hedge, garden’, OHG hag ‘hedge’, Alb kamJke
(< *kaghe/o~) ‘have/has, hold(s)’. A word of the IE west and
center.
*sel - ‘seize, take possession of’. [IEW 899 ( *sel-)\ Wat 57
( *sel-)\ BK 164 ( Vt/>VVel>'-)j. Olr se/b possession’, Weis
helw ‘possession’ (Celtic < *seluo-), ON selja 'hand over,
deliver’, OE sellan ‘hand over, deliver’ (> NE sell), OHG scllen
‘hand over, deliver’, Goth saljan ‘sacrifice’, Grk cAcfv ‘take’,
£71 cop ‘booty’. A word of the west and center of the IE world.
er- ‘take, hold’. [IEW 1 101 ( *tuer-)\ Wat 72 ( *twer-)\
Buck 11.11], OPrus turn ‘have; have to’, Lith tveriu ‘seize,
take hold of’, turiu ‘have, hold’, Latv tvepi ‘grip, seize, hold’,
turn ‘have, hold’, OCS tvoru ‘form’, tvorili ‘shape, make’, Grk
oeipd (< *tueneh a -) ‘band, bond’, oopoq ‘urn’. A word largely
confined to the center of the IE world.
?*dergh- ‘grasp’. [IEW 212-213 ( *dergh -); Wat 12
( *dergh-)\ BK 124 (*t'ar y -/*t’ar y -)\. Mir drem(m) (<
*dreghsmo-) ‘troop, band of people’, ON targa ‘shield’, OE
targe ‘small shield, buckler’, OHG zarg ‘edge, border’, Grk
dpdooopai ‘lay hold of, grasp with the hand’, 8pdq handful’,
Spaxpri ‘drachma’, Arm trcak (< *dorgh-so-) ‘bundle of
brushwood’. If all these words belong together, a likely word
of the west and center of the IE world.
?*(s)lag w - ‘take, hold’ (pres. *(s)Iag w ie/o~) [IEW 958
( ’Ysl/ag 4 '-); Wat 61 ( *(s)lag w -)\. OE laeccan ‘take, hold, latch’
(> NE latch), Grk kd^opou ‘take, hold’. Sparsely attested but
the exact morphological match suggests at least a late PIE date.
Social Taking
*nem- ‘take/accept legally’ (pres. *n6me/o~) [7EW763-
764 ( *nem-)\ Wat 44 ( *nem-)\ GI 656 ( *nem-)\ Buck 1113).
Olr nem ‘gift’, ON nema ‘take, get, learn’, OE niman ‘take’,
OHG neman ‘take’, Goth niman ‘take (away), accept, receive’,
arbi-numja ‘heir’, Lith nuoma ‘rent, lease’, Latv nuoma ‘rent,
lease’, pemt ‘take’, Grk vepco ‘distribute, possess’, vopfj
‘distribution; pasture’, vopoq law’, KXripo vopoq heir’, vca/adco
‘share’, veger cop ‘dispenser of justice, judge’, vegeaig
‘righteous anger, retribution’, Av namah- ‘loan’. Widespread
and old in IE. The word appears to have emphasized the legal
notions underlying the PIE concern with the exchange of
goods among members of the community.
*c/eic-‘take, accept graciously or properly’ (the only present
that is reflected in more than one stock is *ddkei) [IEW 1 89—
191 ( *dek-)\ Wat 10-11 {*dek-)\ GI 95 {*fek Jl -)\ BK 132
{*t’ak[ h ]-/*t’dk[ h ]-)]. Lat decel ‘it is proper’, doceo ‘seem,
appear’, decus ‘proper order, behavior’, OE teohhian
‘determine, consider; think, propose’, teon ‘produce, adorn;
establish, appoint’, OHG gi-zehon bring to order’, Goth tewa
(< *dekuo-) ‘(proper) order’, ga-tewjan ‘appoint’, OCS desp
‘find’, ORus dositi ‘find’, Grk deKopai (Attic dexogai) ‘take,
accept; receive well or graciously; expect’, 8okeq) ‘think,
imagine; seem; appear to be someone of repute’, Hit takki ‘is
the same as’, OInd dasnoti ~ dasti ~ dasati ‘brings an offering’,
daksati ‘is doughty, able’. Widespread and old in IE. It was
apparently the word for an important concept of social
intercourse, whether between person and person or person
and god, emphasizing the proper manner by which gifts and
prestations were given and received.
See also Exchange; Give; Honor; Right f D . Q . A . )
— 564 —
tArtAria tablets
Further Reading
Benveniste, Emile (1973) Indo-European Language and Society.
Coral Gables, Florida, University of Miami, 66-70.
TAME
*demh x - ‘subdue, especially break a horse’ (pres.
*dipn6h x ti ~ *domh x eh a ti) [IEW 199-200 ( *domd-)\ Wat
11 ( *dema -); G1 179-180; BK 125 ( *t’am-/*t’om-)] . OIr
damnaid ‘binds, breaks a horse’, dam ‘ox’, Lat domo ‘break,
tame’, ON temja ‘tame’, tamr ‘tame’, OE temian ‘Lame’, tam
‘tame’ (> NE tame), OHG zemmen ~ zamon ‘tame’, zam ‘tame’,
Goth gatamjan ‘tame’, Grk Sdgvrfgi ~ Sagvdo) ‘break’, 8/ucog
‘slave (taken in war)’, Hit damaszi ‘presses, pushes’, NPers
dam ‘tamed animal’, Oss domyn ‘tame’, Olnd damyati ‘is tame;
tames’, damayati ‘subdues’. Widespread and old in IE. Cf.
the widespread agent noun *domh x tor-: Lat domitor ‘tamer’,
Illyrian Domator (personal name), Grk 7cav-8a/idrcop ‘all-
conquering’, Olnd damitar- ‘(horse) breaker’. As taming is
actually the training of an animal for a household, the stem
*domh a - is traditionally explained as the o-grade of the root
*dem(h a )- ‘build’ as in Lat domus ‘house’. On the other hand,
Benveniste argued that the verbal root had nothing to do with
the word ‘to build’ or the terms for ‘house’.
See also Build; Horse. [E.C. PI
TARTARIA TABLETS
A Neolithic settlement in Romania, Tartaria yielded the
two main phases of the Balkan Vinca culture which were cover-
ed by a layer attributed to the early Bronze Age (Cemavoda
III, Cofofeni, Ezero cultures). The importance of the site lies
in the discovery of a pit which contained human remains,
twenty-six Vinca figurines, two alabaster figurines, a shell
bracelet, and three clay tablets inscribed with signs and figures.
These “Tart&ria tablets” have been the center of numerous
inconclusive controversies concerning their origins, date,
specific archaeological context, and interpretation. Their
excavator attributed them to a pit dug from the earlier Vinca
layer and, on the basis of their similarity with early clay tablets
in Mesopotamia, he dated them to c 2900-2700 BC. It was
argued by a number of scholars that the tablets indicated
distant connections with the Mesopotamian world (or more
proximate world of Crete) during the early third millennium
BC. The absolute date of the early Vinca culture, however, is
now reliably established on the basis of radiocarbon dating
which would set it to the period c 5000-4500 BC. This date
completely upsets prior interpretations in that it requires the
tablets from Romania to predate the evidence of writing in
the Near East by nearly two millennia. Some have accepted
both the association of the tablets with the Vinca culture and
its absolute dates and suggested that writing first developed
in southeastern Europe and then spread from there to the
Near East. Others have argued that the tablets derived from a
pit that was initially dug from a higher level, i.e., the early
Bronze Age level, which would move them in date to c 3000
BC and allow one to retain some form of connections with
the Aegean or Mesopotamia.
The Tartaria tablets, irrespective of their specific chrono-
logical position (or even their authenticity which has also
been challenged), are but a single example of a much more
widespread tradition of signs found on pots, spindlewhorls
and figurines which may unequivocally be dated to the
Neolithic period of southeast Europe, i.e., before the appear-
ance of writing in the Near East. There have been attempts to
“systematize” the various signs (the Vinca culture has yielded
over two-hundred different “signs”) and to compare them with
Bronze Age scripts of the Aegean, e.g., Linear A, the Cretan
syllabary. These attempts often proceed from the presumption
that the signs do represent a language and that that language
was an indigenous non-IE language spoken in the Balkans.
Other than the obvious problems with the assumptive nature
of this line of argument, controversy also concerns the
conditions, social and economic, under which a society might
have developed a script and whether these conditions obtained
— 565
TARTARIA TABLETS
in the Neolithic of southeast Europe. However one wishes to
resolve any of these numerous issues, it seems probable that
the Tartaria tablets and related Neolithic “documents” provide
us with our earliest potential graphemic system for the peoples
of Europe; that we will ever be able to identify their language
much less read these signs (presuming that they are indeed
graphemic) is another matter altogether.
Q.RM.l
Further Readings
Gimbutas, M. (1991) The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco,
Harper, 307-321.
Winn, S. (1981) Pre-writing in Southeast Europe: The Sign System
of the VinCa Culture, ca. 4000 B.C. Calgary, Western Publishers.
Zanotti, D. G. (1983) The position of the Tartarian tablets within
the southeast European copper-age. American Journal of
Archaeology 87 , 209-213.
TASTE
*geus~ ‘taste, enjoy’. [ 1EW 399-400 ( *geus -); Wat 20
( *geus-) ] . OIr do-goa ‘choose’, Lat degund ~ gusto ‘taste’, ON
kjosa ‘choose’, OE ceosan ‘choose’ (> NE choose), Goth kiusan
‘test’, perhaps Alb desha ‘loved’, Grk yevopai ‘taste’, yevco
‘give a taste of’, Av zao$- ‘be pleased’, OInd jusate ~ josati
‘enjoys’. Cf. the widespread derivatives: (1) *gustis ‘taste’ in
OE cyst ‘choice’, Goth ga-kusts ‘test’, Olnd justi- ‘favor’; (2)
*gustus in Olr guss ‘excellence’, Lat gust us ‘tasting’, ON kostr
‘selection’, OE cost ‘choice,. excellence’, OHG kost ‘estimate,
selection’, Goth kustus ‘test’. Reasonably widespread and
surely old in IE.
*sueh a de/o- ‘be tasty, please’. [ IEW 1040 ( *syad-); Wat 67
( *swad-)\ cf. G1 100 (*swat’-)]. Grk fjSopai ‘rejoice’, Olnd
svadate ‘± becomes savory’. Cf. Grk rjSovfi ‘pleasure’, Olnd
svadanam ‘making tasty’. The underlying verb is attested only
in Greek and Old Indie but the derived adjective *stjeh a dus
‘sweet’ is practically universal. Old in IE.
?*sap- ~ ?*sep - ‘± taste, come to know’. [ IEW 880 ( *sap -
~ *sab-)\ Wat 58 (*sep-); Buck 15.32], Lat sapid ‘taste of,
savor of, sapiens ‘wise, knowing, sensible’, Osc sipus (< *sep-
us-) ‘knowing’, ON se/z ‘sense’, OE sefa ‘understanding’, OHG
int-seffen ‘taste’, perhaps Arm ham (< *sapno- ?) ‘juice, taste’.
The exact preform is unclear. Perhaps the Gmc sefi/sefa
represent an analogical reconstruction of *sap- and connect
this word with *sap- ‘sap’ seen in Lat sapa ‘must, new wine
boiled thick’, ON safi ‘sap’, OHG saf ‘sap’. If the Armenian
belongs here, we have evidence for a word of the west and
center of the IE world. If the Armenian does not belong, then
we have only evidence for a late dialectal word of the west.
?*smeg- ‘taste (good)’. [IEW 967 ( *smeg(h)-)\ Wat 61
( *smeg-)\ Buck 15.32]. ON smekkr ‘taste’, OE smaec ‘taste’,
OHG smecken ~ smecchen ‘taste’, Lith smagiis ‘cheerful, joy-
ful’, smaguriAuti ‘delight in something, nibble on, have a sweet
tooth’. A late dialectal word in IE confined to the northwest.
See also Eat and Drink; Favor; Perceive; Please; Sweet.
[D.Q.A.]
Tazabagyab Distribution of the Tazabagyab culture.
TAZABAGYAB CULTURE
The Tazabagyab culture (c 1500 BC) is a variant of the
Andronovo culture that occupied the region south of the Aral
Sea on the lower Amu-Darya. Unlike the typical Andronovo
groups of the steppe and forest-steppe who appear to have
been largely pastoralists, Tazabagyab settlements seem to have
been based on small-scale irrigation agriculture. Settlements,
of which about fifty have been discovered, contained semi-
subterranean houses of considerable dimensions (10 x 10 m
or more) built of clay and reeds supported by timber posts.
The population of these small villages is set to about a hundred
or less. The remains of horse are found on settlements as well
as figurines of horses. Tazabagyab cemeteries recognized the
right:male left:female dichotomy in burial position that is
occasionally encountered among other putatively Indo-Euro-
pean groups, e.g., the Bishkent, Swat, and Vakhsh cultures.
The metal objects have their best parallels with both early
Andronovo material of Kazakhstan and Srubna material from
the Volga region Their ceramics are found widely over Central
Asia during the Namazga VI period when there was a regional
contraction of urbanism. The culture is commonly regarded
as the result of an expansion of steppe pastoralists from the
north into Central Asia where they settled down in small
agricultural communities. The direction of their spread was
566 —
TEAR
apparently northwest to southeast and Tazabagyab material
is found over a wide area. They are usually taken to be asso-
ciated with some phase of the expansion of Indo-Iranian-
speaking populations.
See also Andronovo Culture; Indo-Iranian Languages;
Namazga. U PM ]
TEACH
*dens- ‘teach, inculcate a skill’. [LEW 201 ( *dens-)\ Wat
11 ( *dens-)\ BK 155 ( *t y an-/*t’dn -)]. Grk SiSoccfko) (< *di-
dns-ske/o-) ‘teach’, dedae 1 taught’, Av didainhe ‘am instructed’.
Cf. certain nominal derivatives: (1) *dpsros‘± accomplished’
in Av dama - ‘skilled, clever’, OInd dasra- ‘miraculous’, and
perhaps Grk ddeipa ‘± knowing one’ as an epithet of
Persephone; (2) *denses- ‘± teaching’ in Grk (pi.) drjvea
‘counsels, plans, arts’, Av danhah- ‘skill, versatility’, Olnd
damsas- ‘marvelous act’. This word is limited to the southeast
of the IE world.
See also Learn. [D.Q.A.]
TEAR 1
*h 2 ^Rru (gen. *h 2 e Rr£us) ‘tear’. [IEW 23 (*akru), 179
( *dakru-)\ Wat 10 ( *dakru-)\ G1 715-716 ( *t'ak h ru -)]. Lith
asara ‘tear’, Latv asara ‘tear’, Hit ishahru- (< *s-h 2 ekru , with
*h 2 .. k> *h 2 . . . h 2 ) ‘tear’, Av asru- ‘tear’, Olnd asru- ‘tear’, TochA
akar ‘tear’, TochB akruna (pi.) ‘tears’. Related is *dh 2 ekru ‘tear’:
Olr der‘tear’, Weis deigr- deigryn ‘tear’, OLat dacruma ‘tear’,
Lat lacrima ‘tear’ (it is possible that the Latin words are actually
loanwords from Greek), ON far ‘tear’, OE tear (Northumbrian
tsehher ) ~ teagor ‘tear’ (> NE tear), OHG zahar ‘tear’, Goth
tagr ‘tear’, Grk docKpv ~ docKpvov ~ dotKpvpa ‘tear’. This
*dh 2 ekru is from *h 2 ekru, either because of the presence of
a prefix *d- or because of misdivision in such phrases as *tod
h 2 tkru ‘this tear’. Further complications are seen in OHG
trahan (< *draknu- < *drakru - ) ‘tear’ and Arm artawsr (pi.)
artasuk 1 ‘tear’. Though showing phonological complexities,
it is essentially pan-IE in distribution and surely PIE in age.
See also Anatomy; Eye. ID.Q.A]
Further Readings
Hamp, E. R (1972) Latin dacruma , lacrima and Indo-European ‘tear’.
Gloria 50, 291-300.
Kortlandt, F. (1985) Arm. artawsr ‘larme’. Annual of Armenian
Linguistics 6, 59-61.
van Windekens, A, J. (1977) Encore le terme ‘larme’ en indo-
europeen. KZ 90, 12-17.
TEAR 2
*\>el(h2)- 'strike, tear at’. |/£W1 144-1 145 (*ue/-); G1 413
(*ye/-); BK485 ( *wal-/*wal-)[ . Lat vello ‘pluck, tear’, volnus
‘wound’, ON valr ‘corpse on the battlefield’ (cf. Valhalla ,
Valkyrie), OE wael ‘battlefield’, OHG wal ‘battlefield’, Goth
wilwan ‘rob’, wulwo ‘booty’, Grk ovX f\ ‘wound scarred over’,
Hit walh- ‘strike, attack’, walk- ‘plucked’, HierLuv wal(a)- ‘die’,
TochA wa7- ‘die’. Widespread and old in IE.
*der - ‘tear off, flay’. \IEW 206-208 ( *der -); Wat 12
( *der-)\ GI 612 (*ter-); Buck 9.21, 9.27, 9 28; BK 116
(*t’ar-/*t’9r-)]. OE teran ‘tear’ (> NE fear), OHG zeran ‘tear’,
Goth dis-talran ‘tear apart’, Lith diriu Hay’, OCS derp ‘day’,
Grk <Sepft) ‘skin, flay’. Arm terem ‘day, strip bark’, Av darodar-
‘split’, Olnd dpnati ‘causes to burst, tears’, TochAB tsar-
‘separate’. Widespread and old in IE.
*drep- ‘scratch, tear’. [IEW 211 ( *drep-)\ BK 1 17 (*t'ar-
ap[ h ]-/*t3r-apl h }-)\. Rus drjapati( with secondary -/-) ‘scratch,
tear’, SC drapati ‘tear up, wear down’, Pol drapac ‘scratch,
shave, rub; run away’ (Proto-Slavic *drdpa~), Grk dperno
‘pluck’, dpenavov ‘sickle’, TochA rap- dig’, TochB rap- dig’
(PIE *dr- > Toch r- is regular). The Proto-Slavic infinitive
*drspati is the exact match of the Tocharian B infinitive rapatsi.
Probably belonging here are Hit teripzi ‘± plows, tills’, HierLuv
t-arrappunas ‘of plowing’ (< Proto-Anatolian *Terep- <
*Trep-), though the Anatolian forms have also been related
to PIE *trep- ‘turn’. An extension of *der- ‘split’. The
agreement of Slavic, Greek and Tocharian guarantees this
word’s PIE status. If the Anatolian words also belong, we have
evidence for something old in IE.
*rendh- ‘rend, tear open’. [IEW 865 ( *rendh -); Wat 54
( *rendh-)\ Buck 9.281 OE rendan ‘rend, tear’ (> NE rend),
rind(e) ‘rind, crust’ (> NE rind), OHG rinta ‘rind, crust’, Olnd
randhram ‘opening, split, hole’. Its geographical distribution
suggests PIE status despite the modest number of stocks that
attest it.
*reu(hx)-' tear out, pluck’. [ IEW 868-870 (*reu-)\ Wat 55
(*reu-); BK 601 (*ruw-/*row-)\. Mir ruam ‘spade’, Lat ruo
‘tear off; fall violently’, ON ryja ‘pluck wool from a sheep’,
Lith rauju ‘pull out, weed’, raveti ‘weed’, OCS ryjp ‘dig’, ruvp
‘pull out’, TochAB ruwa- ‘pull out (from below the surface
with violence)’. Related is *reunm- ‘horsehair, fleece’.
*hjreik~ ‘tear (off)’. [/EW858 ( *reik(h)-)\ Wat 54 ( *rei-)\
Buck 9.28]. Weis rhwygo ‘tear’, OHG rihan ‘pull a thread’,
Lith riekiii ‘cut bread’, Grk epeiKco ‘break, tear’, Olnd rikhati
(with expressive -kh- rather than the expected -k-) ‘scratches’.
Reasonably widespread in its geographical distribution;
certainly old in IE.
*hireip- ‘tear’. [IEW 858-859 ( *reip-), Wat 54 ( *rei-). Buck
9.281. Lat npa ‘bank (of a river), shore (of the sea)’ (< ’'“where
the water tears into or erodes the land’), ON rifa ‘tear out’,
Grk epeimo ‘dash down, tear down’, (pi.) epinvai ‘broken
cliff, crag, overhang, sheer ascent’. A word of the west and
center of the IE world. Like the previous word, it is an
enlargement of an unattested *hirei~.
*plek - ‘± break, tear off’ (pres. *pl6kei ) [IEW 835
( *plek-)\ Wat 52 ( *plek-)\ Buck 9 29; BK 35 ( *pl h ]iiy -/
*p[ h }eiy-)\. ON fla ‘flay’, OE f, lean ‘flay’ (> NE flay)(< Proto-
Gmc *flahan-), ON flagna ‘peel off’, Lith plesiu ‘tear off’, Alb
plas{< *plokie/o- ) ‘burst, break’. A word at least of the west
and center of the IE world.
*leup - ‘peel’. [IEW 690 ( *leup — *leuh-)\ Wat .37
( *leup-)\ Buck 8.561. Lith lupu ‘pare, peel, skin; whip; root
out by digging; extort’, Latv lupu pare, peel, skin’, Rus luplju
— 567 — -
TEAR
‘pare, peel, pick off’, OInd lumpati ~ lopayati ‘break, violate,
hurt’, ldptra- ‘booty’. A word of the center and east of the IE
world.
*lak- ‘rend, tear’. [IEW 674 (*lek-)\ Wat 36 (*lek-)]. Lat
lacer ‘worn out, lacerated’, Alb lakur ‘naked’, Grk Xcuciq ‘rent,
rag, tatter’, Xccki^co ‘rend, tear’, (Hesychius) aneXr\Ka ‘broke
off, sundered’. A word of the west and center of the IE world.
*lep- ‘peel’. [7EW678 ( *lep-)\ Wat 36 ( *lep-)\ Buck 8.56] .
The underlying verb is seen only in Grk A enco ‘peel’. Nominal
derivatives are to be found in OE /oT'Tiead band’, Lith lapas
‘leaf’, lopas ‘patch, piece’, Rus lapotl ‘bast-shoe’, Alb lape
‘dewlap of an ox’. A word of the west and center of the IE
world.
See also Hair; Line; Scrape; Tendon; Textile Preparation.
[D.Q.A.1
TENCH
?*(s)lei- ‘tench ( Tinea tinea)'. [ IEW 663 *(s)lei-)\ cf. Wat
35-36 ( *lei-)] . OE sllw ~ sleow ‘tench’, OHG slio ‘tench’,
OPrus linis ‘tench’, Lith lynas ‘tench’, Latv linis ‘tench’, Rus
linl ‘tench’, Grk Xivevq ‘blenny’. The Baltic and Slavic are
certainly instances of a common inheritance. The Greek may
or may not belong here while the Germanic is surely related
but an independent formation from the same root, *(s)lei-
‘be slimy’.
The geographical distribution of the tench spans Europe
from the Atlantic well into Asia, including the northern
portion of Anatolia. If the original referent was the ‘tench’, a
shift to ‘blenny’ in Greek must have been motivated by some-
thing far from transparent as the fish bear little resemblance
to one another with respect to either shape or size.
See also Fish; Snail. [D.Q.A.]
TENDON
*snehi vf ‘sinew, tendon’. [IEW 977 (*sney-(e>-); Wat 62
(*(s)ne9U~); GI 716 ( *sneu-r/n-)\ BK 189 ( *sin-/*sen-)] . Lat
nervus ‘sinew, tendon, muscle, nerve’, Grk vevpov ‘sinew,
tendon, gut’, Arm neard ‘tendon’, Av snavara ‘tendon’, Olnd
snivan- ‘tendon’, TochB snor ‘± tendon’. A derivative of PIE
age of *snehi(u)~ ‘turn, twist’.
See also Anatomy; Muscle. [D.Q.A.]
TERRAMARE CULTURE
The middle Bronze Age (c 1500-1100 BC) culture of the
Po Valley is known as the Terramare culture. It takes its name
from the black earth ( terramare ) residue of settlement mounds
which have long served the fertilizing needs of local farmers.
The original settlements were often constructed on piles and
developed into large mounds over time. In size they ranged
up to 20 ha in size and were defended by banks and ditches.
The arrangement of houses in rows might assume a grid-like
pattern (such evidence was employed to associate the builders
of Rome with the earlier Terramaricoli). Both inhumation and
cremation was employed in burial and cemeteries might have
hundreds of burials. The grave would be accompanied by
pottery and metal goods, among the latter bronze weapons,
razors and ornaments. Earlier interpretations of this culture
remarked on its introduction of cremation burials, shift of
settlement location, and ceramic and metallurgical similarities
to cultures of Central Europe to propose that it represented
an intrusive culture which might be associated with IE
movements into Italy.
See also Italic Languages. [J.PM.]
TERRIBLE
?*gargos ‘frightening, threatening’. [IEW 353 ( *gargo-s)\
GI 85 (* < g^ar-J^-)l. OIr garg ‘rough’, OCS groza ‘shudder,
horror’, Rus groza ‘threat’, Arm karcr ‘hard’. Lith grazdli ‘to
threaten’ may be a Belorussian loanword while Grk yopyoq
‘terrible, frightful, savage’, connected with the monstrous
Gorgon, cannot be securely associated with these forms. IE
status is extremely uncertain.
*saiijos ‘hard, sharp, rude’. [IEW 877 (*sa/-yo-)]. Lat
saevus ‘hot-headed, raging, ferocious’, Lith Saizus ‘sharp, hard,
rough’ (the Lithuanian form is assumed to reflect distant assi-
milation of s> Sunder the influence of z, viz. < *saizus ), Latv
sievs- sivs ‘hard, curt’. Apparently only a Latin-Baltic isogloss.
?*ghouros sad, pitiful’. [7EW453-455 ( *ghou-ro-s)\ . OHG
gorag ‘miserable, pitiful’, Goth gaurs ‘sad, sorrowful’, OCS
zurba ‘grief’, Olnd ghora- ‘terrible’. Perhaps also ON gaurr
— 568 —
TEXTILE PREPARATION
‘miserable person’ but this is rejected by most. The Old Indie
connection here is very weak and even the Germanic-Slavic
connection has been doubted. Improbable IE status.
See also Bad; Pain. Q.C.S.]
TEXTILE
Under this heading are assembled the various terms that
pertain to the material of textiles.
Thread
*dek- ‘thread, hair’. [ IEW 191 (*dek-); Wat 1 1 ( dek-)\ Buck
4.14; BK 159 {*t y ak[ h }-/*t y 9kl h l-)]. ON tag 1 thread, fibre’,
MHG zach (< *dek(ieh 2 )-) ‘wick’, Khot dasa- ‘thread’, OInd
dasa- ‘fringe’. Other derivatives have come to mean ‘hair’.
*doklo- in OIr dual ‘lock of hair’, OE taeg(e)l ‘tail’ (> NE tail ),
OHG zagel ‘tail’, Goth tagl ‘a single hair’, and *dekueh 2 ~ in
TochA saku ‘headhair’. This word is old in IE and probably
the oldest one we can reconstruct whose meaning subsumes
‘thread’, particularly thread spun from wool or vegetable fibre.
The creation of a thread out of the amorphous fluff of fibre
provides the basis for a Greek metaphor of life and human
fate as witnessed by the activities of the Greek Moirai , a
concept subsequently borrowed in the Lat Parcae , and still
later in the Germanic Noms.
*g w hihx(slo)- ± sinew, thread’. [IEW 489 (*g u hei9-)\ Wat
25-26 {*g w hi-)\. (1) *g w hih x (-eh a )~: Weis giau (pi.) ‘nerves,
sinew’, Lith gija ‘thread (in a warp); skein, hank (of yarn)’,
Latv dzija ‘thread’ (pi. ‘yarn’), OCS zica ‘sinew’; (2)
*g w hih x (slo)~: Lat filum ‘thread’, Lith gysla ‘vein’, Latv dzisla
‘vein’, Arm jiT cord’. This would appear to have been at least
the late PIE word for thread made from animal sinew or the
like, as opposed to thread from spun wool or vegetable fibres.
*t(e)rm- ‘thread-end’. OE prum ‘(thread)end’ (only attested
in tunge-prum ) ‘tongue-ligament’ (> NE thrum), Grk
t epfiioeiq ‘be-thrummed’. The apparent agreement of Old
English and Greek in specializing the common PIE word
*termn- ‘end’ to the ends of the warp-threads, and then to
fringes on clothing, may be accidental but it is possible that
this specialization is of late IE date.
*pe/oth a mos thread’. [IEW 824 ( *pet-)\ Wat 51 ( *pet9-)\ .
ScotsGael aitheamh ‘thread’, OWels etem ‘thread, yam’ (< Celt
*etamf), ON fadmC a measure; arms’, OE faedm ‘outstretched
arms, fathom’ (> NE fathom ), OHG fadam ‘thread’. An isogloss
of the western periphery of the IE world built from *pet-
‘stretch out’, i.e., arms spread apart as in preparation of yam.
Cloth
*los- ± cloth’. [IEW 680 (*hs-)}. MHG lasche ‘rags’, Lith
laskana ‘rags’, Latv lpska ‘rags, tatters’, Rus loskut ‘rag’
(Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic < *le/os-ko-), Khot r(r)aha-
‘cloth’, OInd las-pUjanf- ‘large needle’ (< * ‘cloth-piercer’?).
Not everyone would agree that all these words belong here;
however, if so, the attestation in both the west and east of the
IE world is a strong argument for at least late PIE status for
this word.
*p(e)h a no/eh a or *pitno/eh a - cloth’. [IEW 788 ( *pan -);
Wat 46-47 (*pan-); Buck 6.2 1|. Mir anart ‘linen cloth’, Lat
pannus (< *panusl) ‘piece of cloth, garment’, OE fan a ‘flag’
(> NE fane), OHG fano ‘flag’, Goth fana ‘piece of cloth’, Grk
7T77VT7 (Doric nSva) thread on the shuttle’, kt]viov ‘thread of
the weft’, (Hesychius) jrrjvog ‘cloth’, Rosham warhon fur-robe,
sheepskin coat’ (< Proto-Iranian *vara(h)-pana- ‘± sheep(skin)
coat’). It has been suggested that this lexeme, although attested
in Greek as well as in the more westerly languages, is one of
a number of textile terms that may have been picked up by
common borrowing when the westward moving Indo-
Europeans learned the art of weaving on the large warp-
weighted loom from the previous inhabitants of Europe.
However, the apparent existence of a cognate in Iranian would
seem to make this a word of at least late IE date.
Felt
*pil-$o - ~ *pil-to~ ‘felt’. [IEW 830 ( *pi-lo-)\ Wat 51
(*p/7o-); Buck 4. 141. Lat pilleus (< *pilseio-) ‘felt’ (adj ), OE
felt ‘felt’ (> NE felt), OHG filz ‘felt’ (Gmc < *pil-to-), OCS
plUsti 1 felt’, Grk mXoq{< *pilsos) ‘felt’. From * pi los ‘(a single)
hair (of the human body)’, cf. Lat pilus ‘(a single) hair (of the
human body)’, itself a variant, via sporadic unrounding of
the *-u- in a labial environment, of *pubs ‘(a single) hair (of
the human body)’.
Felting is the process of matting wool or hair together by a
combination of pressure, warmth, and dampness into a stable
fabric. Heat and moisture cause the liny scales on the surface
of the hairs to stick out; prolonged kneading when they are
in this condition causes them to become inextricably inter-
locked. In this way is created a solid fabric without benefit of
either weaving or knotting. The fact that all of these words
for ‘felt’ are derived from *pilos rather than *pulos suggests
that the various IE stocks having this word have borrowed it
from some variety of IE which, like Latin, had *pilos rather
than *pulos. Felting seems to have been discovered early in
the third millennium BC in central Europe or on the Eurasian
steppes. It is possible that the developers of the process were
IE speakers of a “pf/o-dialect”; it is also possible that speakers
of a “pi/o-dialect” borrowed the process from some non- IE
group, named it, and then “lent it out”, so to speak, to other
IE-speaking groups.
See also Clothe; Hair; Textile Preparation.
[D.Q.A., E.J.W.B 1
Further Reading
Barber, E. J. W (1991) Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of
Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Princeton, Princeton
University Press.
TEXTILE PREPARATION
Here are grouped those terms associated with the manu-
facture of textiles.
— 569 —
TEXTILE PREPARATION
Pluck and Comb Wool
*pel c- ‘pull out (e.g., wool), comb out (e.g., wool)’ (presents
[1] *p6ke/o-, [2] *p6kte/o~). \IEW 797 ( *pek-)\ Wat 48
( *pek-)\ G1 494-495 (*pMc^-); cf. Buck 6.91]. (1) Lith pesu
‘pull, tear out, pluck (fowl)’, pesiau ‘pluck, pick (wool,
oakum)’, Grk k£kg> ‘comb, shear’ (cf. Myc pe-ki-ti-ra 2 [=
pektriai ] ‘women wool-combers’); nominal derivatives: ON
fax ‘mane’, faer{< *pokes -) ‘sheep’, OE feax ‘(head) hair’, OHG
fahs ‘(head)hair’, Grk neKoq ~ TtotcoqX raw) wool, fleece’; (2)
Lat pecto ‘comb’, Grk kekteco ‘comb, shear’; nominal
derivatives: Lat pecten ‘comb’, Grk Kxeiq Comb (in the loom);
rake; pubic hair’. A word of great antiquity in IE.
*pleus- ‘(pluck) fleece, feathers’. [IEW 838 (*pleus-)\ Wat
52 ( *pleus -)] . Lat pluma ‘feather’, ON flosa ‘splinter’, OE fleos
‘fleece’ (> NE fleece), OPrus plauxdine ‘feather-bed’, Lith
pluskos (pi.) ‘hair’, Latv pluskas (pi.) ‘shaggy hair’. A word of
the IE northwest.
Archaeological and palaeozoological evidence show that
early sheep had coats rather like deer: mostly heavy hairs
(called kemp) with a small amount of very fine underwool
for winter insulation. Several thousand years of domestic in-
breeding developed sheep with usable wool, which, however,
molted in the spring. In order to avoid getting the bristly
kemp (which molted at a different time), the wool was pulled
out (cf. the meaning still of the Lithuanian verb) rather than
cut. Later people learned to comb it out, a more efficient
method of collection. Only in the Iron Age, with the advent
of shears made of springy iron, did shearing become common
— by which time sheep that did not molt were being bred.
Different IE stocks have fossilized the semantics of this verb
(and its derivatives) at different technological stages.
*reu(hx)- ‘pull out (from under the surface)’. [IEW 868
( *reu -); Wat 55 (*reu-); BK 601 (*ruw-/*row-)}. Olr ron
‘horse’s mane’, NIr ruaimneach (< *reumenako- ) ‘longhair’,
Weis rhawn (< *reu(m)no -) ‘horse’s mane’, ON ryja ‘to pull
out wool from sheep’, Norw ru ‘winter wool’, Lith rauju ‘pull,
pluck, tear (out), root (out)’, OCS ryj p ‘dig (out)’, Rus rund
(< *reu(m)no-) ‘fleece’, NPers rom ‘pubic hair’, Sarikoli reb
‘body-hair, fur’, OInd roman- ~ loman- ‘body hair of men
and animals’ (Proto-Indo- Iranian *rauman-), TochAB ruwa-
‘pull out (from under the surface)’. Another old word in IE.
Whether it is further related to the likes of Lat rud ‘fall with
violence, rush down, go to ruin’ or Olnd ru- ‘break’ is
doubtful.
Though only in Old Norse is the verb attested with a
meaning referring to obtaining wool, it is clear through the
various nominal derivatives in Celtic, Slavic and Iranian that
it was used in all these groups to refer to the plucking of hair
or wool for sewing or weaving.
*kars- ‘scratch; comb (wool)’. [IEW 532-533 ( *kars-)\ Wat
27 ( *kars-)] . Lat car(r)o ‘comb wool’, carmen ‘comb for wool’,
MDutch harst ‘rake’, Lith karsiu ‘comb or card (wool); hatchel
(flax)’, Latv karsu ‘comb or card (wool); hatchel (flax)’, OCS
krasta ‘scab, itch’, Rus korosta ‘scab, itch’, Olnd kasati (if <
*karsati) ‘rubs, scratches’. The usual translation ‘card’ for
classical Latin carro is an anachronism by post-fourteenth
century AD scholars who didn’t know that carding was
invented only in the fourteenth century. No ancient piece of
wool has yet been found that was carded rather than combed.
In carding the fibres are fluffed crossways; in combing the
fibers are made to lie parallel. These yarns have crucially
different properties. It may be significant that, though the
word is old in IE, the meaning ‘comb (wool)’ is found only in
European languages.
*kes- ‘comb’. [/JEW 585 (*kes-)\ Wat 30 ( *kes-)\ Gl 74;
BK 243 ( *kft]as-/*k[ h ]as-)]. Mir dr (< *kes-reh a -) ‘comb’,
ON haddr (< *kos-dh-o -) ‘woman’s headhair’, OE heordan
(pi.) (< *kos-dh-ion -) ‘hards (of flax), tow’, Lith kasa 'braid
of hair’, OCS cesati'comb ' , kosa ‘hair’, kosmu 'hair', Rus kosa
‘braid’, Grk £ aiva ) ‘scrape, comb (hair or wool); full (cloth)’,
£avi ov ‘comb (for wool)’, keokeov ‘tow’. Hit kiss- ~ kisa(i)-
‘comb’. This word is widespread and old in IE. It would appear
that the focus of its meaning was the combing of human hair
but that it could also be used of combing wool or flax.
See also Tear 2 . (D.Q.A., F.. J. W. B ]
Felt
*nak- ‘press, squeeze’, also ‘felt wool?’. Lat naccae 'cloth-
fullers’ (this is a word that is usually taken as a Greek loanword
in Latin; however, there is no reasonable Greek word to
provide the Latin borrowing and it is probably better to assume
that it is inherited in Latin), Grk vdooco ‘press, compress,
stamp’, (Hesychius) xd volkto. felt shoes’. Hit nakki- weighty,
important’, nakke(ss)- ‘be(come) heavy’, TochB naks- 'blame,
reproach’. Perhaps also here are Grk vdncoq ‘fleece’, vatcrj
‘woolly or hairy skin’, and varco-xUxeco pluck wool’ [IEW
754 (*nak-)\. The semantic change would be ‘what is felted’
> ‘wool’. *nak- appears to be old in IE with the meaning
‘press, squeeze, stamp’. The particular association we see with
cloth in Latin and Greek may be the result of independent
innovations in the two groups. If Grk vaxog belongs here
(rather than with OE naesc soft leather, deer leather', OPrus
nognan ‘leather’ [/EW754]), then the association of *nak-
with cloth-making looks to be quite old in Greek and perhaps
*nak- with the meaning ‘felt’ is late PIE or a post-PIE
borrowing from another IE group.
Plait
*plek~ ‘braid, plait’. [IEW 834 ( *plek-)\ Wat 52 ( *plek-)\
Gl 611 {*^lek h -)\ Buck 9.75). Lat pie ctd 'plait, interweave’,
ON fletta ‘braid, plait’, OE fleohtan ‘braid, plait', OHG flehtan
‘plait, weave’, OCS pletQ ‘braid, plait’, Grk kXcko) braid, plait’,
Av frasnem ‘braiding’, Olnd prasna- ‘braiding, basketw'ork;
turban, headband’. Significantly we have OE fleax 'flax' (>
NE flax) and OHG flahs ‘flax’ (< *p!okso~) derived from this
root. Widely distributed in IE; undoubtedly the PIE term for
‘plait’.
PIE distinguished between two very different ways of inter-
lacing elements. Technically, weaving is done under tension:
one set of elements (the warp) is held tight on a frame (the
— 570
TEXTILE PREPARATION
loom) while the other set of elements (the weft or woof) is
interlaced into the warp. In plaiting there is no tension, and
no distinction between warp and weft — in fact, there may be
more than two sets of elements, as in braiding that uses three.
*resg- ‘± plait, wattle’. [IEW 874 ( *rezg-)\ Wat 55
( *rezg-)\ Buck 9. 19, 9.75] . Lat restis (< *resg-tis ) ‘rope, cord’,
OE resc(e) ~ ris(c) ‘rush’ (> NE rush), MHG rusche ~ rosche
‘rush’, Lith rezg(i)u ‘knit, do network’, Latv rezget ‘knit, do
network’, OCS rozga ‘root, branch’, NPers rayza ‘woolen cloth’,
Olnd rajju- ‘cord, rope’. Again widely distributed in IE and
undoubtedly of PIE age. The reflexes of this word suggest a
coarser kind of interlacing than for *plel c-, perhaps including
wattling.
*y ei(hx)- ‘plait, wattle’. [IEW 1120-1121 {*uei- ~
*uei3-)\ Wat 74 ( *wei-)\ GI 559 (*wei-)\. Lat vieo ‘bind,
interweave’, ON veggr ‘wall’, Goth -waddjus 1 wall’ (< *wajju-
< *uoih x us), Lith veju ‘wind’, OCS vTjp ‘twist, interweave’,
Olnd vayati ‘weaves’. Cf. the widespread nominal derivative
*ueimn- in Mir flam ‘chain’, Lat vimen ‘pliant twig, switch,
withe, osier’, Grk eipadeg ‘shepherds’ huts’, Olnd veman-
‘weaving stool’ (the difference in meaning of the Old Indie
word presumably betokens an independent derivation). There
are numerous other nominal derivatives: (1) *ueitis in OIr
feth ‘fibre’, Av vaeiti ‘withy, willow’; (2) *uih x tis in Lat vitis
‘vine, grape tendril’, ON vldir ‘withy, willow’, Lith vytis ‘osier-
switch’, OCS vitl ‘something twisted to form a cord’; (3)
*uih x tek- in Lat vitex ‘chaste-tree (Vitex agnus-castus)’ , OE
wldig ‘withy’ (> NE withy)\ (4) *uitus in Late Lat vitus ‘felly’,
OPrus witwan ‘withy’, apewitwo ‘a kind of willow’, Rus vftvina
‘twig, switch, osier’, Grk hug ‘felly, shield edge, withy’. Freer
‘withy’, oioog (< *uoituos) ‘withy, Vitex agnus-castus ’.
Widespread and old in IE. Here would appear to be the usual
PIE word for the wattling part of ‘wattle-and-daub’
construction.
*kert- ‘plait, twine’ (pres. *kfn6t s ti). [ IEW 584-585
( *kert -); Wat 30 (*kert-)\ BK 263 (*k[ h ]ar-/*k[ h ]9r-)}. Lat
cratis ‘wickerwork, hurdle, honeycomb’ (the Latin looks to
be from an otherwise unattested *kerh x t- ), ON hurd ‘hurdle’,
OE hyrdel ‘hurdle’ (> NE hurdle), OHG hurt ‘hurdle’, Goth
haurds ‘door’, OPrus corto ‘hedge’, Grk KapraXXoq ‘basket’,
Kvpzia ‘wattle’, Kvprog ~ jchpip ‘fishtrap, cage’, Olnd kfnatti
‘spins’, karttar- ‘spinner’, kuti- (< *kfti~) ‘hut’, kata-
(< *karta-) ‘mat’. Widespread and old in IE.
*mesg- ‘± intertwine’. [IEW 746 ( *mezg-)\ Wat 42
( *mezg-)\ . ON mpskvi ‘mesh’, OE max ‘net’, maescre ‘mesh’,
MDutch maesche ‘mesh’ (borrowed > NE mesh), OHG masca
‘stitch’, Lith mezgit ‘knit’, mazgas ‘knot’, Latv mezgu ‘knit’,
mazgs ‘knot’, mezga ‘mishmash, something badly woven’,
TochA masak ‘knot, bond, connection’, TochB meske ‘knot,
bond, connection’. At first glance this word might appear to
have meant ‘knit’ (as it does in Baltic); however, knitting is
only attested in the archaeological record since the third
century AD at Dura-Europos in Syria. While clearly older
than that, the technique is equally clearly not of PIE date.
What we may have here in *mesg- is a word for creating
sprang, a plaiting technique in which threads or cords are
intertwined over one another to form an open-work mesh.
Threads are stretched between two parallel beams and
neighboring threads twisted around each other (as in a cat’s
cradle). The twists are pushed symmetrically to both ends
and held by a rod until the next twist can be put in to secure
the preceding twists. The work proceeds in this fashion until
the two groups of twists meet in the middle and are darned
together to prevent unravelling. The resulting fabric is very
elastic and was much used for hairnets, stockings, or sleeves,
which had to be able to stretch to go over masses of hair or
around awkward comers like heels and elbows.
[D.Q.A., E.J.W.B |
Spin
*(s)nehi(i)~ ‘twist fibres together to form thread; occupy
oneself with thread’ (present *(s)n6hiie/o~). [IEW 9 73
(*(s)ne-); Wat 62 ( *sne-)\ Gl 609 ( *sneH-(i/u )-); BK 189
( *sin-/*sen -)]. Mir sniid ‘twists, binds; torments; strives’, Weis
nyddaf' spin’, Lat ned ‘spin’, OHG na(w)en sew, stitch’. Latv
snaju ‘twist loosely together, spin’, Grk my ‘spin’, edvvrfvog
‘well-spun’, Olnd snSyu- ‘band, sinew’. Widespread nominal
derivatives include: (1) *snohiteh a - in OIr snath ‘thread’, OE
snod ‘headband’ (> NE snood), Latv snate ‘linen shawl, cape’;
(2) *sneh}tis in OHG nat ‘seam’, Grk vrjcng spinning’, (3)
*snehjm$ in Lat nemen ‘tissue, fabric’, Grk vrjpa thread,
yam’. Since they are all banal noun formations, they may all
be independent in the various IE groups. In two traditions
derivatives have given words for ‘needle’: Celtic in OIr snathat
and Germanic in ON nadl, OE n&dl (> NE needle), OHG
nadala, Goth nefrla (< *neh i-tleh a -) . From *(s)nih]-
(< *(s)nh\i-) we have: Lith nytis ‘weavers reed’, Latv nits (some
part of the loom), Rus niti ‘thread’. This widely attested verb
would seem to have been the original PIE term used to
designate the process by which thread or yarn was made,
either by twisting fibers together or by stretching and twisting
sinew, gut, etc.
*sneh\u- ‘twist fibres together to form thread; occupy
oneself with thread’. [IEW 977 (*sneu-), Wat 62 ((Ls)neau-V
Gl 609 (*sneH-{i/u)-)\ BK 189 ( *s;n-/*sen-)] . ON snua ‘wind,
(double and) twist (yam), twine (thread)’, Latv snaujis ‘noose,
snare’, OCS snujQ ‘set warp’. Either from *sneh j u-por *sneh j -
up ‘sinew, tendon’ are Lat nervus (< *neuro- ) ‘sinew; tendon,
muscle, nerve’, Grk vevpov ‘sinew, tendon, cord’, Arm neard
(< *sneuyt) ‘sinew, tendon, fibre’, Av snavaro ‘sinew, tendon’,
Olnd snavan- ‘tendon, sinew’, TochB snor ‘sinew’. *snehiu-
is another derivative, also old, beside *sneh 1 1 - of *snehi~.
*(s)pen- ‘draw, spin’. [IEW 988 ( *(s)pen-(d .)-); Wat 63
( *spen-)\ Buck 6.311. ON spinna ‘spin’, OE spinnan ‘spin’ (>
NE spin), OHG spinnan ‘spin’, Goth spinnan ‘spin’ (Gmc <
*spen-u-), OPrus panto ‘chain’, Lith pmu weave’, pmai (pi.)
‘woven fence’, Latv pinu ‘weave’, OCS pinp ‘tighten, strain’.
Alb pe (pi. penj) ‘thread’ (< *penos ), Grk nevopai toil
(particularly at household tasks)’, Arm hanum ~ henum
‘weave’, TochA panw- ‘draw out, stretch’, TochB pann- draw
— 571 —
TEXTILE PREPARATION
(out), stretch’ (Arm and Toch < *pen-u-). The meaning ‘spin’,
i.e. , draw out fibers to make thread, may be an old specializa-
tion of ‘draw out, span’ or it could equally well be that the
‘weave’ meanings shifted from the notion of working with
thread. This specialization must be at least late PIE in date.
*terkf w ^~ ‘twist’ (> ‘spin’). [IEW 1077 ( *terk-)\ Wat 70
( *terk w -)\ Buck 6.32] . Lat torqued ‘twist, wind; hurl violently;
torment’, OE jb rZestan ‘turn, twist, writhe’, OHG drahsil ‘roller’,
OPrus tarkue ‘reins’, OCS traku ‘band, belt’, Rus torok ‘reins’.
Alb tjerr (< *terkne/o-) ‘spin’ (also tjerr ‘worsted, flax yarn
spun with a spindle’), Grk at pcucrog 1 spindle’, drpeKriq ‘strict,
precise, exact’ (< *‘what is not turnable’), Hit tarku(wa)- ‘turn
oneself, dance’, OInd tarku- ‘spindle’, TochA tark- ‘earring’,
TochB tark - ‘twist around; work (of wood)’. The hapax Mir
trochal ~ trothal ‘sling?’ is sometimes put here but it may well
be a borrowing from Lat torculum ‘kind of catapult’. Other-
wise, this is a widespread lexeme, old in Indo-European, that
in several dialect areas (Albanian, Greek, Old Indie) has been
specialized to ‘spin’, presumably starting with the notion of
‘twisting’ the fibers of wool or flax together so as to make a
long thread.
?*ye/p- ‘± spin; sew’ (?). [Buck 6.31], Lith verpiii ‘spin’,
varpstis ~ varpsti ‘spindle’, Latv verpt ‘spin, twist here and
there’, virpet ‘spin with a spindle’, are sometimes compared
with Grk paKT(o(< u[p(h)ie/o-) ‘sew’; poupig ‘needle’ but there
are phonological difficulties with this equation (the origin of
the Grk -ph- 1 ) that may suggest borrowing by both pre-Greeks
and pre-Balts from some non-IE source.
Weave
*h 2 / 3 eu- ‘weave’. [IEW 75-76 ( *au -); Wat 4 ( *au -); GI
498; Buck 6.33], ON vad ‘weaving’, OE w&d ‘clothes’ (> NE
weeds as in ‘‘widow’s weeds ”), OHG wat ‘clothes’, Lith audziau
‘weave’, at-audai l woof’, Rus us/d ‘weaving’, Arm z-awd‘bmd ,
cord’, Olnd u- ‘weave’ (suppletive present vayati), otu- ‘weft’.
This is the most basic term for ‘weave’ that is reconstructible
for PIE. It has largely been supplanted, within PIE itself, by
the enlarged *h2/3uebh- of the next entry. Cf. ON audna ‘fate’,
OE ead ‘wealth, luck’ from the notion of ‘weaving one’s fate’.
*h 2 / 3 \}ebh- ‘weave’. [IEW 1114 ( *uebh-)\ Wat 73
( *webh-)\ Buck 6.33]. ON vefa ‘weave’, OE webbian ‘weave’
(> NE web), OHG weban ‘weave’. Alb vej (< *h2/3uebh-
nie/o-) ‘weave’, Grk vyccivco ‘weave’, Hit huppai- ‘entangle,
ensnare; interlace’, huppala - 1 net’ (though -pp-, reflecting PIE
*-p- rather than *-bh- is not well explained), c,AD hupra- ‘a
type of woven material’, Av ub-daena- ‘made of cloth’, NPers
bafad ‘weaves’, OInd ubhnati ~ umbhati ~ unapti ‘ties
together’, urna-vabhi- ‘spider’ (lit. ‘wool-weaver’), TochA wap-
‘weave’, TochB wap- ‘weave’, wpelme ‘spider’s web’, yape (<
*h2/3Uebhos) ‘spider’. This enlargement of *h2/3eu- would
appear to have been the usual word for ‘weave’ in later PIE,
contrasting technologically with ‘plait’.
*y eg- ‘plait, weave’. [IEW 1117 (*ueg-)\ Wat 73-74
( *weg-)\ GI 367 ; Buck 6.331 . Olr figid ‘weaves’, OWels gueetic
‘weave’, Lat velum (< *ueg-slom ) ‘sail, cloth’, OE weoce ‘wick’
(> NE wick), MHG wiht ‘wick’, OInd vagina net for catching
animals’. This would appear to be an old word in Indo-
European. Perhaps its oldest meaning had reference to some
sort of plaiting. Only in the far west of the IE world, in Celtic
and Italic, did it become the regular word for weave’.
There is no archaeological evidence from the PIE period
that allows us to know for certain what kind of loom or looms
the Proto-Indo-Europeans used. Linguistic evidence shows
that they knew at least the simple band loom, the narrow
warp of which is hitched to any two convenient objects. Such
a loom produces a narrow piece of fabric ideally sized for a
belt or cinch. There is no evidence that they were familiar
with either the ground warp-weighted loom, which appears
to have developed along the Tisza and Danube rivers (and is
relatively easy to trace archaeologically because of its clay
weights, which are far less perishable than the usual wooden
parts). The latter loom seems to have been known at least as
far east as the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture of the Late Neolithic
in Romania and the western Ukraine. Under some scenarios
the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture is either the western neighbor
of the Proto-Indo-Europeans or is itself identified with the
PIE communities. But all vocabulary for the warp-weighted
loom in Greek, for example, has been borrowed; and the Indo-
Iranians did not carry this simple technology with them to
the southeast. Thus, it is clear that not all PIE speakers knew
the warp-weighted loom, and as yet we have no proof that
any did. It must, therefore, have been an early acquisition by
westward-moving IE groups, largely if not exclusively in the
immediate post-PlE period.
*krek- ‘beat the weft with a stick’. [ IEW 618-619
{*krek-)\ Wat 32 (*krek-)\ ON hrsell(< *krokilos) pin-beater’
(stick used by a weaver to beat the weft home), OE hreol
(< *krekulo-) ‘reel’ (> NE reel), hraegl ‘clothes’ (> NE rail),
OHG hregil ‘± clothes, hide’, Lith krekles 'ragged clothing’,
Latv krpkls ‘shirt’, Grk KpeKoa ‘strike (the web), weave; pluck
a stringed instrument’, Kpot; ‘warp, thread (of the warp)’,
KpoKvg tuft of wool’, Kep mg ‘pin-beater’. A word of the west
and center of the IE world. The basic meaning of this lexeme
is ‘to beat the weft home with a small stick that has the weft
wound on it’. Then, by re-evaluation, ‘something with thread
wound on it’ or ‘to weave’ (and ultimately to ‘something
woven’). The stick, known as a pin-beater, was one of the
basic tools for weaving on a small hand-loom; it could also
be used on a large one. The twanging action by which the pin
was used to disentangle the warp led in Greek to a transfer to
twanging a stringed instrument.
1D.Q.A , E.J.W.B.]
Dye
*reg-‘ dye’. [IEW 854 (*reg-); Wat 54 (*reg-)]. Grk pefco
‘dye’, peypa ‘dyed cloth’, pqyevg ~ poyevq ~ peyevq ‘dyer’,
pf\yog ‘blanket, rug’, Khwarezmian raxl ‘red’, NPers rang
‘color’, OInd rajyati ~ raj y ate ‘is colored, reddens, is red', raga-
‘color, redness’, rakta- ‘colored, red’, maharajana- dye-paint;
safflower’. Though a PIE word with absolute initial *r- is very
ft
fl
■$|
572 —
TEXTILE PREPARATION
Textiles a. Map of loom types and textile regions. Light shading
represents area of ground looms; dark shading indicates area of the
warp-weighted loom. Central Europe and SW Asia both employed
flax (and later) wool while the region to their north used primarily
wool. The reconstructed PIE lexicon indicates words for ‘wool’,
‘weaving’ and ‘plaiting’ but not for looms. The word for ‘flax’ is
confined to the west and center of the IE world.
unusual (words that otherwise look like they began with *r-
were actually preceded, on the evidence of Greek, by a
laryngeal, i.e., *hjr-, */i 2 r-, or *hjr-), the exact phonological,
morphological, and semantic match between Old Indie and
Greek would seem to assure at least late PIE dialect status.
From the point of view of the universals of color terminology
it is interesting to note that in Indo-Iranian at least ‘color’ and
‘red’, as color par excellence, were closely intertwined (cf.
Spanish Colorado). From the point of view of dyeing it is
important to note that red (especially if we include ‘browns’
and ‘oranges’) is the first attested color in dyed textiles in all
of the European and Near Eastern areas where dyeing is
attested early.
See also Dark. [D.Q.A., E.J.W.B.]
Full
*knab(h)- ‘pick at, tease out’. [IEW 560-561
(*/c e ne-bh-)]. Weis cnaif ‘fleece’, ON *hnafa (pret. hnof)
‘punch out’, MDutch noppe ‘nap, pile’ (borrowed > ME noppe
‘pile, nap’ > NE nap), Lith knabenti ‘pick at, peck at’, Latv
kn&bt ‘pick, peck at’, Alb krrabe ‘hook, knitting needle’, Grk
Kvaqxo ‘full (cloth)’, Kvd<poq ‘fuller’s teasel’, Kvacpevq ‘fuller’
(Myc ka-na-pe-u ‘fuller’). A word of the west and center of
the IE world. Fulling, or the felting of already woven fabric,
increases the insulation value of the cloth. The process is
documented already in the late Neolithic in Europe. It is
possible, but by no means certain, that the Proto-Indo-
Europeans knew of the process and practiced it. If so
*knab(h)- is our only candidate for the word designating it.
Equally possible is the hypothesis that IE speakers acquired
the process as they moved west into central Europe and came
into contact with people(s) who had more sophisticated
techniques of textile making. Under this latter scenario
*knab(h)- would most likely be a borrowing by these IE
groups from some non- IE language of central Europe.
[D.Q.A., E.J.WB.l
Sew
*sjuhj- ‘sew’. [7EW915-916 (*SjO-); Wat 6B-69 (*syQ-);
GI 6 10 ( *syu(H)-)\ Buck 6.35] . Lat suo ‘sew, sew up/together’,
ON syja ‘sew, tie the planks of a ship together’, OE sgowian
‘sew’ (> NE sew), OFIG siuwen ‘sew’, Goth siujan ‘sew’, Lith
siuvu ‘sew, stitch, tailor’, Latv Suvu ‘sew’, OCS SijQ ‘sew’, Grk
KcceofjQ) (< *kat-suo) ‘sew’, OInd sivyati ‘sews, joins’, TochA
su- ‘sew’. This word is very widespread in IE and clearly
ancient with precisely this meaning. There are a couple of
widespread nominal derivatives: (1) *siuhimen in OPrus
schumeno' waxed thread; shoemaker’s thread’, Grk vprjv'lhin
skin, membrane, sinew’, Hit sumanza ‘thread’, Olnd syCtman-
‘band, strap, thong; girdle; seam’; (2) *siuhitos in ON sOd
‘sewn planks of a ship’, sjodr ‘pouch, bag’, OE seod ‘pouch,
bag’, MHG siut ‘thread’, Lith siutas ‘sewn’, Rus $(tyj ‘sewn’,
Olnd syUta- ‘sack’. Sewing, along with needles and thread,
was an art already known in the Palaeolithic, one that has not
changed appreciably over the millennia, so one would expect
what we find here, namely an archaic root that has spread
with the speakers of IE languages.
*(s)ner- ‘fasten with thread or cord’. [IEW 975-976
( *(s)ner-); Wat 62 ( *(s)ner -)] . ON snoeri ‘woven cord or line’,
OE sner ‘harpstring’, OHG snuor ‘cord’, Goth snorjo ‘basket
made with cords’, Lith neriii ‘thread (a needle), knit, crochet’,
Latv nars ‘clamp’, Rus neret ~ neretd ‘a kind of fish-trap’,
MIran nar- ‘grasp’, TochB nare ‘thread; fringe’. Perhaps also
belong here ON ngrva- ‘narrow’, OE nearu ‘narrow’ (< ‘bound
573 —
TEXTILE PREPARATION
together'?) (> NE narrow ), OHG narwo ‘scar, seam’. Less
widely attested, though more general in meaning, than the
previous word. Certainly a late PIE word at least.
?*strenk - ‘string, to pull (tight)’. I JEW 1036-1037 ( *strenk-
~ *streng -); Wat 67 ( *strenk-)\ Buck 9.191. Mir sreng ‘string,
cord’, ON strengr ‘rope, cord’, OE streng ‘cord’ (> NE string),
OHG stranc ‘cord’, Grk atpayyoq ‘drawn through a small
opening’. The Mir sreng ‘string, cord’ may be a Norse loan
and has also been connected to the verbal root sreng 1 to pull,
drag’; Latv stringt ‘become tight, to dry’ has been suggested
here but is unclear. Possibly related is Lat stringo ‘squeeze,
puli’. This collection of uncertain relationships does not
present a clear case for an IE etymon.
??*t£ntlom ‘(that which is) pulled tight’. [IEW 1065 ( *ten-
tlo-)]. OPrus sasin-tinclo ‘rabbit-snare’, Lith tinklas ‘net’, NPers
tar (< *tan0ra-) ‘thread, warp’, OInd tantra- ‘warp, woven
chain’. From *ten- ‘pull, make tight’. The meaning here of
‘snare’ seems to be restricted to Baltic while the Indo-lranian
words would appear to be independent derivatives of *ten-.
See also Color; Pierce; Textile; Turn; Wind.
[D.Q.A., J.C.S.]
Further Reading
Barber, E. J. W. (1991) Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of
Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Princeton, Princeton
University Press.
THEN see PRONOUNS
THICK
*dheb- ‘thick, packed’. [IEW 239 (*dheb-)\ Wat 13
( *dheb -)]. ON dapr ‘sad’, MDutch dapper ‘quick, strong’
(borrowed > NE dapper), OHG tap far ‘weighty, heavy’, OPrus
deblkan ‘large’, OCS debelU ‘thick’, Rus debelyj ‘strong’, Luv
tapar- ‘rule’. Hit tabama- ‘ruler’ (< Proto-Anatolian *dobros
‘± strong’). TochA tpar ‘high’, TochB tapre ‘high’ have been
placed here but these are rather to be associated with the
meaning ‘deep’. The inclusion of Anatolian alongside what
would otherwise be a series of cognates limited to the
northwest greatly increases the likelihood of PIE status.
*tegus ‘thick, fat’. [IEW 1057 ( *tegu -); Wat 69 ( *tegu-)\
Buck 12.63, 12.64; BK 105 (*t[ h Jik’-/*t[ h Jek’-)l OIr tiug
‘thick’, Weis few ‘thick’, ON pykkr ‘thick’, OE piece ‘thick’ (>
NE thick), OHG dicchi ‘thick’. Probably Hit fagu-Tat, swollen’
with ograde vocalism. Traditionally regarded as only a Celtic-
Germanic isogloss (and doubted even there by some in light
of the considerable loaning between those long-time
neighbors), the recent addition of a plausible Anatolian leg to
this item improves the case for PIE status.
?*g w retsos thick’. {/EW485 (^retso-); Buck 12.63]. Mir
bres ‘large, thick’, Weis bras ‘thick, fat’, Late Lat grossus ‘thick’.
While the Celtic and Latin forms might conceivably come
from the same source, they at best point to a northwest IE
form.
?*d6nsus ~ *dpsdus thick’. [/EW 202-203 ( *dens-);
Wat 11 (*dens-)\ Gl 150 (*t’ens-): Buck 12.64; BK 1 26 {*t 'an-
as-/*! ’on -as-)\- Lat densus ‘thick’, Grk dcccrvq ‘thick’. Hit dassus
‘massive, mighty’. The vocalism between the Greek and Latin
as well as the problematic Grk -s- < *-qs- have led some to
reject this correspondence, which lies at the heart of this
etymology. Inclusion of the Hittite form has also been
challenged. While the reconstruction is not fundamentally
impossible, each leg is very weak and does not present a strong
case for PIE status.
See also Fat; L\rge; Thin. [J.C.S.I
Further Reading
Neu, E. (1995) Hethitisch tagu “dick, (an-)geschwollen". KZ 108,
1-5.
THIEF see STEAL
THIN
*mp a kr6s ‘thin, long’. [IEW 699 ( *makros ); Wat 38
(*mak-)[. Lat macer ‘lean, meager, thin’ (via OFrench > NE
meager), ON magC thin’, OHG magar\h\ri, Grk peuepoq ‘long,
big, high; deep; long-lasting’ (cf. also paicedvoq long, svelte,
thin’). This particular word is one of the west and center of
the IE world. Other formations include Hit maklant- thin’,
Av mas- ‘long’ and guarantee that the root is widespread and
old in IE. Cf. the related noun *meh :l kos (gen. *mh il k(e)sds)
in Lat macor ‘meagemess’, Grk pf]Koq (Doric pcncoq) length,
largeness’, Av masah- ‘length’.
*tenus (gen. *pm6us) ‘thin, long’. [IEW 1069 ( *tenu-s );
Wat 70 ( *ten-)\ GI 684 ( *t h en-)\ Buck 12.65, 12.66; BK 106
(*f/ h /an>'-/*f/ h ion- K -)]. Olr tanae(DIL tana) Thin’, Weis tenau
‘thin’ (Celtic < pre-Celtic *tanaij(i)o-), Lat tenuis ‘thin, fine’,
ON punnr 1 thin’, OE pynne Thin, lean, not dense’ (> NE thin).
OHG dunni ‘thin’, Lith tpvas ‘thin, slim’. Latv tievs ‘slender’,
OCS tinuku ‘slender, thin’, Grk zava(f)6q long, elongated’,
tavv-dpiE, ‘long-haired, shaggy’, MPers tanuk thin, weak’,
Olnd tanu - ‘thin, slender, small’, tanuka- thin, slender, small'.
Also sometimes put here are Av tanu- body’, OInd tanO-
‘body’, but the relationship is doubtful. From *ten- ‘extend,
stretch’; particularly one should note Grk zdvvzai ‘is
stretched’, OInd tanoti ~ tanute ‘expands, extends, endures
Clearly old in IE. The original meaning must have been
‘stretched’, whence both ‘thin’ and, less commonly ‘long’.
*krKds Thin’. [IEW 581 ( *kork -); Gl 84 *k h ork h -)\. ON
horr ‘thinness’ (< Proto-Gmc *hurha- < *kfkos with stress
retraction appropriate to the formation of nouns from
adjectives), Czech krs ‘shriveled tree’, krsati (< *kfk-eh ti -) ‘lose
weight, wane’, Av korosa-gu- ‘with lean cows', OInd kfsa-
‘emaciated, lean, thin, weak’, kfsa-gu- ‘with lean cows’. Lat
cracens ‘gracile’ is sometimes put here but it offers some
phonological difficulties. The underlying verb is preserved
in Lith karsti ‘be aged or decrepit’, OInd kars- ‘grow thin or
lean; be thin or lean’. The geographical spread of this word’s
attestations guarantees its PIE status.
*skidrds thin’. [IEW 920-921 ( *skdi-d-)\ Gl 97
— 574 —
THRACIAN LANGUAGE
( *sk h eit -)]. OHG sceter ‘thin’, Latv spidrs ‘thin’, Grk
(Hesychius) omSapog ‘thin, slender’. A word of the west and
center of the IE world. The relationship, if any, with Lith
skiedra ‘chip’, Av sidara- ‘hole, cavity’, Olnd chidra- ‘pierced’,
chidram ‘hole, cavity’ is semantically very distant.
See also Extend; Long; Small. [D.Q.A.]
THINK
*men- ‘think, consider’. \1EW 726-728 ( *men-)\ Wat 41
( *men-)\ GI 394 ( *men-)\ Buck 17.14; BK 519 ( *man -/
*man-)]. Probably the most ancient formation attested with
this verb is the perfect *memdnh 2 e ‘think, remember’: Lat
meminl ‘remember, mention’, ON muna (pres, man )
‘remember’, OE munan (pres, man) ‘think’, Goth munan (pres.
man ) ‘think, believe’, Grk pepova ‘yearn’. Arm i-manam
‘understand’, Olnd mamne ‘thinks’. There would appear to
be two corresponding presents: (1) *mnietor ‘thinks’: Olr do-
moinethar ‘believes’, Lith miniii ‘remember’, OCS minjQ
‘think’, Grk paivopcn ‘rage, be mad’ (cf. the new Greek deri-
vative pavztg ‘prophet, diviner’), Av mainyeite ‘thinks’, Olnd
manyate ‘thinks’; (2) *mneh a ti: Grk pvppa ‘remembrance’,
Luv m(a)na- ‘see, look upon’. Cf. also Grk pepvrjpai ‘be mind-
ful of, remember’, Olnd a-mna- ‘commit to memory and hand
down’ which underlies the method of poetic transmission.
Other formations appear in Lat moneo ‘remind, warn’, Lith
menu ‘consider’, Latv minet ‘mention’, OCS mined ‘think,
seem’, Rus mnitV mean’, Luv mimma- (< *mimne/o -) ‘regard,
favor’, Olnd manati ‘mentions’. Widespread and old in IE.
*teng- ‘think, feel’. \IEW 1088 ( *tong-)\ Wat 71
( *tong -)] . Lat longed ‘know’, ON ppkk ‘gratitude, reward,
joy’, pakka ‘thank’, pekkja ‘notice’, OE pane ‘thanks, favor’ (>
NE thank), pancian ‘thank’ (> NE to thank), pencan ‘think’
(> NE think), pyncan ‘seem’, OHG dank ‘thanks, favor’,
dankon ‘thank’, denkan ‘think’, dunken ~ dunchen ‘seem’,
Goth pagks ‘grace’, pagkjan ‘think, plan’, pugkjan ‘please’,
Alb tenge ‘resentment, grudge’, TochA tunk ‘love’, TochB
tank w ‘love’, cank- ‘please’, cancare- cincare ‘lovely, agreeable,
charming, delightful’. Widespread and old in IE. In contrast
to *men-, the underlying meaning of this word seems to have
been ‘think, be of the opinion of’ rather than the more assertive
‘think, know’.
?*g w hren- ‘think’. [IEW 496 (*g^hren-)\ Wat 26
( *g w hren-)} . ON grunr ‘suspicion’, grundr ‘meditation’, Grk
(ppr\v ‘midriff; soul, spirit’, (ppoveco ‘think’, (ppovzig ‘care’.
Possibly a word of the west and center of the IE world. The
Greek developments cast an interesting light on how IE
peoples may have conceptualized the physical location of the
thought process.
*m6nmg. ‘thought’. [IEW 727-728 ( *men-men-)\ Wat 41
(*men-)-, cf. GI 394 ( *men-)\ BK 519 man-/* man-)]. Olr
menmae ( DIL menma) ‘spirit, sense’, Olnd manman- ‘mind,
perception’. From *men - ‘think, consider’. Attested only on
the peripheries of the IE world, this word would seem from
its geographical distribution to be of PIE age.
*m£nes- ‘thought’. [/EW727 (*menos-)\ Wat 41 ( *men-)\
GI 186 ( *men-)\ BK 519 ( * man-/* man-)] . Grk pevoq
‘thought’, Av manah- ‘thought’, Olnd mams- ‘thought’. From
*men- ‘think, consider’. A word of at least the center and east
of the IE world.
*m£ntis (gen. *mi}t6is) thought'. [IEW 727-728 {*men-
ti-)\ Wat 41 (*men-y GI 172 ( *mpt h is): ; BK 519 {*imn-/
*mdn-)}. Lat mens ‘thought’, OE ge-mynd thought’, OHG
gi-munt ‘thought’, Goth ga-munds ‘thought’, Lith mmn's
‘thought’, OCS pa-mptl ‘thought’, Av - main - ‘thought’, Olnd
math ‘thought’. From *men- ‘think, consider’. Widespread
and old in IE.
See also Learn; Opinion; [D.Q.A.I
THORN
*tpiu- ‘thorn’. [IEW 1031 ( *(s)ter-n-)\ Wat 66 {*(s)ter-
n-); cf. GI 820], ON pom ‘thorn’, OE porn ‘thorn’ (> NE
thorn), OHG dom ‘thorn’, Goth paumus ‘thorn’, OCS trunu
‘thorn’, Khot tarra- ‘grass’, NPers tara ‘small twig’, Olnd tpnam
‘blade of grass’. Cf. with new full-grade: Grk (Hesychius)
zepvcd; ‘artichoke or cactus stalk’. The most widespread and
oldest word reconstructible for this meaning; the lndo-lraman
semantic innovation to ‘grass’ is remarkable. The form was
borrowed into some of the Uralic languages, e g., Finnish
tarna ‘sedge, grass’, from lndo-lraman.
*\treh a gh- ‘thorn’. [IEW 1180 ( *uragh -); Wat 78
(*wragh-)]. Mir fraig ‘needle’, Lith razas ‘dry stalk, stubble;
prong of fork’, Grk pa%6g ‘thornhedge, wattled fence; brush-
wood; branch’, payig ‘spine, backbone’. A word restricted to
the west and center of the IE world.
*glogh- ‘thorn’. [IEW 402 ( *gldgh-)\ Wat 23 ( *gloghd ] .
SC glog 1 thorn’, Grk (pi.) yk&xeg ‘beard of corn’, yXcoxtg ‘point,
end’, yX&Goa ‘tongue’. A later word restricted to the center
of the IE world.
See also Nettle. 1 D . Q. A . 1
THOUGHT see THINK
THRACIAN LANGUAGE
The Thracians were the ancient people of the southeast
Balkans. Geographically, the testimony of classical writers is
extremely unspecific but the center of their territory would
largely compnse that of modem Bulgaria, i.e , south of the
Danube, with extensions into the Aegean (the islands of
Thasos and Samothrace). There is also a long tradition in
ancient literature that Thracians crossed into northwest
Anatolia as early as 1200-1000 BC and continued to migrate
in that direction as mercenaries in later armies. They take
their name from that of a single tribe, the OppiKeg ~ Opatceq,
who were situated on the Hebros (the contemporary Maritsa),
a name which was then extended to a much wider territory
and its various tribes.
The Thracians are mentioned as allies of the Trojans in
Homer and later Herodotus ranks them, after the Indians, as
the most numerous people in the world. Their territory was
subjected to incursions from Greek colonies, Iranian-speaking
575 —
THRACIAN LANGUAGE
steppe tribes, and the Persian Empire. The Thracians formed
their own temporarily unified state under the Odrysae tribe
in the fifth century BC but this state fell to Macedonian
conquest in the fourth century. By the early second century
BC it was Rome that gradually controlled Thrace and after 46
AD Thrace became a Roman province. The subsequent
collapse of the Roman Empire saw Thrace as a thoroughfare
for a wide variety of tribes moving either through or against
the crumbling Roman state. The Slavs settled the region in
the sixth century AD, insuring total linguistic replacement of
the Thracians, if they had not already been hellenized centuries
earlier. That Greek culture had not entirely obliterated the
earlier Thracian is suggested by the fact that Thracian place
names such as Pulpuldeva survived into Slavic (Bulg Plovdiv)
rather than under their Greek form (&iXinnov7toXig) .
Description
The evidence for Thracian is not abundant. It consists of a
small series of short inscriptions in the Greek script and dating
from about the fifth century BC. These pose such serious
problems in reading, word division, and interpretation that
they remain without widely accepted translations. Other
sources include glosses found in Hesychius and Photius which
might number about thirty certain Thracian terms. Other than
this, one relies primarily on establishing etymologies for
toponymic and personal names attested since the fifth century
BC. These names may occur in large numbers and with
remarkable frequency, e.g., there are 360 instances of the
personal name Bi&vg, 132 of Tr)pT)g, 1 15 of ZevBqg. The most
recently attested Thracian personal names are found in two
monasteries in the Near East (the Bessi of Mt Sinai) dating to
the sixth century AD.
Some Thracian names offer reasonably transparent
comparison with Greek names, e.g., Thrac Aia-^evig may be
compared with Grk Aio-yevr\g. Such compositions permit us
to derive Thracian Dia- from PIE *diy(o)- ‘god’ or Thracian -
Cevig from *genhi- ‘be bom’. The latter, along with other
examples, e.g., Prjoog (name of mythic king and personal
name)(< *hjreg-), Esbenus, 'Ecrfieveiog (< *h j e/cy os ‘horse’),
the river ”Ap£og (< *h 2 fgos ‘white’), personal name Bv£ag
(< *bhugos ‘goat’) all suggest that Thracian palatalized and
assibilated the PIE palatal velars and thus belonged to the
sat9m group. The establishment of a series of probable recon-
structions, e.g., BefipvKEg ‘tribal name’ (< *bh£bhrus ‘beaver’) ,
oKaXgT) ‘knife, sword’ (< *skolmeh a -\ cf. ON skplm ‘prong,
sword’) permits one to list a series of other Thracian develop-
ments, e.g., deaspiration of voiced aspirates, *o > a, etc.
Until 1957 it was normally presumed that Thracian might
also embrace Dacian, the language spoken north of the
Danube, and the term Thraco-Dacian occurs widely in
linguistic works. Reasons for questioning the ascription of all
east Balkan tribes to a single language is the toponymic
evidence which shows considerable disparity between terms
employed south of the Danube and those found north in
historically “Dacian” territory. Typical Thracian toponymic
elements such as -para ‘settlement’, -bria ‘town’, -<5i£a ‘fortified
settlement’ (< *dheigh - , cf. Grk xeixog ‘wall’) and *-sara ‘river’
are all found exclusively south of the Danube. In a thorough
review of the toponymic evidence, only 36 roots out of over
3000 east Balkan words could be adjudged truly “pan-
Thracian”, i.e., comprising both Thracian (in the strict sense)
and Dacian. It must be noted, however, that the lexical
evidence is far more abundant for the area south of the Danube
which could well skew any attempt to quantify the differences
between the various regions.
Thracian Origins
As with other IE-speaking groups of the Balkans, the
establishment of Thracian origins depends very much on
where one wishes to situate the IE homeland itself. A chain
of cultures, each with roots in the former, can be established
in Thracian territory from our earliest records of Thracian
names through the Iron Age Basarabi culture of the eighth-
sixth centuries BC back into the local late Bronze Age cultures
whose own origins are sought in the earlier Otomani-
Wietenberg culture of the earlier Bronze Age. The most recent
major discontinuity in the Bulgarian archaeological sequence
is generally set to the period c 3300 BC with the establishment
of the Ezero culture which is tied into a Balkan-Danubian
complex of cultures that followed on from the late Neolithic
of the region. For those who seek the IE homeland in the
— 576 —
THREEFOLD DEATH
steppelands of the Ukraine and southern Russia, this horizon
reflects the initial Indo-Europeanization of the Balkans and
possibly northwest Anatolia. Evidence for steppe intrusions
is found in the form of kurgan or tumulus graves in Bulgaria
(at least seventeen Yamna-culture cemeteries have been
investigated with nearly a hundred burials) and elsewhere
throughout the Balkans that reproduce rituals and objects
known from the steppelands. To this archaeological evidence
may be added the evidence of physical anthropology that sees
an intrusive physical type from the north Pontic region (a
more robust proto- Europoid type) superimposed on a much
more gracile Mediterranean population.
There are those who do not regard the discontinuity afford-
ed by such steppe movements as sufficient to explain the
Thracians and would seek their roots earlier still in the local
Neolithic cultures. Bulgaria is extraordinarily well represented
here since tell sites in southern Bulgaria show in their sequence
of well stratified layers a line of settlement continuity from
the beginning of the Neolithic c 6000 BC. There are those
who have sought the IE homeland in the Balkans itself (both
its “central” position with respect to the other IE stocks and
the presumed antiquity of its river names have been advanced
as arguments) while others argue that as the Neolithic
economy itself is intrusive to this region from Anatolia, the
homeland must be set there in the eighth and seventh
millennia BC. Whatever lines of continuity one may wish to
follow, the reconstructed cultural lexicon of Proto-Indo-
European would not permit a PIE “cultural horizon” in the
Balkans much earlier than the fourth millennium BC.
See also Cernavoda Culture; CopFENi Culture;
Dacian Language; Ezero Culture; Indo-European
Languages; Phrygian Language. (J.PM.J
Further Readings
Language
Detschew, D. (1957) Die thrakischen Sprachreste. 2nd edition by
Velkova. Vienna, 1976.
Georgiev, V (1977) Trakite i Tehnijat Ezik. Sofia.
Brixhe, C. and A. Panayotou (1994). Le Thrace , in Langues indo -
europeennes , ed. E Bader, Paris, 179-203.
Katicic, R. (1976) Ancient Languages of the Balkans. The Hague,
Mouton.
Polome, E. C. (1982) Balkan languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-
Moesian), in The Cambridge Ancient History , vol. Ill, part 1,
eds. J. Boardman et al, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
866 - 888 .
Origins
Bernhard, W (1986) Die Ethnogenese der Thraker und Daker aus
dem Sicht der Anthropologie. Ethnogenese europaischer Volker,
ed. W Bernhard, A. Kandler-Palsson, Stuttgart, Gustav Fischer,
103-136.
Best, J., and N. de Vries (ed.) (1989) Thracians and Mycenaeans.
Leiden, Brill.
Hoddinott, R. (1981) The Thracians. London, Thames and Hudson.
THREAD see TEXTILES
THREATEN
*ghres- ‘± threaten, torment’, let. /CVV r 445 ( *ghers-)\ VW
234] . Lith gresiu ‘threaten, menace’, gnstu ‘be disgusted with’,
grasa ‘threat’, grasinu threaten’, Latv grasat threaten’, TochAB
krasa- ‘vex, torment’ (Latv and Toch < *ghrosch :r ). The
agreement of Baltic and Tocharian, an agreement extending
to the level of morphology, strongly suggests at least late PIE
status for this word.
*?*sker- ± threaten’. [VW 429 1 . OHG sceron be petulant',
MLG scheren ‘to ridicule’, TochB skar- speak hostilely;
threaten; reproach’. Possibly PIE status.
See a Iso Contend . 1 D . Q . A . ]
THREEFOLD DEATH
The “Threefold Death” theme, as it is unfolded in various
Indo-European narratives and other contexts (myth, story or
legend, account of sacrificial death or perhaps of execution)
is thought to show another repetition or retlex of the canonical
IE trifunctional division: First Function (FI) sovereignty.
Second Function (F2) offensive and defensive war, Third
Function (F3) increase, fertility, sexuality. A “Threefold Death"
would refer more or less precisely to three kinds of death,
each connected to or situated in some aspect of one of the
three IE functions. This theme has been identified in a number
of IE-speaking traditions, especially in the Celtic and Germanic
evidence but not limited to these areas, with the differences
and variations to be expected. While much of the evidence
simply connects a particular type of death to a particular
functional area, the most dramatic representation of the theme
has a victim (king, hero, or other) simultaneously undergoing
or suffering a triple-death, that is, the victim is done to death
by three different means
The connection between the three IE functions and
different modes or means of death can be made first, though
to a limited extent, on the mythic level. Here we have the
evidence that the Norse-Germanic deity OcMnn-Wotan, a First
Function divinity on the dark, uncontrolled or Varunaic side
of this divided function, is called hangagod, god of the hanged'
or the ‘hanging god’; indeed, the Norse Havamal says that
Odinn hanged or sacrificed himself, ‘myself to myself,’ for
nine days and nights in order to gain certain exceptional
(runic) powers. Hanging or suspension “above" or “in the
air” (or falling) is clearly marked with FI characteristics.
Suggestions of another part or reflex of the death-myth are
found in the sacrifice by drowning seen in the Norse-Germanic
tradition, a sacrifice dedicated to an F3 deity, such as the
goddess Nerthus (Germanic) or the god Njbrdr (Norse). The
F3 divinity is thus attached to a sacrificial event, the drowning
or burial alive, that is placed “below" as Tacitus, in his
Germania , describes slaves being drowned as a sacrifice to
the god Nerthus. A Second Function myth-death has been
more difficult to locate; we would expect some sort of sword-
death or a death by means ol some other kind ot warriors
577 —
THREEFOLD DEATH
weapon, and hints of this are found in the Northern
(Germanic) traditions, though rather late in time: Jordanes’
Getica (late sixth century AD) says that the Goths “spilled
blood” to their war-god while the Icelandic Eyrbyggja saga
mentions blood-sacrifice to Forr. According to the Roman
observer Lucan (first century AD) the Celts sacrificed victims
to Taranis, one of their war-gods, in another way: they seem
to dedicate their F2 victims by fire rather than by the sword,
presumably imagining the deadly fire as a “piercing” element,
or perhaps taking fire to be a specific means of warlike
aggression. Another aspect to the developing theme that
connects particular, functionally located divinities to a
particular mode of sacrifice (or execution) connects the victim
himself to a specific functional identification: for example the
FI king hanged, the F2 warrior slain by a weapon, the F3
commoner or slave buried alive or drowned.
The “Threefold Death” in its fully articulated form appears
in certain Irish sources: typically, a king dies a triple-death,
often fulfilling a prophecy made by a sacral (FI) figure such
as a druid or, later, a saint. The means of death are: by a
weapon, a fall, drowning or by a weapon, burning and drown-
ing, though elsewhere the three death-modes are given as
wounding, hanging and “imprisonment,” as in a list of punish-
ments given in the Corpus Juris Hibemici. The drowning
(most dramatically in a vat of beer) happens when the doomed
victim tries to escape the flames of a burning house, fort or
hostel: the conjunction of life-threatening fire and a vessel or
cauldron of some liquid is an old theme in both Irish and
Welsh Celtic legendry. Another reflex of the theme is seen
when the threat of suffering a threefold death is included in a
curse, which is close to but not exactly like the prophecy
noted above. This triple-death theme spreads downward or
outward from royal or heroic legend, and is widely current in
the folklore of IE-speakers; here snakebite (a “piercing” and
poisoning) is often tied to hanging or to a fatal fall, and to
simultaneous drowning, though other variations are certainly
possible.
The strong Indo-European flavor present in the “Threefold
Death” theme emerges in such characteristics as the fact that
the king, who as sovereign power ideally commands all three
of the IE Functions, should in a mythically perfect or
symmetrical fashion be killed or sacrificed simultaneously by
some means closely associated with each function. The theme
also crosses over to and reinforces or is reinforced by other
well-identified IE modes, such as that called by Georges
Dumezil the “Sins of the Warrior”. As an example: in the
Norse-Germanic story of Starkadr (Saxo’s Starcatherus) this
strange warrior’s first and greatest “sin” is to arrange, by the
will of Odinn, the death of King Vikar. Starkadr lures the
king into a situation where he is simultaneously hanged or
strangled (by willow twigs or, in another version, a noose of
gut) and stabbed by a reed that turns into a spear. The willow
and the reed suggest the waterside, and thus a lost or obscured
drowning theme, that is, an appropriate F3 death. The
conjunction of trifunctional signs and death-modes is also
discovered in the ancient Greek evidence in the death of King
Agamemnon, slain by a weapon but in his bath, and while
caught in a net. The theme is even possible to find in the
death of the Germanic hero Siegfried, who is also killed by a
weapon, but while drinking from a spring, and near a linden-
tree; hanging and drowning themes remain as mere
suggestions here. Finally, from a Russian source (Slavic
materials are not especially rich in IE patterns) we have the
death, given in the Russian Primary Chronicle , of Prince Oleg:
after defying a prophecy (FI) the prince was killed by a snake-
bite, the serpent (here showing an F3 “subterranean” sign)
emerged from the skull of Oleg’s dead horse (an F2 animal,
the warrior’s mount). This example is slightly distorted, but
maintains intact the central pattern of the “Threefold Death”.
It should be remarked that it remains an open question as
to whether, in an archaic or traditional Indo-European society,
execution — the legal taking of life in the name of the state or
society — was at all times directly derived from sacrifice to
one or another “functional” divinity. We do have a considerable
number of data showing that a traditional capital punishment
could be fitted to a specific IE function; for example, burial
alive was directed for crimes committed against property or I
sexual delicts, that is, offenses against areas included in the
Third Function. Also, and this quite recently in English history,
the crime of treason — a grievous offense against sovereignty —
was punished by what can be read as a trifunctional punish-
ment: hanging, drawing and quartering involved suspension,
the cutting or piercing of the victim, and mutilation of the
genitalia.
See also Death; Warrior. [D. A. M.]
Further Readings
Evans, D. (1979). Agamemnon and the Indo-European three-fold |
death pattern. History of Religions 19, 153-166.
Radner, J. N. (1983). The significance of the threefold death in Celtic
tradition, in Celtic Folklore and Christianity, ed. P Ford, Santa
Barbara, 180-200. 1
Sayers, W (1990). Guin agus Crochadagus Gdlad. the earliest Irish
threefold death, in Proceedings of the Second North American
Congress of Celtic Studies, Halifax, 1989, ed. C. Byrne, Halifax,
65-82.
Ward, D. J. (1970). The three-fold death, an Indo-European
trifunctional sacrifice?, in Myth and Law Among the Indo-
Eurdffians, ed. J. Puhvel, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 123-142.
THREE-HEADED MONSTER
The monster- fight is typically woven into any number of
hero-tales or, somewhat more significantly for our purposes,
mythic narratives in which the hero is a prime subject or
mover. The theme is by no means limited to the IE context,
and can even become a kind of banal or comedic cliche (as
the Maiden, the Knight, and the Dragon). So far as IE heroes
are concerned — that is, hero-figures drawn from the mythic,
epic or parahistorical traditions taken from the cultures of
IE-speakers — the theme of combat with a monster-opponent
578 —
THREE-HEADED MONSTER
may unfold at any point in the heroic tale, and may express
elements that might be tentatively named as proving, proofing,
marking a rile of passage and reflecting the hero’s bane.
Proving uses the monster to demonstrate heroic character and,
especially, heroic precocity, as when the infant Herakles
strangles the two serpents sent by Hera to attack him in his
cradle. Proofing recalls the bath in the slain dragon Fafnirs
blood that made Siegfried almost invulnerable: in this
rendition, the “bath of invulnerability” attaches the Germanic
hero to Greek, Ossetian, and Indie epico-mythic parallels —
in all cases, again, the heroes are made almost invulnerable,
since it is axiomatic that a hero, as a human, must finally die.
The monster- fight as a rite of passage introduces the rescue
and “winning” of a female, who is the victim or monster’s
prey, as in the myth of Perseus and Andromeda, or it may be
made part of a wider text as in the Old Welsh story Culhwch
ac Olwen, where the monstrous boar Twrch Trwyth must be
pursued and slain. On another line, the dragon-monster, as a
sign of death and darkness, may “test” and transform the hero,
as is hinted in the Greek myth of Jason. The monster as hero’s
bane is revealed as an element in hero death-tales: the cause
of the death of a superhuman figure, perhaps made proof
against any ordinary death, is assigned to a monstrous
(possibly super-animal) power. The Beowulf t ale thus has its
hero-king prove his prowess by defeating two monstrous half-
human entities, but he ends his life in mortal combat with a
third, a dragon. The saga of Hrolf Kraka, with its potent super-
natural elements, also ends with its hero (who, as a shape-
changer, is himself a kind of monster) defeated by fate and
another monstrous being; the Germanic part of the IE family
has a demonstrable penchant for mixing monstrous humanoid
beings into heroic myth or epic at some dramatic moment.
The shape the hero’s monstrous opponent takes can be
roughly parsed: the serpent-dragon (draco) is familiar from
Greek myth but is seen extensively elsewhere as an image of
fearful monstrosity either borrowed or generated auto-
nomously. The giant boar is not only a Celtic monster, for it
is seen in Greek hero-myths as well. The half-human monster,
as we have noted, is likely to be seen in the North, where the
Norse lygisoguro r fantasy-tales are full of every variety of the
type, and often the magical shape-changer theme — the shape-
changer as hero or villain, as white or black magic-worker —
is mixed in as well. The sea monster appears in another
category, its fearsome potency increased because the hero must
enter another, dangerous realm to fight it.
It should also be noted that the hero himself may be
twinned with a monstrous animal or may actually be identified
with an animal and/or monster. Heroes are associated with
serpent-twins or, more commonly, with supernatural horses,
horses who may (as in the Greek context) have flesh-eating
or death-dealing, that is monstrous, powers. A particular of
the theme of the supernatural generation of the hero is seen
in the form of a mythic crop of warriors “grown” from dragons
teeth; the Greek spartoi are warriors who are produced
asexually from a dragon-monster and are thus defined as
perfect warriors, detached from any familial tie at all At the
other end of his life a warrior-hero, rather than dying in a
monster-fight, may himself become a monster; this subtheme
is seen, for example, in the quasi-historical Norse Jdmsvikinga-
saga where a Jomsviking chieftain, Pui Digre, leaps into the
sea with his treasure and becomes the monster guarding it on
the sea-bottom, and seems to be associated with another
narrative theme, that of the dragon or sea-monster seen as
Guardian of Treasure. Moreover the “hoarder” or obsessive
guardian of treasure also has its resonance in the IE imaginal
vocabulary, as referring to a bad (ungenerous) king (e g.,
Midas). Finally, the hero-lycanthrope (hero as wolf, hero as
bear) may also be conflated into this monster-theme; here is
one aspect of the heroic paradox, when he appears or is imaged
as Perfect Man, and also as Perfect Monster.
The Tricephalous Monster
The most characteristic IE monster-combat mythologem
involves a tricephal, a three-headed being, usually but not
invariably a dragon. The antiquity of this motif is guaranteed
by linguistic evidence for a PIE formulaic expression
*(hje)g w hent h}6g w him ‘he killed the serpent’, which is
widely found among those IE stocks which retain vestiges of
the dragon-slaying myth, e.g., OInd ahann ahim ‘he killed
the serpent’, Av janat azim ‘[who] killed the serpent’ with
lexical substitutions in Greek, Hittite and Germanic. The
expression also suggests the original identity of the dragon as
a ‘serpent’.
This being is defeated and slain by a divinity or a culture
hero who is clearly associated with Dumezils Second or
Warrior Function, that function intended to guard society.
The Dumezilian line of research which originally uncovered
the IE mythologem first examined two closely related but
also significantly varied accounts, one Indie (Vedic) and the
other Iranian (Avestan): the slaying of tricephalic monsters
by Trita Aptya, aided by the god Indra, who sometimes is
called the real slayer of the tricephal) and the Iranian hero
©raetaona (also called 0rita A0wya) who won, by his victory,
the appellation VaraQragna, evidently signifying “monster-
defeating warrior-hero”. The monsters were, respectively,
Vrtra, the three-headed son of Tvastf , and the three-headed
dragon Azi Dahaka, who, in the later Persian rendition of the
story given in the Shahnameh became Zohak, as ©raetaona
there became Feridun.
The complex lines tying these two IE narratives together
must take account of linguistic dues and linguistic problems
as well as underlining the differences in the uses to which the
two IE sources have put the myth-narratives. Linguistically,
the resemblance of Iranian Varathragna to Indie Vjrtrahan,
‘slayer’ (or ‘smasher’) of Vrtra, seems indubitable; and there
is also cause to surmise that the Iranian monster-dragon Azi
Dahaka has a cognate in the Indie (Vedic) term Dasas, meaning
an enemy people. Two important and continuing themes may
be noted at this point: that ol a reciprocal tripartism in the
hero-monster conflict, and that of the wider distribution of
— 579 —
the role of the Second Function monster- fighter, sometimes
but not invariably re-attached to a three-fold apparition. The
first theme recognizes or underscores the fact that a triply-
significant figure such as the Indie Trita Aptya, one of three
brothers, fights a tricephalic monster or foe. Dumezil found
a parallel here to that piece of Roman legendary “history” in
which the three Horatii fought and slew three Alban
champions, only one of the three Roman combatants surviving
the fight. The triplex foe also seems to represent, in all three
traditions, the “hostile” and non-Indo-European potency; the
Indie and Iranian sources casting this foe in the form, as
Greenbaum suggests, of the “hostile dragon of the non-Indo-
European peoples”. Another reading of the combat-theme,
however, notes that the slayings in at least two cases (the
Indie and the Roman) involve the death of kinsmen, not
strangers, and it may be that in all cases an element of forbid-
den killing can be found, i.e., the warrior-hero or other Second
Function figure goes, as usual, beyond accepted limits, and
violates important taboos, in gaining his necessary victory. In
this he again demonstrates what Dumezil had found elsewhere
in the hero of this function, his propensity toward the excessive
use ot the force that marks his fonction , and so toward “sin”.
The second theme, of the wider distribution of the heroic
monster-slayer, brings us to a character who is not only a
typical transgressor, but who also rejoins the subtheme of tri-
plicity. The Greek hero Herakles, who later became immortal
and was declared divine, was one of the figures Dumezil chose
to illustrate his theory of the “sins of the warrior”, the warrior-
hero committing three sins against the rules of each of the
three canonical fonctions. Herakles was also a great fighter
against monstrous opponents (lions, the serpent- Hydra, a
giant boar, man-eating horses, and so on) and one of these
was the three-headed Guardian of Hades, Kerberos. The
paradigmatic hero did not slay this monster, merely took him
captive, as one of his Twelve Labors. He may be called, in
fact, the “Greek Indra”; as the Indie god was also sometimes
recalcitrant, and committed a sin against each of the three
Functions. Dumezils third example of a sinning warrior, taken
from German legendry, was the old warrior Slarcatherus or
Starkadr. However, Starkadr was not specifically a monster-
slayer, in fact, in his Giant ancestry and possibly in his
appearance he was rather a monster himself; if he was a Giant
by birth, however, he did make a habit of fighting giant -like
opponents. The Second Function monster-slayer in the
Germanic exten-sion of the IE cultural/linguistic family was
in fact the god Forr (to whom, in fact, Starkadr tried to attach
himself in terms of the warrior mode he chose). Forr fights
monsters (the Midgard-serpent, various Giants) as, it would
seem, part of his task of trying to bring order to the social
cosmos; this monster-fighting attribute is in line with his social
guardianship, which in his case is balanced against his less-
controlled War-god aspect.
The monster-combat thus may be identified as a widely-
encountered-IE heroic theme, that is of interest because the
hero himself seems to be imaged as close to a monster in
several aspects, but especially in his penchant for going
beyond accepted bounds. The result is a potentiality for being
as damaging to his society as he might, in his correct mode,
be its defender. The identification of a specific tricephalic
opponent has been useful in terms of establishing narrative
resemblances between IE contexts, and also where the
tricephal seems to be a coded image for the non-IE enemy, or
— 580 —
THROW
the “more numerous” foe. The iricephalic image may also fit
with other IE tripartite formulae, though precisely how this
occurs is not yet clear.
The tricephalous myth has been interpreted by Bruce
Lincoln as the central event of what he terms the myth of the
“first cattle-raid”. He reconstructs a myth in which a hero
*Tritos ‘Third’ (ON Hymir, Grk Herakles, Hittite Hupasiya,
Av Qraetaona , Olnd Trita ) has suffered loss of his cattle to a
serpent (ON Midgard-serpent, Grk Geryon the Tpi-K£(paXoq ,
the grandson of the Medusa, Hit llluyanka who is depicted as
a serpent, Av Azi Dahaka , the Qri-kamaradam , Olnd
Visvarupa, the tri-sirsanam ) who is associated with an enemy
community (Av Dahaka , Olnd Dasa ). He sets out to recapture
his cattle, assisted by a deity *h a ner- ‘Man’ (ON Lorr, Hit
Innara , Av Vayu, Olnd Indra ), and fortified by an intoxicating
beverage, he kills the three-headed monster. This raid, which
involves the reclamation of Aryan cattle from non-Aryan
thieves, is seen to sanction cattle-raiding among the early Indo-
Europeans.
See also Cosmogony: Cow; Poetry; Snake; Warrior.
[D.A.M., J.PM.l
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. and L. Renou. (1934) Vjrtra et VoraOragna. Paris,
Imprimerie Nationale.
Dumezil, G. (1939) Deux traits du monstre tricephale indo-iranien.
Revue de 1’Hislorie des Religions 122, 5-20.
Dumezil, G. (1956) Aspects de la fonction guerriere chez les Indo-
Europeens. Paris, PUE
Dumezil, G. (1970) The Destiny of the Warrior. Chicago, University
of Chicago.
Greenbaum, S. (1974) Vftrahan - Varathragna: India and Iran, in
Myth in European Antiquity, eds. G. Larson, C. S. Littleton, J.
Puhvel, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California, 93-
97.
Lincoln, B. (1981) Priests, Warriors, and Cattle. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, University of California.
Watkins, C. (1995) How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European
Poetics. New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press.
THRESH
*peis- ‘remove the hulls from grain, grind, thresh’ (pres.
*pin6sti) \IEW 796 (*pls-); Wat 48 ( *peis-)\ G1 598
(*pfieis-)\ Buck 5.56]. Lat plnso' remove the hulls from grain,
stamp, pound, crush’, Lith paisyti ‘thresh’, OCS pichati ‘hit,
stamp’, Rus pseno ‘millet’ (< *‘the threshed’), Grk kz(ggo)
‘winnow’, Av pisant- ‘threshing’, Olnd pinasti ‘grinds,
threshes’. Reasonably well attested and certainly old in IE.
The Greek cognate appears to specify the winnowing, i.e . ,
the separation of the husks from the grain after threshing by
throwing them into the air. All the other cognates suggest
that this word referred to the preliminary grinding of grain
whereby the outer coats were broken and removed, rather
than the later stage, whereby the grain itself was reduced to
Hour.
*yers- ‘± thresh (grain)’, [cf. IEW 1169 ( * uers-)] Buck
8.34], Lat verro ‘sweep’ (< *‘sweep grain after threshing ),
Latv varsmis ‘unwinnowed grain-heap’, OCS vrcsli ‘thresh’,
Hit wars; ‘plucks, harvests’, warsiya-' sweep (clean)’, also mow,
reap, thresh’, TochA wsar grain’, TochB ysare grain; wheat’
(Toch < *yersoro- with loss of the first *-r- by dissimilation).
Widespread and old in IE, though the exact range of the
original meaning is not easy to determine, perhaps because
the process of separating the grain from the chaff may take
many forms and involve several different processes, all of
which were subject to change and refinement. The meaning
of Hit warsi may, indeed, suggest that originally this verb
meant generally ‘harvest’.
*h 2 eh 2 er- ‘thresh, rake (for threshing)’. Lat area (<
*h 2 eh 2 eriieh a ) ‘threshing floor. Hit hahhar(a)- ‘± rake',
hahhariye- ‘± rake (into piles)’. Though not widely attested,
the equivalence of Latin and Hittite in this mat ter would seem
to guarantee PIE status to this word.
See also Grind; Harvest; Winnow. [D.Q.A. 1
Further Reading
Puhvel, J. (1976) Latin area and Indo-European threshing
terminology in Hittite. California Studies m Classical Antiquity
9, 197-202.
THROAT see GULLET
THROUGH
* per over, through, about’. 1/EVV810 ( *per) ; Wat 49
( *per ); BK 41 {*p[ h ]ar-/*p[ h ]dr-)\. OIr air- ‘before, for', Weis
er ‘before, for’, Lat per ‘through, traversing’, OE fyr- before ,
OHG firi- ‘before’, Goth fair- before’, OPrus per before , Lith
per ‘through, across, over; during’, OCS pre- ‘through, across,
over’, Alb per ‘for, about, on’, Grk Kepi ‘around (all sides),
about, over’, Hit pariyan ‘besides’, Av pairi ‘towards, around;
in front, earlier’, Olnd pari ‘around; about, towards’. Old in
IE. From a reduced *pp come Lat por- (verbal prefix), ON
for- before’, fyr ‘before, for’, OE for ‘for, in tront of’ (> NE
for), OHG for ‘from, in front of, furi ‘before, for', Goth faur
‘in front of, along, for’.
See a Iso Adpreps ; Before . 1 D . Q . A . 1
THROW
*(s)keud- throw, shoot’ (pres. *(s)k6ude/o-). (//fVV'955-
956 ( *skeud-)\ Wat 60 ( *skeud-)\ Buck 9.29] . ON skjota ‘hurl,
throw’, OE sceotan ‘hurl, throw’ (> NE shoot), OHG sciozan
‘hurl, throw’, OCS is-kydati ‘throw out’, Rus kidati throw’.
Alb hedh ‘throw’, Olnd codati ‘incites’, TochA kom ‘shoot (of
a plant)’, TochB kaume ‘shoot (of a plant)’ (Toch < *koud-
mo-). Widespread and old in IE.
*hjes- ‘throw, hurl’ (pres. *hi(e)sie/o -). [Buck 10.25], Hit
siyezi ‘throws, hurls’ ( siyari ‘gushes’), u-ssiye- ‘draw curtains',
pe-ssiye- ‘throw, push’, Av as- ‘throw’, Olnd asyati throws,
hurls’. Old in IE.
*g w elhi- ‘throw’. \IEW 471-472 (*g u e/-); Wat 25
— 581 —
THROW
( *g w eh-)\ Buck 10.25; BK 360 (*q’ w al-/*q’ w al-)]. Weis blif
(< *g w leh}men-) ‘catapult’, Grk paXXo) ‘throw’, ftXrjga ‘throw,
cast’, Av ni-yar- ‘be thrown down’. The geographical distribu-
tion of this word makes it a likely candidate for PIE status.
*iehi- ‘throw’. [/EW502 (*ie-); Wat 79 ( *ye~); Buck 10.251.
Lat iacio ‘throw’, Grk iryii (< *ii-ieh j -) ‘release, let go; throw’.
Though attested in only these two stocks, there is every chance
that this word was at least late PIE because in both Greek and
Latin the morphological shapes are old.
*syep- ‘throw, sweep (into the air)’. [IEW 1049 ( *suep -);
Wat 68 ( *swep-)\ Buck 9.34, 9.37], Lat supo ‘throw’, dis-
sipo ‘throw about, strew around’, ON svaP spear’, sod ‘broom’,
OE ge-swope (as if PIE *-£>-, rather than *-p-) ‘sweepings,
refuse’ (> NE sweep), OCS sUpp ‘strew, pour about’, svepiti
sp ‘be agitated’, Olnd svapo ‘broom’, TochB sopi ‘net, snare’
. (< * ‘throwing net’). Widespread and old in IE.
?*smeit- 1 throw’. [IEW 968 ( *smeit -); Wat 62 ( *(s)meit
(a)-)]. Lat mitto (< *smiUo) ‘let go, send’, Av maeO- ‘throw’,
ha-mista- ‘thrown down’. The fewness of the attestations of
this word make it only a possible item of (late) PIE vocabulary.
See also Spear. [D.Q.A.]
THRUSH
*tr6sdos ‘thrush’. [IEW 1096 ( *trozdos -); GI 458]. Mir
truit ‘starling’, Lat turdus ‘thrush’, ON prpstr ‘thrush’, OE
prysce ‘thrush’ (> NE thrush ), pros(t)le ‘thrush’, OHG drosca-
‘thrush’, OPrus tresde ‘thrush’, Lith strazdas ‘thrush’, Latv
strazds ‘thrush’, Rus drozd ‘thrush’. A word of the IE north-
west. Greek uses KixXr) ‘thrush’ from a root which also under-
lies the verb rciyXi'^o) ‘giggle, titter’ but orpovOog ‘sparrow’
may be related if not reflecting exactly the same PIE form.
The thrushes are of the genus Turdus and are best known
for their sweet song. The commonest of the genus are the
song thrush, blackbird and the fieldfare. The various thrushes
are well distributed throughout Europe to western and central
Asia. In India the chats are included with the thrushes under
such names as raktakanta -, ahiyaka- and syama-.
See also Birds. [J.A.C.G.l
Further Reading
Hamp, E. P. (1981) Refining Indo-European lexical entries, 1. Indo-
European ‘thrush’. KZ 95, 81.
THUNDER
*ghr6mos ‘thunder’. [ /EW458-4 59 {*ghromo-s)\ Wat 23
( *ghrom-o-)-. Buck 1 .56] . OCS gromu ‘noise’, vuz-grimeti ‘to
thunder’, Grk (Hesychius) xpopog ‘noise’. From *ghrem-
‘rumble, noise’ which is clearly PIE although the noun
*ghromos ‘thunder’ may have been independently formed in
different stocks.
*(s)tenhx- ‘groan; thunder’. [IEW 1021 ( *stono-s ); Wat
66 ( *(s)tena -); Buck 1.56]. Lat tonare ~ tonere ‘to thunder’,
ON stynja ‘groan’, porr ‘thunder’, OE stunian , punian , stenan
‘groan’, punor ‘thunder’ (> NE thunder), OHG donar
‘thunder’, Lith stenu, steneti ‘groan’, OCS stenjp, stenati
‘groan’, Rus ston ‘groaning’, Grk crreVtu thunder, sound,
drone’, (Hesychius) xevvei ‘to thunder’, Olnd stanayati ~
tanyati ‘thunders’. There is evidence for an athematic verb
(also Lat tonere?), and for zero-grade in Germanic (and
perhaps in Olnd tanyati). Lat tonare has been explained from
*tonh a -eie/o- as Olnd stanayati. Clearly PIE.
See also Thunder God. I R. S . P B . ]
THUNDER GOD
*perk w unos Thunder god’. (IEW 822-823 ( *pcrku
uno-sp cf. Wat 50 ( *perk w u -); GI 527 (*p h er(k ho )u-n-o-)).
ON Fjprgyn (mother of Porr, the Norse Thunder god), OPrus
percunis ‘thunder’, Lith Perkunas (Thunder god), Latv
Perkuns ~ Perkuons ~ Pgrkuons (Thunder god), ORus Perunu
(Thunder god), ?OInd Parjanya (Weather god). The Baltic
and Slavic names are all commonly derived from *pcrk w us
‘oak’ and the associative pattern is reinforced in phrases such
as Lith Perkuno pzuolas ‘Perkunas’s oak’, Latv Pprkona uozuols
‘Perkons oak’, ORus Perunovu dubu ‘Peruns oak', while con-
nections with ‘thunder’ are seen in OPrus percunis ‘thunder’,
Lith perktinija ‘thunderstorm’. Similarly, we have the Latv
Perkons mpt saw milnu ‘Perkons throws his mace' where the
word for mace is cognate with the ON mjpllnir ‘hammer’, the
weapon thrown by the Norse Thunder god Porr. The
association is explained by the frequent observation that
lightning strikes tall trees such as the oak. This association is
further reinforced by the Germanic tradition that Lorr strikes
his primary foes, the giants, when they hide under the oak
tree, one of the most frequent trees struck by lightning in a
forest, but he cannot hit them when they hide under a beech,
a tree that is very rarely struck by lightning. It is argued that
the underlying meaning here is not ‘oak’ but rather that the
Norse and Baltic forms are from *per-k w ~, an extension on
the root *per- ‘strike’, while the underlying extension in Slavic
is *peru- or *perg w u-. These would then be related to
*peruh x nos‘ the one with the thunder stone’, again from *per-
‘to strike’, which would form a basis for words relating to
‘stone’, e.g. , Hit peru ‘cliff, rock’, Olnd panata- ‘cliff, mountain'
and the names of the weather deities associated with storms,
e.g., OPrus Perun, ORus Perunu (Thunder god), cf. Ukr perun
‘thunder’, Czech perun thunder’, and possibly Alb peren-di
‘god’, Nuristani Parun (War god). This way there would have
been considerable crossing between the similar names for oak'
with that of ‘strike, thunder’ which would provide a broader
distribution for the semantic bundle than the linguistic
evidence properly allows. For example, in addition to the
observation that lightning (cf. ON Mjpllnir (name of Porr’s
hammer), Latv milna (name of Perkons's hammer) and the
words for ‘lightning’, e.g. OPrus mealde, Rus molnija)
frequently strikes oaks, there is also the widely held belief
that fire is residual within the oak, i.e., the Thunder god strikes
oaks and releases the fire from within them, or, alternatively,
a lightning strike stores up fire within the tree which can
then account for how one may release fire from wood through
friction. Another complex of associations is between fire and
i
I
— 582 —
TIME-DEPTH
stones and these can be linked by the observation that one
can kindle fire by striking stones against each other, e.g., Indra
brings forth fire between two stones ( RV 2.12.3). In both
cases, the act of producing fire through a ‘strike’ indicates the
creative potential of lightning and the two receptacles for fire
are brought together again in Greek tradition where it was
said that humans were created either from oaks or from rocks.
This creative potential can then help explain why the device
wielded by the Thunder god, the club, mace or hammer, is
also associated with fertility in the various IE traditions, e g.,
korr’s hammer is placed on the lap of a bride in a marriage
ceremony, Indra’s club ( vajra -) is not only used for destruction
but also for creation. The association of the Thunder god with
the oak tree is limited to the western part of the IE world
while the broader associations of Thunder god, lightning,
stones, fertility, etc., may be either independent creations or
refer back to a bundle of beliefs inherited from early IE
tradition.
See also Club; Oak; Thunder. [D.Q.A, J.P.M.]
Further Reading
Nagy, G. (1974) Perktmas and Perunu, in Antiquitates Indo-
germanicae , eds. M. Mayrhofer, W Meid, B. Schlerath, R. Schmitt,
Innsbruck, 113-131.
THUS
*ar ‘and, thus’. [IEW 62 (*ar); BK 389 ( *har-/*hdr-)] .
OPrus ir ‘and, also’, Lith if ‘and, also’, Latv ir'also’, Grk apcc
‘now, thus’, Prak ira ‘and’, TochB ra (emphatic particle).
Widespread and old in IE.
*it-‘ thus’. [IEW 283 MWels yt- (p reverb), Lat
ita ‘thus’, Lith it ‘very’, Latv it ‘right, even’, OInd iti ‘thus’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*ne‘thus’. [IEW 320 ( *ne)]. Lat ne (interrogative particle),
OHG ne (interrogative particle), Lith ne ‘as’, Latv ne ‘as’, OCS
neze ‘as’, Grk rove ‘thus’, Av ya6-na ‘that is’, Olnd na ‘like’.
Widespread and old in IE.
[D.Q.A. ]
TIE see BIND
TIME
*prest- ‘(period of) time’, [cf. IEW 811 ( *per-)\ VW 388],
ON frest ‘period of time, interval’, OE first ‘period of time,
interval; delay’, OHG frist ‘period of time, interval’ (Gmc <
*prestom ~ *presti - ), TochA prast ‘time, occasion; season’,
TochB presto ~ presciya ‘time, occasion; season’. Perhaps the
reconstruction should be *pres-sth 2 - ‘what stands before’. The
agreement of Germanic and Tocharian would seem to
guarantee PIE status for this word.
*kes(K)eh a -(or *kikseh a -I) ‘time’ . [Buck 14.11], OCS casQ
‘time’, Rus cas ‘hour’. Alb kohe ‘time, period, epoch; weather’.
Whatever its exact shape, an innovation of the central IE
region.
See also Day; Now; Seasons; Soon; Today, Year; Yesterday
[D.Q.A.]
TIME-DEPTH
The establishment of the period of existence of the Indo-
European proto-language rests to a considerable extent on
one’s conception of a reconstructed language. There are those
who argue that the process of linguistic reconstruction is by
its very nature without any temporal or spatial perspective
and can only be understood as a linguistic abstraction, a
system of sound laws. Consequently speculation as to the
date of this abstraction of rules is fundamentally idle although
one may discuss the relative ordering of the sound laws or
grammatical forms. This position would generally be regarded
as far too extreme in that tentative dates at least are often
ascribed to the proto-languages of the various Indo-European
stocks, e g., on the basis of reconstructed Proto-Germanic
and loanwords from neighboring Celtic, the ancestor of the
Germanic languages is set vaguely to 500 BC; in a more
controlled situation, scholars of the Romance languages can
set a confirmable date to Proto-Romance or the Common Latin
from whence the modern Romance languages are derived.
When Proto-Indo-European is ascribed some form of under-
lying reality that is also knowable, there are a series of methods
that have been employed to provide it with chronological
precision. These techniques may be divided into two basic-
types — relative and absolute chronologies — although there
have also been many suggestions as to the absolute dates of
relative chronologies.
Relative Chronology
Morphological ordering is one method of seriating Proto-
Indo-European into different chronological periods For
example, unproductive grammatical constructions such as
heteroclitics, where the stem alters between the nominative
and the other cases, has been seen to represent an archaic
formation generally associated with the most basic levels of
vocabulary, e.g., ‘water’ (nom. *uod-f but gen. *ued-n-s ), fire’
(nom. *peh 2 U-f but gen. *ph 2 U-en-s). Alternatively, the highly
productive o- and eh a - stems have been traditionally regarded
as relatively late IE formations and hence vocabulary asso-
ciated with them has been claimed to be “late”. The application
of such rules of thumb have not been particularly convincing
since it implies that the existence of the root (and cultural
item) must be directly related to its inherited grammatical
form. For example, such seemingly basic concepts as
*bherhxgos ‘birch’, *u!k w os ‘wolf, *Ii 2 ftkos bear’, etc., all
putatively late o-stems, have been explained as either evidence
that these terms had been gained only by Indo-Europeans
after late migrations into areas forested by birches or that the
wild animals, regularly known to peoples in Eurasia at least
since the upper Palaeolithic (c 40,000-12,000 BC), only
acquired enough cultural importance to require a name when
they became a threat to domestic herds and flocks in the
Neolithic (c 7000 BC). Such ingenuous reasoning is easily
exposed by consideration of archaic formations in English
where an ablauting plural seen in cow/kine is “old” but cow/
cows is recent. As in the case of kine > cows , the history of
583 —
TIME-DEPTH
The Basic (One Hundred) Word List
I you we this that who what not all many one two big long small woman man person fish bird dog louse
tree seed leaf root bark skin flesh blood bone grease egg horn tail feather hair head ear eye nose mouth
tooth tongue claw foot knee hand belly breasts heart liver drink eat bite see hear know sleep die kill swim
fly walk come lie sit stand give say sun moon star water rain stone sand earth cloud smoke fire ash burn
path mountain red green yellow white black night hot cold full new good round dry name
linguistic change is full of examples of the replacement of
unproductive morphological forms by productive ones. More-
over, it is certainly the case that throughout the reconstructible
history of Indo-European *o- and *eh a - stems have been the
most productive noun formations. Thus the archaic formation
may strengthen the case for the antiquity of the word but the
use of a more “recent” grammatical construction does not
necessarily indicate that the root or the cultural item itself is
more recent. In any case, the creation of a name for a particular
concept only tells us that those who created the term knew
the referent — not that their ancestors did not. The newly
created term may be a replacement for an older word with
the same referent, a word made obsolete by taboo, as is
arguably the case for any predecessors of *uj k w os and
*h 2 ftkos , or for some other reason.
The semantic development of the IE lexicon has also been
seen to provide some evidence for the chronological ordering
of PIE. This approach, championed particularly in the works
of Wilhelm Brandenstein and still employed today, sought to
distinguish between “earlier” meanings found preserved in
Indo-lranian and more “recent” semantic developments seen
in the other IE languages of Europe. Hence, PIE *h a egros
was found in Indo-lranian to mean ‘meadow, plain' while
among the European languages it denoted a ‘cultivated field’.
This reasoning, and similar observations, prompted Branden-
stein to argue that the earliest meanings were preserved in
the east among primarily pastoral IE stocks, i.e., Indo-lranian,
whose origin lay in the Asiatic steppe while later migrations
carried the Indo-Europeans into Europe where they adopted
agriculture and their inherited vocabulary experienced the
appropriate semantic shift to describe their new environment
and economy The logic of this approach is suspect since the
ordering ol semantic change can be reversed, e.g., it might be
argued that the word *h a egros originally designated a
‘cultivated field’ and was later extended to mean simply ‘plain’
by Indo-Europeans who adopted a more pastoral way of life.
A third approach is founded on the principles of geo-
linguistics, where the “age and area” hypothesis was extended
to linguistics to determine the antiquity of lexical items. One
of the most prominent geolmguistic principles was the notion
that central areas innovate while peripheral areas tend to
conserve older forms. For example, we may reconstruct two
terms for ‘fire’ in PIE. One of these, *h x ng w nis displays
cognates on the IE penphery in Latin, Lithuanian and Old
Indie while the other term *peh 2 Uf is found in the more
“central” languages of Umbrian, Germanic, Old Prussian and
Greek. Geolinguists explained the first cognate among non-
contiguous languages as the original PIE word for ‘fire’ which
had once extended across the territory of IE speech but was
later replaced, in the central region, by *pe/mjr. This shift
was explained in sociological terms which saw a “demo-
cratization” of the center with a neuter replacing the more
archaic animate form. Again, the conclusions far outran the
evidence which merely indicated that there were at least two
terms for ‘fire’ in PIE which may have differed semantically.
The example of the word for fire’, it might be noted, claims
that the more “archaic” form, i.e., the heteroclitic *peh 2 Uf , ,
was the “innovative” form.
A bsol ute Ch ronology
Absolute chronologies with calendrical dates are also
proposed on the basis of external dating, glottochronology,
dead-reckoning and archaeological inference.
The first technique is seldom employed today and depends
on the identification of language contacts between PIE and
some other dated linguistic phenomenon. Gunter lpsen, for
example, argued that Proto-Indo-European borrowed its word
for star *h 2 Sier from Akkadian istar and not the Proto-Semitic
form *aOtar ; therefore, Proto-Indo-European unity had existed
at least until 2000 BC when (he argued) istar first appears in
Akkadian texts. In actual fact, such a lexical borrowing is
highly dubious and there are no datable written records of
any language that provides us with credible evidence for the
date of PIE. To ascribe a date of c 2000 BC to Proto-Indo-
European is also contradicted by the fact that we already have
evidence for specifically Anatolian personal names by that time.
Glottochronology, the calculation of age separation between
two or more genetically related languages on the basis of their
retention or loss of a “basic vocabulary”, has been employed
to date the various “splits” between the different IE stocks.
The basic, allegedly “culture-free” vocabulary is a standardized
list of either 100 (see table above) or 200 words. The method,
based on generalizations formed from a control sample of
European languages, particularly Romance, assumes that two
languages genetically related will share 86% of the words in
common after 1000 years. In the original exercise of this
technique on the various IE stocks, Morris Swadesh found
the greatest time separation was between Latin and Tocharian
whose split he assigned to about 5000 BC while most of the
other IE stocks indicated mutual separations around 4000
584 —
TIME-DEPTH
BC or later. A more recent application of the method by Johann
Tischler found the range of separations from 4200 to 2400
BC with a mean date of separation of 3300 BC. Today the
technique has greater apparent credibility outside of Indo-
European, e.g., Africa, Oceania, than within it, despite the
fact that the early calibration of language separations was based
on the written record of IE languages. This relative lack of
favor for Indo-European languages is because its application
in a number of test instances has been found to be far less
accurate than its purported abilities to yield absolute dates
and the fundamental logic of the technique, that languages
possess a culture-free basic vocabulary which, like radiocarbon
atoms, decays at a constant rate seems unfounded. Moreover,
the implementation of the technique has proved quite difficult,
e.g., how does one compare the basic vocabulary of languages
that are not contemporary such as Hittite and Albanian? What
constitutes a “match” when cognates can vary from identity
to root cognates with varying morphological or derivational
processes? How can one even presume that we have all the
available lexical items in languages attested in a fragmentary
state such as Anatolian and Tocharian? Although it may
provide gross order of magnitude estimates, ascribing the
separation of the IE stocks to the period from about 4500 to
2500 BC, there is so much scepticism concerning the method
that even when its results are compatible with other forms of
estimations, it enjoys very little currency among most Indo-
Europeanists.
Another approach is perhaps best described as “chrono-
logical triangulation”, the linguist estimating the time of
separation between different languages or between language
stocks based on the observed (although admittedly subjective-
ly estimated) time of language separation elsewhere in the
world. Typical approaches would be those of Warren Cowgill
who, considering the state of the IE languages at c 1500 BC,
believed that the time necessary to explain the separation of
Anatolian, Greek and Indo-lranian should have been some-
where between 1000 and 2000 years, i.e. , the proto-language
should have existed c 3500-2500 BC. This same order of
magnitude has been invoked by many other linguists as the
most likely period of terminal Indo-European or the earliest
emergence of the individual IE stocks. Such a technique is
largely intuitive, and nowhere has the precise foundation for
such estimates been made explicit, but is based on the recogni-
tion that all languages do change even if all languages do not
change at a uniform rate. Projecting historically attested rates
of change back into prehistory provides some sort of upper
limit on how long two actually attested languages (or stocks)
can have been diverging. Thus, even assuming that all
prehistoric Indo-European languages changed as slowly as
Lithuanian has changed, extremely “high” dates for Proto-
Indo-European (say, more than 7000 BC) would be
impossible.
- A number of linguists have suggested a sequential develop-
ment and disintegration of the Proto-Indo-European language.
Francisco Adrados has proposed a three-stage system: 1) a
pre-inllexional stage before c 3400 BC; 2) a monothematic
stage embracing the Anatolian languages that separated
c 3400-3200 BC; and 3) a polythematic stage embraced by
all the other IE languages that began their separation c 3000-
2800 BC. With somewhat greater time-depth is the system
proposed by Wolfgang Meid which consists of an Early Indo-
European (c 6000-4500 BC) out of which the Anatolian stock
derives, a Middle Indo-European (c 4500-3500 BC) and Late
Indo-European (c 3500-2500 BC) which yields eastern (Indo-
lranian, Greek) and western (Italic, Germanic, etc.) groups.
Such deep chronologies are largely motivated by differences
between the evidence of Anatolian and the systems recon-
structed for PIE, on the one hand, and a series of shared and
presumably late isoglosses that may be found in Indo-lranian
and Greek. While such chronologies may conform with certain
linguistic expectations, other than the presumption that by
2500 BC, there was divergence among the IE languages, the
absolute dates are neither motivated nor supported by strict
linguistic evidence.
The evidence of archaeology' has also been sought to shed
light on the time-depth of Indo-European and may be
conveniently divided into two types. The first presupposes
an archaeological identity for the Proto-Indo-Europeans and
suggests dates which must in general conform with the
archaeological chronology. The dates provided for both the
systems of Adrados and Meid, for example, are to a
considerable degree motivated by an acceptance of the
“Kurgan theory” of IE origins which sets the homeland in the
Pontic-Caspian steppe around the fifth millennium BC.
Conversely, Luca.Cavalli-Sforza and Colin Renfrew, who derive
the Proto-Indo-Europeans from Anatolia and trace their
expansions through a “wave of advance" of early farmers in
Europe, turn the clock on PIE back to at least the seventh
millennium BC. As such chronologies require one to know
where the PIE homeland was before one can discuss when it
existed, such a technique is at best circular if not wholly
conjectural.
The second system involves the use ot lexico-eultural
evidence for providing broad ranges for the existence of the
proto-language before differentiation into major stocks. While
the reconstructed vocabulary cannot provide precise chrono-
logical markers, it does offer general parameters of plausibility
concerning the date of the existence of the proto-language in
question.
The range of domestic livestock — cattle, sheep, goat, pig —
and the presence of grain and the technical vocabulary of its
processing, e.g., grinding stone, sickle, ceramic vessels, all
indicate that major divergences within the IE stocks had not
taken place before the emergence of an agricultural or
Neolithic economy. The dates for the inception of the Neolithic
vary across Eurasia but the latest of the elements here, cera-
mics, do not generally appear before the seventh millennium
BG (excepting east Asia/Japan which lie far beyond any home-
land theories). This vocabulary provides rather unassailable
evidence that the proto-language existed at least until c 7000
— 585 —
1000 -
<j> ^ (jy ^ c^ ^ ^ ^ sf ^o°
till
I I
D
E
Time-Depth The ranges of Indo-European time-depth. A = the time of the earliest attestation of the various IE stocks; B = the time-
depth of the initial appearance of the latest items of the reconstructed PIE culture in the various regions of the IE stocks; C = the date
of the inception of the Neolithic in the regions of the various IE stocks; D = the time-depth of the arrival of the Indo-Europeans in
various regions according to the “Kurgan model” of IE expansions; E = approximate dates commonly ascribed to the proto-languages
(e.g., Proto-Celtic, Proto-Germanic) of the various IE stocks.
BC if it had been situated in the Near East (Anatolia to
Baluchistan) or Greece and later if the homeland is situated
outside of the nuclear zone of Neolithic developments.
The second horizon of temporal markers is somewhat less
secure because of the nature of either the linguistic or archaeo-
logical evidence. The presence in the PIE vocabulary of some
terms such as ‘wool’, ‘plow’, and words for wheeled vehicles
is supported strongly on linguistic grounds; however, the
precise location and dates for the inception of these items is
archaeologically less certain. The most recent would be carts
and wagons which do not appear in the archaeological record
anywhere in Eurasia prior to the fourth millennium BC. Terms
for metals are linguistically problematic; copper could date
anywhere from the seventh millennium BC onwards while
silver, arguably part of the IE vocabulary, is not generally found
earlier then the fourth millennium BC and then confined to
the Near East, the Caucasus and eastern Europe. If the horse
is taken to be domestic, the earliest domestic horses would
appear to date no earlier than the fifth millennium BC (some
would argue even later) and are geographically circumscribed
to eastern Europe. On both osteological evidence and the
evidence of fibres recovered from prehistoric sites, it has been
argued that the exploitation of sheep for their wool only began
at the end of the Neolithic, again c4000 BC. This would also
be the same time in which we begin to see evidence of the
plow in Eurasia. Broadly speaking, there is evidence to pre-
sume that the reconstructed Indo-European lexicon contains
elements whose “reality” should not long pre-date c4000 BC.
A terminal date for Proto-Indo-European is more easily
arrived at through the historical testimony of the IE ianguages.
Anatolian appears already by at least 2000 BC and the terminal
date of Proto-Indo-European can then be no more recent that
2500 BC. Other than perhaps ‘bronze’ which cannot be
reconstructed with certainty to PIE, there are few if any
cultural diacritics that can provide us with a more precise
terminus ante quem for Proto-Indo-European. On the other
hand, archaeological evidence for the late Bronze Age and
Iron Age may help to provide approximate chronological
markers for the differentiation between either individual
stocks (e.g., Celtic and Germanic) or within stocks.
The Utility and Limits of Absolute Dates
Absolute dates are a critical part of any attempt to situate
the Indo-Europeans in the prehistoric record but they also
have their limitations. The date ranges proposed for Proto-
Indo-European are not of the same order of precision as
586 —
TIN
absolute dates employed by archaeologists based on radio-
carbon, dendrochronology or cultural seriation against
historically anchored data. By its very nature, any “late” word
for a new technological item or other cultural or environmental
innovation must begin in an idiolect (individual speaker) and
then spread throughout the linguistic continuum. Such words
will be ascribed to the proto-language when they are found
to meet minimal requirements of distribution and when they
cannot be dismissed as independent creations involving
different IE stocks employing common derivational processes.
Every new word is, consequently, a loanword with a source
either internal or external to the language family in which it
is found. The most commonly accepted model of IE dispersals
envisages a linguistic continuum whose borders were con-
tinually extending until it was impossible for all of its speakers
to maintain the same course of linguistic evolution. Regional
differences would then appear and lead to the formation of
dialects, languages, and ultimately stocks. The speed at which
these differences might emerge among different late IE-
speaking populations was probably by no means constant
across the entire linguistic continuum of Proto-Indo-European
nor were all elements of IE phonology, morphology, or voca-
bulary equally likely to undergo some form of differentiation.
For example, *m is very stable among the different IE stocks
while *k w underwent a variety of different evolutions. Hence
a late invention such as the wagon and its name may have
passed among speakers of Proto-Indo-European with relatively
stable borders or among a proto-language which had expand-
ed rapidly but where the existence of only small dialectal
differences still permitted the original word to pass between
speakers. On the one hand, there is no linguistic means of
knowing precisely what one is dealing with when examining
lexical reconstructions while archaeology is of no help at all
unless one believes that he or she knows precisely what cul-
tures spoke Proto-Indo-European and also what the phonetic
inventory of each culture was. Hence the localization of lexical
items in both space and time depends to a large degree on
where and when one wishes to locate the IE homeland.
On the other hand, lexical-cultural items do provide some
evidence for discriminating between different hypotheses. For
example, if one wishes to maintain that the PIE homeland
was in Greece and that the Proto-Indo-Europeans had been
established there since 7000 BC and that they had dispersed
from there over the rest of Eurasia by, say, 4000 BC, then one
can evaluate the plausibility of such a proposal in light of the
reconstructed lexicon. The hypothesis suggests that the basic
reconstructed vocabulary was already present in Greece since
7000 BC. On the other hand, elements of the reconstructed
vocabulary that do not appear anywhere in Eurasia until after
4000 BC, e.g., wheeled vehicles, and animals such as the
horse, reconstructed to PIE, are unknown in Greece until after
2000 BC. To maintain that the language spoken in Greece
since 7000 BC evolved into the Greek language requires us
then to accept: 1) that the language spoken there since 7000
BC underwent no significant phonetic change for millennia
(otherwise the Greek words for wheeled vehicles and horses
would be detected as loanwords) and 2) that they acquired
these terms from outside Greece from a population still
speaking Proto-Indo-European (since the loanwords were
adopted in the same form as we would reconstruct to P1F. on
the basis of the other IE stocks). As neither of these assump-
tions is plausible, then either the place or the date (or both)
of this particular homeland solution must be wrong.
See also Indo-European Homeland; Proto-Indo-European;
Subgrouping, fj PM 1
Further Readings
Adrados, E (1982) Die raumliche und zcitlichc Differcnzierung des
Indoeuropaischen im Lichte dcr Vor - und Fruhgeschichic
Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft, Innsbruck.
Brandenstein, W (1936) Die erste Indogermanische' Wanderung
Vienna, Gerold.
Mallory, J. P. (1976) Time-perspective and proto-Indo-European
culture. World Archaeology 8 , 44-36.
Mallory, J. P (1996) The Indo-European homeland: A matter of time,
in The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe , eds. K Jones-
Bley and M. E. Huld, Washington, D C., Institute for the Study
of Man, 1-22.
Meid, W (1975) Probleme der raumlichen und zeitlichen Gliederung
des Indogermanischen, in, Flexion und Wortbildung. Wiesbaden.
Schlerath, B. (1981) 1st ein Raum/Zeit-Modell fur eine rekonstnnerte
Sprache moglich? KZ 95, 175-201.
Swadesh, M. (1960) Unas correlaciones de arquelogia y linguist tea.
in El Problema Indoeuropeo , Pedro Bosch-Gimpera. Mexico.
343-352.
Tischler, J. (1973) Glottochronologie und I.exicostatistik. Inns-
brucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft 11 Innsbruck, H
Kowatsch.
TIN
There is no reconstructible term for din' in PIE although
there are some clear instances of shared terms or words
borrowed from common substrates. Late Lat stannum or
stagnum both refer to a mixture of lead and silver, probably a
relic of galena smelting and the cupellation process involved
in the extraction of silver from lead. In this form we can see
the confusion of lead and tin metallurgy. The Germanic forms
(ON tin ‘tin’, OE tin ‘tin’ [> NE tin], OHG zin ‘tin’) are to be
associated with the Latin whose initial s- may either be an
instance of s-mobile or phonetic adaptation, perhaps a mis-
segmentation of an original attributive *h ct eios toennom tinny
metal’. The original source language remains unknown. Olr
cred ‘tin’ (found in composition credumae ‘bronze’, i.e., ‘tin-
copper’) is probably an ablaut variant of the same word *k w ret-
‘form’ whose zero-grade gives Weis Prydain ‘Britain’ and Olr
Cruithen ‘Cruthin’ (name of an ethnic group in early Ireland
which was applied to the Piets of northern Britain), hence it
was the ‘British’ metal, a reference to the important tin deposits
in Cornwall. Alternatively, the narrowest reference may not
have been to the smelted metal but to the ore, cassiterite. If
— 587 —
TIN
this is so, the Irish masculine noun may ultimately be related
to Olr ere ‘clay’, Weis pridd ‘clay’ and Lat creta ‘chalk’, for
though cassiterite itself is a dark brown mineral, it gives a
characteristic white streak. Grk Kaooirepog ‘tin’ has all the
hallmarks of an Aegean loanword. Efforts to provide it with
an IE etymology have not been successful nor has the attempt
to relate it to the ethnonym Kassite. Beneath the Sumerogram
NAGGA and the Akkadogram ANAKU, Hittite describes tin
as dankui-, which is homophonous with, and therefore
probably identical to, the adjective ‘dark, black’. Such a form
is an unusual referent for tin which is usually thought of as
‘white’ and we probably see another instance of the ancient
confusion between tin and lead.
The absence of a term for tin, the major constituent alloy
which is combined with copper to make bronze, has often
been employed to indicate a terminal date before which PIE
unity was dissolved, i.e., sometime during the “Copper Age”
but before the “Bronze Age”. The chronological significance
of our inability to reconstruct a PIE ‘tin’, however, is more
complex. The earliest material to be alloyed with copper
appears to have been arsenic (or at least copper ores naturally
high in arsenic were employed). The alloying of arsenic and
tin with copper reduced air bubbles in the casting and
provided for a much tougher implement or weapon. Arsenical
bronzes are generally found in a horizon that predates the
appearance of true, i.e., tin, bronze. This horizon appears by
the mid fourth millennium BC and includes the Kuro-Araxes
culture of the Caucasus, the Kemi Oba culture (with its
presumably imported arsenical bronzes), the late variants of
the Tripolye culture such as Usatovo, the Corded Ware culture,
Ezero, etc. But tin bronzes are also known sporadically from
the end of the fourth millennium BC in the Near East and by
the very early third millennium BC occasionally in Europe,
e.g., within the Corded Ware culture. At sites such as Troy,
which began c 2900 BC, the earliest bronzes were arsenical
and tin bronzes did not appear in any number until c 2200
BC. Tin bronzes are found elsewhere in the east Mediterranean
and in India during the early third millennium BC but
generally it is not until nearly 2000 BC that tin bronzes are
widespread in the Aegean. They appear in central and western
Europe after 2000 BC but earlier in Italy where local tin
sources may have favored their early development.
The problem with the late appearance of tin has much to
do with its rarity in nature as it is by no means as ubiquitous
as copper and the manufacture of bronze required extensive
exchange systems to carry tin from the locations where it
naturally occurred. These were limited to locations such as
Cornwall, Brittany, possibly the Massif Central of France,
Iberia, northern Italy and the Erzgeberge of Central Europe.
Tin is also poorly represented in India and 70% of the copper
objects in the Indus culture have one percent or less of tin
alloyed with them. This pattern would encourage the
expectation that words for tin in the various IE stocks may
well have shown some interstock relationships, e.g., Italic
and Germanic, but these words would be unlikely to reflect
pan-IE terms as IE differentiation would have been well on
its way before tin began to appear in many regions of Eurasia.
On the other hand, arsenical bronzes should have been known
in some regions at least by the period c 3500-3000 BC, i.e.,
the period in which we recover some of our earliest evidence
for both wheeled vehicles and silver, two items that one may
attribute to PIE-speakers. This technology, however, does not
seem to be recoverable through linguistic means. This un-
recoverability is not altogether surprising as arsenical bronzes
were replaced by tin bronzes and it is even questionable
whether a prehistoric community would have required a
separate term for such an alloy rather than employing some
modifier on their existing word for ‘copper’.
See also Gold; Iron ; Lead 2 ; Metal; Silver. ( M . E . H . , ) . P M . |
TIRED
*R emh a - ‘grow tired, tire oneself with work’ (pres.
n£-h a -ti). [7EW557 ( *kem(d)-)\ Wat 29 ( *kema-)\ Buck 4.91 ;
BK 258 ( *k[ tl ]am-/*k[ h ]am-)]. Mir cuma ‘grief’, MBret caffou
‘grief’, Grk KocpvcQ ‘be tired, work hard at’, Kopeco 'take care
of, attend to’, OInd samyati ‘becomes quiet, fatigues, ceases'.
Attested at both ends of the IE world. Surely old in this sense.
*lehjd- ‘grow slack, become tired’. [IEW 666 ( *leli]d-)\
Wat 35 ( *le-)\ Buck 4.9 1 1 . Lat lassus (< *lh id-to-) ‘tired’, lenis
(< *lehjd-ni-) ‘gentle’, ON latr ‘sluggish’, letja ‘hinder’, OE
laet ‘sluggish’, lettan ‘hinder’, OHG laz ‘sluggish’, lezzen
‘hinder’, Goth lats ‘lazy’, latjan ‘delay’ (Gmc < *lfrido- and
*lhldeie/o-), Lith lenas ‘lazy, gentle’, OCS lenii ‘lazy’ tBalto-
Slavic < *lehid-no - ), Alb lodhei (< *lehidetoi) ‘becomes tired’,
Grk (Hesychius) A 77 Seiv ‘be tired’, TochB ial - (< assimilated
from *lhid-nd) ‘exert oneself, tire oneseli out’. Perhaps
related to the homophonous *leh[d- 'leave, let’. Cf. NE let
(< *leh\de/o -), Alb le (< *lhid-ne/o-) ‘leave, let, abandon,
allow’, and surely Lith leidrm ‘let in/out, let go; issue’ though
the -i- of the latter form is difficult. Without the *-d- we have
the underlying *lehi-eie/o- in Hit la(i)- ‘let go, allow’. As a
word meaning ‘grow slack, become tired’ it is widely attested,
though perhaps significantly not at the extremes of the IE
world. Probably dialectal in late PIE and largely supplanting
the previous word.
*klh x m(-s)- ‘be fatigued, sleepy’. [VW 218-219). OInd
klam(y)ati 'be(come) weary, fatigued’, klanta- fatigued’, TochA
klis- ‘sleep’, TochB klants- ‘sleep’ (< Proto-Toch *klans-). A
word of the east of the IE world.
*streug~ be fatigued, exhausted’. [VW 44 1 ] Grk
or pevyopai ‘am exhausted, worn out; suffer distress’, TochA
sruk- ‘kill’ (historically the causative), TochB sruk- die’.
Though restricted to two stocks, the geographical distribution
of the reflexes strongly suggests at least late PIE status for this
word.
See also Sick, Slack, Sleep, Soft, Weak. [D.Q.A.I
tiszapolgAr culture
The Tiszapolgar culture forms the early Copper Age culture
of eastern Hungary and eastern Slovakia (c 4400-3700 BO.
— 588 —
tiszapolgAr culture
TtszapolgAr a. Distribution of the Tiszapolgar culture
TiszapolgAr b. House plan from Kenderes-Kulis, Hungary;
c. Male burial on right side with mandible of domestic boar at
head and pottery; d. Female burial on left side with pottery.
Settlements are found generally in the lowland plains. Dom-
estic architecture is not well known but does show evidence
of small (c 4 or 5 m long) rectangular houses, hearths, pits,
and querns. It has-been suggested that the houses, post built
with mud walls, were perhaps less substantial than the earlier
Neolithic houses of the same region. Moreover, while Neolithic
settlements showed longer term settlement, those of the
Tiszapolgar culture show thinner occupation layers and no
evidence for defensive architecture.
The agricultural economy of the culture is not well attested
but the remains of domestic animals include cattle, ovicaprids
and pig as well as dog while the hunted animals include red
deer, roe, aurochs and wild pig. Remains of brown hare are
recovered from graves.
The culture produced a wide variety of ceramics and stone
implements. More impressive were the copper shaft-hole axes
and occasional gold pendants.
The primary evidence for the culture relates to its burials
which occur both in settlements and cemeteries. The typical
form of grave was flexed burial in a pit. Sex was marked with
males buried on their right sides while females were buried
on their left. This practice is found elsewhere in Europe, e.g.,
the later Corded Ware culture, and in Asia, e.g., the
Tazabagyab, Bishkent, Vakhsh, and Swat cultures. All of these
other cultures are generally identified as linguistically Indo-
European. Grave goods consisted of pottery, copper tools and
ornaments, obsidian tools, boar tusks and mandibles (typically
found with males), stone and antler axes (males), dog burials
(mainly males) and beads (females).
According to the “Kurgan model” of IE expansions, the
Tiszapolgar culture represents a final “Old European”, i.e.,
native non-IE culture, which collapsed in the face of Kurgan
intrusions. On the other hand, those who seek the IE
homeland either in Anatolia with the spread of the Neolithic
economy or in central Europe would identify the Tiszapolgar
culture as part of the IE continuum. That the culture shows a
strong sexual dimorphism in burial ritual, typical of other
cultures commonly identified as Indo-European, and an
apparent decrease in stable settlement, all suggest patterns of
social and economic change that have been variously
attributed to local processes and steppe intrusions.
See also BodrogkeresztOr Culture. U P M . ]
Further Readings
Bognar-Kutzian, 1. (1972) The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgar Culture
in the Carpathian Basin. Budapest, Akademiai KiadO.
— 589 —
tiszapolgAr culture
Skomal, S. N. (1980) The social organization of the TiszapolgAr group
at Basatanya-Carpathian Basin Copper Age. JIES 8, 75-91 .
TO
*h a ed ‘at, to’. [IEW 3 (*ad-); Wat 1 (*ad-)]. Olr ad-
(preverb), OWels ad ‘to’, Weis add- (prefix), Lat ad ‘at, to’,
ON at ‘at, to’, OE set' at, to’ (> NE at), OHG az ‘at, to’, Goth at
‘at, to’, Phryg aS- ‘to’. Widespread and old in IE.
*do~ *de to, toward’. [IEW 181-183 (*de- ~ *do-); Wat
10 (*de-)]. Olr do ~ du ‘to’, OLat en-do ‘in’, Lat dd-nec ‘up
to’, OE to ‘to’ (> NE to), OHG zuo ‘to’, Goth du ‘to, towards’
(with d- rather than f- because it always occurred in an
unstressed syllable), Lith da ‘up to’, Latv da ‘up to’, OCS do
‘up to,’ Grk -8e ‘toward’, Av -da ‘to’. Old in IE.
See also Adpreps; Away. [D.Q.A.]
TOCHARIAN LANGUAGES
Tocharian is the name given, more than a little arbitrarily,
to two languages once spoken in what is now the Chinese
province of Xinjiang in northwestern China. They are chiefly
known to us from the remains of their literatures brought to
light by Prussian, French, Japanese, and Anglo-Indian
archaeological expeditions into this part of China in the two
decades immediately preceding the First World War. The
Tocharian documents are datable from the sixth through
eighth centuries of our era. What we have are rarely whole
documents but rather typically single leaves of manuscripts
originally brought as votive offerings to the various Buddhist
shrines in and around the inhabited area. There they were
left and subsequently were covered by the desert sands and
preserved in the almost rainless environment. Aside from this
Buddhist religious literature, almost always translations from
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, the language of Mahayana
Buddhism, there are also remains of medical, commercial,
and legal documents.
The two languages were spoken along the northern rim of
the Tarim Basin. Tocharian A (also called “Agnean” or “East
Tocharian”) is attested in documents of the regions of
Qarashahr (“Agni” in Old Indian, Yenqi in Chinese) and Turfan
in the center of Xinjiang. Remains of Tocharian B are also
found in those areas and also further west, from around Kucha
(whence the alternate name “Kuchean” or “West Tocharian”).
Already in 1908 there was enough known about these
languages to make it certain that linguists were dealing with
Indo-European languages of a heretofore unknown group,
e.g., Lat pater ‘father’, mater ‘mother’: TochA pacar, macar,
TochB pacer , macer. Early investigators labeled this new group
as “Tocharian” under the assumption that their language was
the same as that spoken by the Tocharoi who in the first half
of the second century BC era were driven by the Hsiung-nu
from Gansu in western China. After crossing Xinjiang, they
settled in southern Kazakhstan and adjacent areas. In
subsequent centuries, under the leadership of one of their
subtribes, tlie Kushans, the Tocharoi settled in Bactria and
eventually conquered a large area of northern India. In Chinese
Tocharian I The three branches of the Tocharian stock. Tocharian A
(Agnean or East Tocharian) is known from Qarashahr and Turfan;
Tocharian B (Kuchean or West Tocharian) is found at Kucha and
also in Tocharian A territory; traces of a third Tocharian language,
here designated Tocharian C, have been recovered from the Loulan
in the south of the Tarim basin.
historical records the Tocharoi are referred to as the Yuezhi.
The evidence for the identification of the Tocharoi with the
“Tocharians” is meager though not wantirig altogether but
the identification is more usually than not rejected. However,
in the absence of any better name, the designation has stuck.
It is clear that Tocharian B was the language of the kingdom
of Kucha, used for both administrative and ordinary literary
purposes. It was apparently used as a liturgical language both
in the Kuchean kingdom and further east where it is found
side by side with Tocharian A. Nowhere are Tocharian A docu-
ments found by themselves and no Tocharian A documents
other than those of a religious content have been found. A
few Tocharian A documents are glossed in Tocharian B and /
or an early form of Uighur (the Turkish language spoken by
the contemporary inhabitants of Xinjiang). These facts have
led to the supposition that Tocharian A was no longer a spoken
language but rather preserved only as a liturgical language of
a population that itself spoke Uighur and that even as a
liturgical language it was in competition with Tocharian B.
— 590 —
TOCHAR1AN LANGUAGES
Comparing Tocharian A and B it is clear that the latter is the
more conservative representative of proto-Tocharian. Toch-
arian A has lost all Proto-Tocharian final vowels, with the
consequence that a very large number of words are one syllable
shorter than their Tocharian B counterparts and the loss of
the final syllable, where so much of the inflectional morph-
ology was located, has had a significant impact on the shape
of the language’s morphology, particularly that of nouns.
On the southern edge of the basin, across uninhabitable
desert from the areas where Tocharian A and B are found, in
the Loulan (natively Kroraina) area, we find traces of another
small kingdom whose administrative language was a variety
of Middle Indie (Kharosthi Prakrit) but whose native language,
attested in the form of a few loanwords in the Middle Indie
administrative language, looks to have been a third Tocharian
language, “Tocharian C” if you will.
Though geographically closest to Indie and Iranian, from
which both Tocharian languages have borrowed heavily in
the area of religious and other technical vocabulary, the
Tocharian languages do not seem to be particularly closely
related to them. Surprisingly Tocharian seems to share more
vocabulary with Germanic than with any other Indo-European
stock and in general its lexical and morphological closest kin
seem to be with the western Indo-European languages rather
than with those of the eastern rim. However, the number of
special relationships that Tocharian shows with any other
Indo-European stock is small and this relative lack of shared
innovations with other groups suggests that from a very early
time the pre-Tocharian dialect(s) of Proto-Indo-European may
have occupied a somewhat isolated position vis-a-vis other
late Proto-Indo-European groups. If one wishes to emphasize
the “western” connections, then the population movements
that brought the pre-Tocharians to their historical locations
seem to have required a migration from a relatively western
location vis-a-vis the center of the Proto-Indo-European group
to its far eastern edge, whatever that might mean in terms of
actual geography.
Description
From the phonological point of view Tocharian is
distinctive in the merger of all three manners of stops (voiceless
aspirated, voiceless unaspirated, and voiced aspirated) in a
single series of voiceless unaspirated stops. Many IE stocks
merge the voiced aspirated and voiced unaspirated stops but
only Tocharian and Anatolian merge all three and in Anatolian
the merger is not complete in word-internal position. Toch-
arian also merges palatals, velars, labio-velars, and palatals +
-y- as a set of plain velars. The only exception to this general
merger is in final syllables where the labio-velars and velars +
-u- remain distinct as -k w -. Thus *k, *g, *gh, *k, *g, *gh ,
*k w , *g w , *g w h, *Ru, *gu , *ghu , all become Tocharian k in
most instances. Tocharian is further characterized by the
palatalization of both dentals and tectals (palatals, velars, and
labio-velars) before PIE front vowels; on the other hand, in
the absence of front vowels, Tocharian behaves as a centum
language, e.g., TochB kante ‘hundred’, unlike its Indo-lranian
neighbors. Tectals appear as sin this position when palatalized
while PIE *d and *dh appear as Tocharian is, and PIE *t
appears as ts before PIE *i and as c elsewhere. The different
fate of PIE *t when palatalized means that palatalization must
have preceded the merger of the three manners of stops. Some-
what later in this history of Tocharian PIE *i, *e, and *u merge
as Tocharian a (appearing as a when stressed in Tocharian B)
and *e (< *e or *ehj) and *o merge as Proto-Tocharian *c
(TochB e, TochA a). The most common developments of PIE
sounds in Tocharian are given in the accompanying table.
While the phonological system of Tocharian shows signifi-
cant innovations in comparison with its PIE ancestor, other
parts of the grammar have been quite conservative. Tocharian
merges the inherited neuter with the masculine in the singular
and the feminine in the plural and like Germanic proliferates
n-stems enormously. Late in its history original postpositions
become phonologically attached to the preceding noun as a
new set of case endings. In the verb the imperative is
innovatively marked with a prefix pa- and unlike most IE
groups the second person singular ending of the verb shows
a -t- rather than an -s- However, both noun and verb preserve
the three-way PIE distinction of singular, dual, and plural.
The noun preserves, at least in part, five of the eight PIE cases
(namely: nominative, accusative, genitive, ablative, and
vocative) and the verb shows three of the PIE moods
(nominative, optative, and imperative), two of the PIE aspects
(“present” and aorist; the PIE perfect is represented by the
Tocharian past participle), and two PIE tenses (present and
past, the latter from the PIE aorist past, along with rebuilt
traces of the PIE imperfect).
Tocharian Origins
The earliest certain evidence for the Tocharians derives irom
their own records of the sixth century AD. Chinese historical
records, which report no ethnic or linguistic changes during
the previous seven hundred years, allow the linguistic situation
of the sixth century AD to be projected back to at least the
end of the second century BC. Any attempt to establish a still
greater antiquity requires certain assumptions, e.g., the fact
that the two surviving representatives of Tocharian are
markedly different and would require (presumably) an
extended period of separation after the formation of the Proto-
Tocharian stock; some have estimated c 1000 years, but this
time-depth is by no means certain nor is it certain that this
differentiation necessarily took place in Xinjiang. Also, the
Tocharians have frequently been identified in Chinese
historical sources as a people known as the Yuezhi and
references to the Yuezhi, situated according to Chinese
documents north of the main bend of the Yellow River and
south of the Altai, go back to about the fifth century BC.
Unlike most other extinct groups of IE speakers, we are
particularly fortunate with regard to the Tocharians in one
respect. There is graphic representation of their appearance
in caves in Kucha (Qizil and Quint ura) that served as Buddhist
— 591 —
T0CHAR1AN LANGUAGES
Proto-Indo-European
and Tocharian Phonological C
'orrespondences
PIE
TochB
PIE
TochB
*P
>
P
*pli a ter ‘father'
pacer ‘father’
*b
>
P
*dhubros ‘deep’
tapre ‘high’
*bh
>
P
*bhere/o- ‘carry’
par- ‘carry’
n
>
t ~ c
*tritos ‘third’
trite ‘third’
*tekos ‘running water’
cake ‘river’
*d
>
t ~ tS ~ 0
*duhxeh a - ‘burn’
twa- ‘kindle’
*deme/o- ‘build’
tsam- 'grow'
*ddru ‘tree, wood’
or ‘wood’
*dh
>
t ~ ts
*dhuoros ‘door’
twere 'door'
*dheigh- ‘shape, mold’
tsik- ‘shape, build’
*k
>
k ~ s
*K rptom ‘hundred’
kante ‘hundred’
*k euke/o- ‘call’
Sausani 'calls out'
*g
>
k ~ s
*gonuih\ ‘knees’
keni ‘knees’
*genu- ‘jaw’
TochA Samvem 'jaws’
*gh
>
k ~ s
*ghuonos ‘sound’
kene ‘melody’
*ghuerie/o- ‘hunt’
Seritsi 'to hunt’
*k
>
k~s
*krupiios ‘rough’
karpiye ‘common’
*keuke/o- ‘call’
Sausani ‘calls out’
*g
>
k ~ s
*leg- ‘collect’
lak- 'see, look’
*ger(h a )on- ‘aged’
Sran- ‘old’
*geulih\en- ‘possessing coal;
5’ £ohy e 'hearth'
* g h
>
k ~ s
*loghos ‘lying place’
leke bed’
*leghe/o- ‘lie’
lyaSarn lies’
*k w
>
k - s ~ kw
*k w 6k w los ‘wheel’
kokale 'wheel’
*k w etuores ‘four’
Stiver ‘four’
*sok w os ‘juice, sap’
sekwe pus’
*g w
>
k ~ s ~ kw
*g w ou- ‘cow’
keu ‘cow’
*g w eneh a ‘woman’
Sana ‘wife’
* gWh
>
k - s ~ kw
*g w hp-ske/o- ‘strike’
kask- ‘scatter apart’
*s
>
s ~ s
*so ‘this, that’
se ‘such’
*selpos ‘fat’
$alype' grease, ointment’
*i
>
y
*iebhe/o- ‘enter’
yap- 'enter, set (of sun)’
*u
>
w ~ (TochB) y
*\}isos ‘poison’
wase ‘poison’
*yeh jntos ‘wind’
yente (TochA want 1 'wind’
*m
>
m
*meh a ter ‘mother’
macer mother’
*n
>
n ~ n
*nu now’
no however’
*neuos ‘new’
Hu we ‘new’
*1
>
1
*loghos ‘lying place’
leke 'bed’
*r
>
r
*h]rudhros i red’
ratre 'red'
>
an/an
*dpg w heh a - ‘tongue’
kantwo 'tongue;
>
am/am
*kiptom ‘hundred’
kante 'hundred'
i
>
al/al
*t\neh 2 - ‘raise’
tallam 'raises’
*r
>
ar/ar
*kfdieh a - ‘heart’
karya- 'heart, will’
*i
>
(y)a/(y)a ~ a/a
*ghim-reh a - ‘winter’
TochA sarme 'winter'
*y/sos ‘poison’
wase ‘poison’
*e
>
(y)a/(y)a
*h}6kuos ‘horse’
yakwe ’horse’
*e
>
(y)e
*ghuene/o- ‘hunt’
seritsi 'to hunt’
*a
>
a
*h a ege/o- ‘drive’
ak- drive'
*a
>
a
*meh a ter ‘mother’
macer mother’
*o
>
e
*gdmbhos ‘peg, tooth’
keme 'tooth'
*6
>
a
*dhoh x neh a - ‘grain’
tano ‘seed’
*u
>
a/a
*dhubrds ‘deep’
tapre ‘high’
*u
>
o
*nu ‘now’
no however’
*hi
>
0
*hiedsto- ‘meal’
yesti 'meal’
*h 2
>
0
*h 2 euh 20 s ‘grandfather’
awe '± grandfather’
*h 3
>
0
*h 3 dk w ‘eye’
ek ‘eye’
*h 4
>
0
*h 4 orghis ‘testicle’
erk 'testicle’
592 —
TOCHARIAN LANGUAGES
shrines. These depict tall individuals with red or blond hair,
blue or green eyes, wearing the garb of the Iranian-speaking
Sassanians and armed with broadswords. These descriptions
also match Chinese descriptions of the Yuezhi who are
themselves portrayed on statues for the first century BC from
Khalchayan in Bactria as light-haired and blue-eyed.
The unquestionable evidence for European intrusions into
the province of Xinjiang has been abundantly augmented by
the remains of over a hundred naturally preserved mummies
of a Europoid or, at least, Caucasoid physical type. The earliest
of these mummies have been dated to c 2000 BC. The
archaeological context for at least some of the Europoid burials
is the Qawrighul culture (c 2000 BC) whose burials in shaft-
graves, lined with timber or stone, and surrounded by
enclosures bear some broad resemblance with Copper Age
and Bronze Age cultures of the Eurasian steppe. Moreover,
the presence of offering-places associated with the heads and
legs of horses has direct parallels with steppe cultures. These
links, however, are more broadly generic rather than specific
with any particular culture and so the question of the origin
of the recently defined Qawrighul culture itself must still
remain open.
One might expect that the identification of a Caucasoid or
Europoid physical type might secure the earliest identification
of Indo-Europeans in western China but the matter is more
complicated. In addition to the evidence of the mummies we
also have human skeletal remains retrievable from burials from
c 2000 BC onwards and these are believed to reflect several
types of Caucasoids, the earliest reputedly bearing the greatest
similarity with populations of the steppe-lands from the
Ukraine across Siberia; later populations show greater
similarities with prehistoric populations of Central Asia. There
were thus several movements of Europoid populations into
Xinjiang and this is hardly unexpected as the region was not
only occupied by Tochariamspeakers but also by Iranian-
(Khotanese Saka) and some Indie- (Karosthl Prakrit) speakers.
For the most part, the mummies themselves are distributed
both temporally and spatially in regions where one might
expect Tocharians although some of the earliest mummies
predate our historical records by up to two thousand years
and their linguistic identity can hardly be secure. Genetic
analysis of the Xinjiang mummies is still in its infancy but
does indicate that the mummies reflect the same DNA patterns
found among the earliest stratum of European populations.
The earliest evidence of the Mongoloid physical type in this
part of Xinjiang is set to c 1000 BC and it would appear that
the ancestors of the Tocharians were probably in the Tarim
Basin prior to the expansion of the Chinese into the same
region.
Associating the arrival of the Tocharians with a specific
archaeological culture is extremely difficult. The mummies,
for example, are generally unaccompanied by metal artifacts
and their own cultural milieu as well as that of the historical
Tocharians is simply too poorly known to posit connections
with cultures outside of Xinjiang. The employment of twill
Tocharian 11 Tocharian territory is indicated with the broken line.
The Qawrighul culture offers a possible candidate for Proto-Tocharian
in the second millennium BC. Potential outside archaeological
sources for the Tocharians might include the Andronovo culture
and the earlier Afanasevo culture.
in the weaving of the textiles associated with the mummies
points to more westerly connections but this could involve
distant connections anywhere from the Caucasus to western
Europe.
Although the Tocharians are not closely associated with
the Indo-lranians, the origins of the latter cannot be entirely
disassociated from Tocharian origins. Contacts between the
two language stocks seem to be quite late, i.e. , no earlier than
the first millennium BC, e g. , Old Persian- or Prakrit-Tocharian
loans, or more recent. Almost all discussions of Indo-lranian
origins would locate the staging area of their migrations in
the steppe and forest-steppe of Kazakhstan and western Siberia
in the period c 2000 BC. This was the period during which
the steppe was occupied by the Andronovo culture, a broad
cultural horizon of various cultures who were primarily
engaged in mobile stockbreeding. It is possible that the
ancestors of the Tocharians may have been part of the Andro-
novo culture, the sites of which are found on the western
highland approaches to the Tarim Basin; however, the absence
of loanwords between early Indo-lranian and Tocharian does
not provide any linguistic support for such a hypothesis.
One of the ways of maintaining an early linguistic
separation between Tocharians and Indo-lranians within an
archaeological context is by associating the ancestors of the-
Tocharians with the Afanasevo culture (c 3500-2000 BC) of
the Altai-Yenisei region. The culture has often been derived
from west of the Urals because of the Europoid physical type
of its population, its employment of mixed stockbreeding
(cattle, sheep, possibly horse), some evidence for wheeled
vehicles, and ceramic forms (pointed-based vessels, censers).
In one model, the Afanasevo culture would be seen as the
initial expansion of a mixed stockbreeding-agricultural society
across the eastern steppe in the advance of the later Andronovo
(? Indo-lranian) culture which then replaced it. There are also
— 593 —
TO CHARI AN LANGUAGES
some tenuous connections between the Afanasevo culture and
western China. If these should be strengthened, we may have
a model for the earliest Indo-European movements into
Xinjiang. But even here, it must be noted that not all
archaeologists accept the derivation of the Afanasevo culture
from the west and if it should prove to have a purely local
origin or be more closely related to cultures of Central Asia,
other solutions to the problem of Tocharian origins would
have to be devised.
See also Indo-European Languages; Qawrighul Culture.
[D.Q.A., J.P.M.]
Further Readings
Language
Adams, D. Q. (1984) The position of Tocharian among the other
.Indo-European languages. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 104, 395-402.
Adams, D. Q. (1988) Tocharian Historical Phonology and
Morphology! American Oriental Society Series, 71). New Haven,
Connecticut, The American Oriental Society.
Krause, W and W Thomas (1960-1964) Tocharisches Elementar-
buch. 2 vols. Heidelberg, Winter.
Pinault, G.-J. (1989) Introduction au tokharien = LALIES, Paris, 1-
224.
Ringe, D. R. (1990) Evidence for the position of Tocharian in the
Indo-European family. Die Sprache 34, 59-123.
Ringe, D. R. (1996) On the Chronology of Sound Changes in
Tocharian. (American Oriental Society, 80). New Haven,
Connecticut, American Oriental Society.
Thomas, W (1985) Die Erforschung des Tocharischen (1960-1984).
Stuttgart, Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt.
Etymological Dictionaries
van Windekens, A. J. (1976) Le Tokharien confronts avec les autres
languages mdo-europeennes. Vol. I: La phonetique et le vocabu-
laire. Louvain, Centre Internationale de Dialectologie Generate.
Origins
Mair, V (ed.) (1995) The mummified remains found in the Tarim
Basin. J1ES 23, 281-444.
TODAY
?*h 3 o-dii ‘today’. [Del 2971 . Lat hodie ‘today’, OInd a-dya
‘today’. Temporal adverbial; Lat hodie is based on the
composition of a demonstrative pronoun and the ablative case
of ‘day’, viz. h-o-die while the Old Indie form joins an
adverbial particle with an old instrumental ( *a-dyavi ) ‘on this
day’. Independent formations and not reconstructible for PIE.
See also Time. [PB.]
TONGUE
*dyghuh a - ‘tongue’. \IEW 223 ( *dpghu ); Wat 15
C dpghu-)\ GI 714 ( *t’og l uH-)\ Buck 4.261. OIr tengae ‘tongue’,
MWels tafawl ‘tongue’, OLat dingua ‘tongue’, Lat lingua
‘tongue’, Osc fangvam ‘tongue’, ON tunga ‘tongue', OH tunge
‘tongue’ (> NE tongue), OHG zunga tongue', Goth ( uggo
‘tongue’, OPrus insuwis ‘tongue’, Lith liezuvis ‘tongue’, OCS
j?zykQ ‘tongue’, Rus jazyk ‘tongue’, Arm lezu ‘tongue’, Av hizu-
‘tongue’, OInd jihva ‘tongue’, TochA kantu ‘tongue’, TochB
kantwo ‘tongue’. The loss of d- before *-n- is probably regular
in Baltic and Slavic. In Tocharian we have metathesis ( * kantwo
< *tankwo) while in Lithuanian, Armenian, and possibly Latin
we have the initial rebuilt by influence of various words for
‘lick’. The Celtic words reflect an initial *sd-. The remodeling
in Indo-lranian is more difficult. In any case a very strong
candidate for PIE status.
See also Eat and Drink; Mouth. ID.Q.A.]
Further Readings
Hilmarsson, J. (1982) Indo-European ‘tongue’. JIES 10, 355-367.
Winter, W (1982) Indo-European words for tongue' and fish’: A
reappraisal. JIES 10, 167-186.
TOOL
*l^ w ^pjis *± tool’. [IEW 938-940 ( *(s)ker-)\ BK 246
( *k[ h ]ar-/*k[ h Jar -)]. Lith kirvis ‘ax’, Rus cen t ‘sickel’, OInd
kpzi- ‘weaving instrument’. A word of the center and east of
the IE world whose various meanings offer little scope for
precise semantic reconstruction. From *k w er- ‘do, make' or
possibly *(s)ker- ‘cut’.
See also Augur; Awl; Ax; Club; Craft; Cut; Handle; Hook;
Knife; Make; Net; Oar; Pin; Plow; Quern; Razor; Reins;
Sickle; Sung; Spear; Sword; Torch; Wedge, Wheel;
Whetstone; Yoke. [D.Q.A.]
TOOTH
*hid6nt - ‘tooth’. [/EW289 ( *edont-)\ Wat 1 1 ( *dent-)\
GI 714 (*(e)t’ont h -y. Buck 4.27; BK418 (*at'-/*ji'-)). OIr del
‘tooth’, Weis dant ‘tooth’, Lat dens ‘tooth', ON tynn tooth’,
OE top ‘tooth’ (> NE tooth), OHG zand ‘tooth’, Goth tun pus
‘tooth’, OPrus dan tis ‘tooth’, Lith dantis ‘tooth’, Rus desna (<
Proto-Slavic *d?t-sna) ‘gum’, Grk odebv ‘tooth’ (Aeolic eSovreg
‘teeth’), Arm atamn ‘tooth’, Av dantan- tooth’, OInd dant-
‘tooth’. The oldest reconstructible word for 'tooth' in IE. In
origin the participle of *hied- ‘eat’, cf. Hit adant- ‘eaten’.
*gdmbhos ‘tooth, set/row of teeth; peg’. [IEW 369
( *gombho-s)\ Wat 19 ( *gemhh-)\ GI 714 (. *k'em-tP-), Buck
•4.27; BK 280 ( *k’am-/*k’am-)\. ON kambr' comb’, OE camh
‘comb, crest’ (> NE comb), OHG kamb ‘comb’, Lith zambus
‘edge, brim’, Latv ziiobs ‘tooth’, OCS zpbu ‘tooth’. Alb dhemb
‘tooth, tusk’, Grk yopcpog ‘large wedge-shaped bolt or nail’,
OInd jambha- ‘tooth’, TochA kam ‘tooth’, TochB keme ‘tooth’.
Cf. *gembh - ‘± show the teeth, snap at, bite' if this latter verb
is not itself semantically a backformation from *gombho-
‘tooth’. A newer word than *hidont~, but clearly of PIE date.
See also Anatomy; Eat and Drink; Mouth. [D.Q.A.]
Further Reading
NartenJ. (1965) Ai. jambha-, gr. yopipog and Verwandtes. KZ 79.
255-264.
— 594 —
TRANSFUNCTIONAL GODDESS
I
f
l:
TORCH
*ghy£ks ‘torch’. [IEW 495 ( *ghudk v -)] , Lat fax (~ faces )
‘torch’, facetus ‘fine, courteous, polite’ (< ’“‘shining’), Lith zvake
‘candle’. The underlying verb is to be seen in Alb dukem (<
*ghuk-e/o-) ‘appear, am visible, show up’, Grk (Hesychius)
Sia(paG<J£iv (< *-ghuak-ie/o- ) ‘show through, be transparent’.
A word of the west and center of the IE world.
See also Shine; Tool. [D.Q.A.J
TORTOISE
*gh6luh x s ‘tortoise’. [ IEW 435 ( *ghel-ou-)\ Wat 22
( *ghelu-)\ Gl 451 ( *g^el-u~) J. OCS zely (gen. zeluve ) ‘tortoise’,
Rus zolvi ‘tortoise’ (obsolete in NRus), zelvak ‘tumor’ (< *‘hard
lump under the skin’), SC zelva ‘tortoise’, Grk %eXvg ~ xehvvri
‘tortoise’. By its distribution, at least a word of the center of
the IE world. The morphological shape (a noun in *-uh x -) is
quite old in IE; therefore, it is likely that this word was once
pan-IE. It should be noted that the word generally refers to
the ‘tortoise’ or Testudo rather than the marine variant, i.e.,
the ‘turtle’.
The tortoise or turtle has been employed in early debates
on the IE homeland since its northern distribution was limited
to areas south of Scandinavia and northern Germany which
had been once advanced as homeland territories. The tortoise
is known from the TRB culture of northern Europe and in
Neolithic contexts from Latvia and Estonia. Its value for
resolving the IE homeland problem is minimal at best.
See also Animal. [D.Q.A.J
TOUCH
*tag- ‘touch’. [JEW 1054-1055 ( *tag-)\ Wat 69 ( *tag-)\ GI
371; Buck 15.71; BK 100 (*t[ h ]ak’-/*t[ h ]dk’-)\. Lat tango
‘touch’, integer ‘undamaged’ (< * ‘untouched’), tagax ‘thievish’,
taxim ‘secretly’, taxo ‘estimate, assess’, OE paccian ‘touch
lightly, stroke’, Grk xexayorv ‘seizing’. At least a word of the
west and center of the IE world.
*deg- ‘touch’ (pres. *d6gei~ *dege/o~) [Buck 11.13], ON
taka ‘touch, take, seize’, Goth tekan ‘touch’, TochB tak- ‘touch’
(TochB pres, cek -, subj. tek-). The exact morphological match
of ON taka and TochB tek- and Goth tekan and TochB cek-
would seem to guarantee at least a late PIE status for this
word.
*mlK- ‘touch lightly’. [/EW724 (*rae/it-); Del 269]. Lat
mulced ‘stroke, touch lightly, fondle’, OInd mysati ‘strokes,
touches’. Though not widely attested, the geographical
distribution of that attestation strongly suggests PIE status.
*klep- ‘± lay hand to’. [IEW 604 ( *klep-)\ Wat 31
(*klep-)\ Buck 11.56; BK 266 (*k[ h ]al y -/*k[ h ldiy~)]. Pres.
*klepie/o- in Grk kAekxo) ‘steal’, TochB kalyp- ‘steal’; cf. TochB
klepe ‘± theft’. Other presents: Goth hlifan ‘steal’, OPrus
auklipts ‘concealed’, TochB kalp- ‘find, get, achieve, obtain’,
klyep- ‘± touch (with the hands), investigate, test’. Cf. also
OE haelftre ‘halter’ (> NE halter ), OHG halftra ‘bridle’, OE
helma ‘rudder, tiller’ (> NE helm), hielfe ‘handle’. Reasonably
widespread, certainly in PIE.
*ghrei- ‘touch lightly, graze (the surface of)’. [IEW 457
( *ghrei-)\ Wat 23 ( *ghrei-)[. Lith gr(i)eju ‘skim (cream)’, Grk
Xpico ‘touch the surface of a body lightly graze; (hence) rub
or anoint (with oil), coat with color’. A word of the center of
the IE world. The Germanic words sometimes adduced here,
OE grlma ‘mask, helmet; ghost’, MDutch grime 'dirt’, seem
semantically very distant.
See also Steal. (D.Q.A.]
TRACK
*pedom footprint, track’. [IEW 791-792 ( *pedo-m)\ cf.
Wat 47 ( *ped-)\ GI 237 ( *p h et’-om ); BK 44 ( *p[ h lat'-/
*p[ h ]dt’-)}. Mir ined(DIL inad)(< *eni-pedo~) ‘position, place,
trace’, Osc pemm ‘ground’, ON fet ‘step’, Lith peda footprint’,
Lat peda ‘sole, footprint’, OCS podu 'ground’, Grk neSov
‘ground’, Arm het ‘footprint, track’, Hit pedan 'place’, Av
padam ‘track’, OInd padam ‘track’, perhaps TochA pats
‘bottom’, TochB patsa ‘bottom’ (if < *pedeh a -). From *ped-
‘foot’. PIE status.
See also Foot. [A.D.V]
TRANSFUNCTIONAL GODDESS
Although there is no linguistic evidence to posit the
existence of a PIE transfunctional goddess, a female figure
who provides support to the three estates of the priesthood,
warrior and herder-cultivator, there is abundant structural
evidence of such a figure among various IE peoples.
The Indie Dev! (OInd devi , ‘female deity’) was a transfunc-
tional goddess. She represented wisdom ( Devimahatmyam
3. II), and warrior power ( Devimahatmyam 3.42 et passim ) ;
in fact, her teeth became red after she devoured her enemies
( Devimahatmyam 11.44-45). She also had control over
conception ( Devimahatmyam 1.75). Various Indie goddesses:
Laksmi, AlaksmI, Uma, Parvatl, Durga, Kali, and Sarasvati
are subsumed into Devi, according to Tantnc philosophy. Her
pre-Indo-European origins are reflected in bird and snake
iconography; she rode in a chariot yoked to swans
( Devimahatmyam 11.13) and she carried a snake
( Devimahatmyam 11.14). It must be noted that this
ascendancy of a female deity in no way rellects a gynocentric
society, for Devi grants ‘wealth, sons... and prosperity’
( Devimahatmyam 12.41).
Devi was bom from the united light which emanated from
the bodies of the major Indie deities. Each gave her an
attribute: weapons, jewels, the lotus, lions, and armor. Thus
armed, Devi saved the world from the enemies of the deities.
One may compare Laksmi, who gave each of her attributes to
a different deity, and the Greek Pandora, the ‘all-giver’ or the
‘gift of all’.
The Iranian goddess Aradvl Sura Anahita, ‘the moist tor
‘flowing’; cf. OInd [d- ‘to flow’) one, the strong one (OInd
sdra ‘strong’, heroic’; cf. Olr caur‘ warrior’), the pure one (OInd
an-ahita ‘without a stain’)’ was invoked in the Avesta and in
Iranian inscriptions dating to c400 BC. Anahita was a trans-
functional goddess who bestowed wisdom upon the priests,
595 —
TRANSFUNCTIONAL GODDESS
valor upon the warriors, and fecundity upon all others. She
was a river goddess, personified as a woman of great beauty.
She is particularly invoked in Avesta , Yast 5. In Old Persian
inscriptions dating from the reign of Artaxerxes 11 (405-359
BC), Anahita was named second only to the supreme god,
Ahura Mazdah.
Athene was the Greek goddess of wisdom and craft, and
she brought victory in war. She was not Proto-Indo-European
in origin; she has the greatest affinity with Near Eastern warrior
goddesses such as the Syrian Anat. According to Hesiod
( Theogony 924), she was bom from the head of Zeus, after
the god had swallowed his wife Metis ‘wisdom, counsel’. The
transfunctional Athene was invoked in inscriptions as Hygieia
‘health’, Polias ‘guardian of the polis', and Nike ‘victory’.
Although she was a virgin, she was invoked by women who
wished to conceive, as ‘Mother’. She won the patronage of
Athens by participating in a contest with the Water god
Poseidon. Each gave a gift to the city: Poseidon, a well of sea-
water; Athene, the olive-tree. The Athenians voted, and decid-
ed that the olive-tree was of greater importance. According
to St Augustine (De Civitate Dei , 18.9) the women voted for
Athene, who won the contest by a single vote. Poseidon was
angry with the outcome of the vote, and, to appease him, the
right to vote was taken away from Athenian women, along
with the right to confer their names upon their children.
Roman Minerva (= Greek Athene) was goddess of wisdom,
handicraft, and war, particularly strategic war; she was bom
fully armed from the head of Jupiter, her father. Minerva
became part of the Roman state triad. jQpiter, jQno, Minerva.
In Etruscan inscriptions, which may be the oldest attestations
of this goddess, Minerva is called Menrva, Menerva, or Menar-
va. When associated with Mars, Minerva was called Nerio
(cf. Porphyrion, Commentum in Horatium Flaccum, Epistles
II. 2. 209), a name which may be cognate with Germanic
Nerthus , Greek avijp, OInd nara -, ‘man’. The term means
‘strength’ and hence ‘manly strength, heroic man’. Plautus
{Truculentus 515) calls Nerio the wife of Mars. Nerio, just as
Minerva, represented the one who inspires the power to fight.
Irish tradition is replete with examples of trifunctional
goddesses although here they are generally deconstructed into
different divinities representative of their constituent
functions. That this deconstruction is precisely the process
that has occurred is most easily seen in the history of the
three Machas, divine figures all bearing the same name but
whose careers reflect different aspects of the transfunctional
goddess. The first Macha was the wife of Nemed, one of the
earliest settlers of Ireland, and was herself a prophetess. The
second Macha (Macha Mongruad) vied for the kingship of
Ulster defeating her male opponents and was known as a
warrior (and also one of the battle-goddesses). The final Macha
(Macha Sanraith) came to live with the widower Crunniuc
and brought him prosperity. In a striking parallel with the
Indie tradition, she ran a race against the king’s horses and,
crossing the finishing line first, gave birth to twins.
See also Goddesses; River Goddess. [M.R.D.J
TRB CULTURE
The TRB ( Trichterbecher or ‘Funnel-necked-beaker’)
culture is the primary Neolithic culture of the north European
plain c 4500-2700 BC. Sites are distributed from the Nether-
lands across northern Europe, including the Netherlands,
south Scandinavia, Germany, Poland and the northwest
Ukraine.
TRB settlements range from small camp sites to large
villages, in some instances surrounded by multiple ditch and
palisade constructions. Rectangular houses on the order of
15 x 6 m in size, have been excavated as well as horseshoe-
shaped buildings. The settlements exhibit a mixed agricultural
basis, with marked regional patterns that range from lowland
agricultural sites to upland sites with a presumably pastoral
economy. Cereals from Scandinavian sites include wheat
( Triticum monococcum , T. dicoccon, T. aestivum), barley
(Hordeum vulgare ), and brome ( Bromus secalinus) while
among the fruits was the apple ( Malus sylvestris)\ residue of
oil from flax ( Linum usitatissimum ) has been recovered from
a flask. TRB sites in Poland have also yielded spelt ( Triticum
spelta ), millet ( Panicum miliaceum), pea ( Pisum sativum ),
lentil (Lens culinaris ) and flax ( Linum usitatissimum). Among
the domestic animals cattle predominate, followed by pigs
and ovicaprids very much in third place. Wild game included
— 596 —
red and roe deer, elk, aurochs, wild pig, bear, horse, badger,
wolf, fox, beaver, hare, otter, wildcat, lynx, marten and in the
Baltic region, seal. Fish remains have included carp, pike and
eel as well as shellfish. Wood remains have included alder,
birch, beech, elm, maple, oak, pine and yew.
in technology, there is evidence for both the plow and
wheeled vehicles, at least in the eastern region of TRB distri-
bution. The ceramics are typified by beakers and amphorae
with wide flaring mouths and a series of cult vessels are also
known, particularly from Danish ritual complexes. Copper
was acquired by exchange while stone “battle-axes” were also
known. The rich flint industry also involved the mining of
flint. Burial varies on a regional and chronological basis and
includes inhumation in pits, timber graves of box- and tent-
like construction, stone cists, megalithic tombs and earthen
long barrows. Traces of apparent mortuary houses and large
ditched-enclosures have also been uncovered.
The TRB culture occupies an important role in any dis-
cussion of IE origins since its territory is broadly coincidental
with that of the later Germanic and possibly Baltic and Slavic
languages, and, perhaps more importantly, its distribution is
also broadly coincidental with the Globular Amphora and
Corded Ware cultures which are widely regarded as major
vectors for the expansion of the IE languages. Moreover, as it
yields evidence of the plow, wheeled vehicles, and the horse
(wild or domesticate is uncertain), it can accommodate the
minimum cultural requirements for identifying a prehistoric
culture as potentially Indo-European. Its origins are a topic
— 597 —
TRB CULTURE
of considerable controversy and it has been derived variously
from Neolithic cultures of western, central and eastern Europe
(Rossen and Lengyel cultures) although recent opinion has
rather emphasized its indigenous character and sought its
origin in the acculturation of local hunter-gatherers who
apparently resisted the agricultural economy of their southern
neighbors until forced by changing environmental conditions
to adopt the new subsistence base. For those arguing an IE
origin either in the initial spread of the Neolithic economy or
a later expansion from central Europe, e.g., the Linear Ware
culture, then the TRB culture is generally identified as Indo-
European. On the other hand, in the “Kurgan solution” to
the IE homeland problem the TRB culture has been cast in
the role of an indigenous non-IE culture, marked by
associations with the Mother Goddess, and ultimately replaced
by IE cultures such as the Globular Amphora, Baden and
Corded Ware cultures.
See also Corded Ware Culture; Globular Amphora Culture;
Linear Ware Culture. IJ.P.M.l
Further Reading
Midgley, M. (1992) TRB Culture: The First Farmers of the North
European Plain. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
TREE
*ddru (gen. *drdus ) ‘wood, tree’. [IEW 214-217
(*deru-); Wat 12 ( *deru-)\ Gl 525-526 (*te/orw-/*t’re/ou-)\
Buck 1.42; Fried 140-149; BK 151 ( War-War-)}. OIr daur
(DIE dair) (gen. daro ) ‘oak’, Weis dar (pi. darwen ) ‘oak’ (<
Proto-Celtic *daru- with unexplained *-a- rather than *-o- ),
Grk 6opv ‘tree trunk, wood; spear’, Hit taru ‘tree, wood’, Av
dauru (gen. draos) ‘tree trunk, piece of wood, wooden
weapon’, OInd dfiru (gen. droh ~ drunah ) ‘wood’, TochAB or
‘wood’ (TochB [pi. ] arwa ‘firewood’); with a generalized zero-
grade: Myc du-ru-to-mo ‘woodcutters’, Olnd has dru- 1 wood,
wooden implement; tree, branch’, one should compare OIr
drui ( DIL druf) (< *dru-uid-) ‘druid, i.e., knower of trees’;
from an extended *druh a ~, perhaps originally a collective:
Lith drQtas ‘strong’ (< *‘± tree-like’). Alb drize ‘Christ’s thorn’
( *dri [< *druh a -] + -ze, a diminutive suffix), Grk dpvg ‘tree,
oak’; from *druh a o/eh a -: OCS (pi.) druva ‘wood’, Alb dru
‘wood, tree’, drushk 1 oak’; from *drepom: ON ire ‘tree, wood’,
OE treow ‘tree, wood’ (> NE tree), Goth triu ‘wood, tree’;
from *deruo/eh a < Weis derwen ‘oak’ (pi. derw), ON tjara
‘tar’, OE teoru ‘tar’ (> NE far), Lith derva ‘tar’, Latv darva
‘pitch’, OCS drevo (< *detyom) ‘tree’. The evidence of Greek,
Hittite, Indo-Iranian and Tocharian reveals that the neuter
paradigm was the basic one in PIE while Germanic-Baltic-
Slavic show a regularly derived thematic formation *dreuo-,
with new e-grade, that may itself be a dialect form in late PIE.
Cf. the metaphorical use of ‘oak’ and ‘true’ in the related set:
ON tryggr ‘trustworthy, faithful’, OE treow ‘trustworthy,
faithful’ (> NE true), Goth triggws (< *dreuh a -(i)o-)
‘trustworthy, faithful’.
The generic word for ‘tree’ is one of the best attested words
in the entire IE vocabulary, with cognates in at least eleven
stocks. Many of these cognates simply denote ‘tree’ or wood’.
But in a strikingly large number of cases we find some
metonymic or functional extension of meaning, for example,
‘bow, spear’ (NPers daruna ‘rainbow’), ‘trough’, or spoon’ (Arm
targal). Or there appears to have been a shift to a specific
tree, as in Weis derwen ‘oak’. Often we find a metaphoric
shift of some sort such as ‘firm’, ‘brave’, ‘hard' or indeed in
Grk Apv-axotpvrjg as in ‘the knotty, ironwood hard Achar-
nians’. These associations of ‘tree’ to property are most salient
in Germanic where phonologically unimpeachable cognates
show up not only with the sorts of meanings cited above but
more particularly with meanings like ‘truth’, ‘loyalty’, e.g.,
ON tru ‘belief’. The relative status of these arboreal as against
tree-derived meanings have understandably provoked
controversy which has not been resolved by attempts to keep
the two sets of meanings entirely separate on purely linguistic
grounds. The huge number of reflexes of this term include
all the ablauts and many other phonologically possible
variations: full-grade *deru- as in Weis derwen , o grade *ddru
as in Grk dopv and zero-grade *dru- as in Grk Apv-.
The most important arboreal taxonomic ambiguity is
between ‘tree/wood’ and the specific meaning of oak’. In
Albanian, for example, dru means ‘wood’ but drushk means
‘oak’. The strong evidence, however, is in Greek and Celtic.
The latter includes a complete set of terms related to druidic-
cult: ‘oak’, ‘acorn’, and ‘mistletoe’. In Greek some evidence
indicates the standard tree devdpov (as in Pindar) while other
reflexes of *deru- such as dpvg strongly suggest oak’ in
religious contexts such as Aivdpvpe or ‘Zeus’s grove’. In terms
of Celtic and Greek, one might claim that the original meaning
would have been ‘oak’, specifically the English or brown oak,
which was dominant through much of Eurasia. The oak was
then critical in a druidic-type cult and was also strongly
associated with such properties as hardness, truth and loyalty,
as the oak is to this day. During the extensive migrations,
often into areas where oak was rare, the meanings shifted to
other trees such as the pine or larch or to objects made of
wood, or to generic ‘tree/wood’. Despite the allure of this “oak
hypothesis”, the bulk of evidence, particularly the meaning
‘tree’ found in peripheral stocks such as Germanic, Hittite
and Tocharian, convinces most scholars that the original
denotation of *doru was ‘tree, wood’ and it was only shifted
to ‘oak’ in specific stocks.
*\fidhu tree, forest’. \IEW 1 177 ( *uidhu~), Buck 1.41; Wat
78 ( *widhu -)). OIr fid ‘tree’, Weis gwydd ‘tree’, ON vidr
‘forest’, OE widu ‘wood’, OHG witu ‘wood’. Dialectally west
IE. Since three of the five terms denote ‘tree’ or ‘forest’ or
‘wood’, we can postulate a peculiar syncretism of three distinct
arboreal referents which are kept apart in most languages and
probably were in PIE.
*k w r6snos tree; brush(wood)’. [IEW 635 {*kures-)\. OIr
crann (with secondary -a- rather than expected -c-) ‘tree’, Weis
pren ‘tree’, Gaul prenne ‘(a kind of?) large tree', Grk npivog
(with -/- as sometimes in the neighborhood of -s- or -r- instead
— 598 —
i
TREES
of -e-) ‘holm-oak’. Related are Weis prys ‘woods’, OE hyrst
‘hillock, height, wood, wooded eminence’, OHG horst ‘wood,
wooded eminence’ from *k w fsto/i~. A new full-grade is seen
in OCS chvrastije ‘brushwood’, Rus khvorost ‘brushwood’ (<
Proto-Slavic *chvorsto- which was rebuilt on the model of
*chvoja ‘needles or branches of coniferous tree?). A dialectally
limited form for ‘brush’. Ethnographically, cultures such as
the PIE always seem to have words for ‘brush’ and/or
‘brushwood’; *k w resnos thus fills a gap in the proto-system.
See also Plants; Trees. [PE]
Further Readings
Osthoff, H. (1901) Etymologische Parerga. Leipzig, S. Hirzel.
Benveniste, E. (1954) Problemes semantiques de la reconstruction.
Word 10, 251-264.
TREES
Arboreal terminology is one of the best attested in early
PIE vocabulary. It is uniquely and equally well supported by
two sets of hard facts: the pollen deposits that indicate the
distribution and chronology of trees and from one to two
dozen long recognized sets of cognates that appear to be solid-
ly reconstructed to early IE, e.g., *bherhxgos ‘birch’. These
facts are often strongly supported by archaeological data.
During the Boreal period, and the following, warmer
Atlantic (c 5000-3000 BC), approximately the time of PIE
unity, and then the Sub-Boreal, enormous amounts of tree
pollen were deposited over the entire area of the early IE-
speaking world, wherever it was situated. This palynological
evidence yields a rich panorama of the groves and dense forests
that were scattered intermittently across Eurasia from Atlantic
Europe to the Urals and beyond. Palynological analysis and
the woods recovered from archaeological excavations attest
that the following trees were salient and widespread: birch,
pine, willow, alder, aspen and poplar, juniper and cedar, apple,
maple, hazel, elm, the nut trees, linden, ash, oak, hornbeam,
beech, and cherry; in fact, all the forms that are strongly
supported on linguistic grounds are also found botanically,
except for the yew (for which there are two terms in IE).
Naturally, the frequencies and distributional profiles changed
through time and vary over space: the birch and poplars, for
example, were far less frequent by Atlantic times when, on
the other hand, we witness large stands of mixed hardwoods,
above all the oak, which then partly retreat and diminish
before the climax forests of beech (with a hornbeam
understory).
Careful study of the pollen reveals important regional
complexes, notably northern, eastern, and southern ones,
often reflected in semantic shifts as different IE tribes moved
into new environments. For example, the ‘birch’ term shifts
to ‘ash’ in Latin, due to the paucity of birches in Italy, whereas,
for similar reasons, the early ‘ash’ term shifts to ‘beech’ in
Greek and Albanian. But the overall picture is one of a fairly
consistent and far-flung presence of the eighteen major genera.
Also, careful palynological study explodes the homeland
arguments based on a single tree, the ‘beech’ in particular,
but also the ‘birch’, since distributions of trees during the
Atlantic period differed markedly from those of today.
Proponents of the “beechline” argument have chosen to ignore
the palynologically well-attested eastern beech of the Cauca-
sus. Finally, it is sometimes possible on botanical grounds to
isolate a species as the most probable or at least the most
frequent referent of arboreal terms reconstructed linguistically,
e.g., the Scots pine.
The second basic fact is the excellent correspondence
between sets of cognates that are attested in six to eleven
stocks. These normally reveal reconstructed meanings at the
level of the genus, seldom the species ol the tree unless only
a single species occupied a given area. The main lexical roster
of IE trees (of varying claims to antiquity) include the following
powerful sets:
Ash: *hjes(k)-; Fraxinus excel sa (otherwise ornus , oxyxarpa ,
and Sorbus aucuparia).
Beech: *bheh a gos\ Fagus (probably) sylvatica and oriental is,
(in some regions) sylvatica atropurpurea.
Birch: *bherhxgos\ Betulus (probably) pendula , in some
regions pubescens and bumilis.
Hornbeam: *(s)greh a b(h)y Carpinus be tula, (possibly)
orientalis and caucasica.
Oak: *perk w us , *h a eig~, (?) *ddru, Quercus robur, also petraea
and sessili flora.
Pine: *pit(u)-, *peuks and possibly *kos-\ Finns sylvcstris
(also Abies alba and Pice a excelsa).
Willow: *ueit - , *sal(i)k-, (perhaps) *urb-, Salix
Moreover, there are additional cognate sets of demonstrated
albeit weaker IE status (in a few cases, such as the “apple”, a
good but not conclusive case has been made). These comprise:
Alder: *h a el(i)sos, *uerno/eh a -, Alnus barbata, and possibly
regionally incana, viridis and glutmosa.
Apple: *h a ebVl~, *meh 2 lom\ Malum sp.
Aspen/poplar: *h 2 / 30 sp-\ Populus (probably) tremula , (also
possibly) nigra, alba and canescens).
Cherry: *kpiom ~ *kpaes-\ Comus mas. Primus padus, etc.
Elm: *ui(n)g-, *hielem\ Ulmus sp.
Hazel: *kds(V)los\ Corylus (mainly) avellana, (possibly also)
colurna and maxima.
Juniper/cedar: *h}eleu-,Junipcrussp. and/or Led rus sp.
Linden: *lenteh a -, *leipeh a -\ Tiha (probably) cordata,
platyphyllos, (possibly) tormentosa, dasystyla.
Maple: *kleinus, *h 2 ?kr\ Acer (probably) campestris and
platanoides, (perhaps) pseudoplatanoides.
Nut: *h 2 er -, *kneu-\ (possibly in west) Corylus, (probably in
east) Juglans regia and Castanea saliva.
Yew: *taksos, *h jciuos, Taxus baccata.
In a striking number of cases there are two or even three
terms for one genus, e.g., ‘willow’, ‘apple’, maple’, nut’, ‘yew'.
599 —
TREES
The Distribution of Indo-European Tree Names
Species
Form
Celt
Ital
Gmc
Balt
Slav
Alb
Grk
Arm
Anat
Iran
Ind
Alder
*uerno/eh a -
X
-
-
-
-
A
-
A
-
-
A
*h a eliso-
7
X
X
X
X
?
7
-
?
-
-
*kleh a dhreh a -
-
-
A
-
-
-
A
-
-
-
-
Apple
*h a ebVl-
X
X?
X
X
X
-
-
-
-o
-)
-
*meh2lom
-
X
-
-
-
X?
X
-
-
-
Ash
*h 3 es(k)~
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
-
-
Aspen
*h 2/3 osp-
-
-
X
X
X
-
-
X
-
7
Beech
*bheh a gos
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
Birch
*bherhxgos
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
77
X
X
Cherry
*kpaom
-
X
-
X
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
Elm
*hielem
X
X
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
*ui(n)g-
-
-
X
A
A
A
-
-
-
A
-
Fir
*dhonu-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
X
T
7
*h a ebi-
-
X
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
-
-
Hawthorn
*h 2 ed(h)-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
Hazel
*kos(V)los
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hornbeam
*(s)greh a b(h)~
-
X
-
X
X
?
7
-
-
-
-
Juniper
*hieleu-
-
-
-
-
A
-
A
A
-
*
-
Linden
*lenteh a -
-
?
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
*leipeh a -
-
-
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
Maple
*kleinus
-
-
X
X
X
-
7
-
-
-
-
*h 2 ekf
-
X
X
-
-
-
X
-
X
-
-
Mulberry
*mdrom
X
X
-
-
-
-
X
X
7
-
-
Nut
*kneu-
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*h 2 er -
-
-
-
A
A
A
A
-
-
-
-
Oak
*perk w us
X
X
X
??
??
-
-
-
-
-
-
*h a eig-
-
?
A
-
-
-
A
-
-
-
-
Pine
*peuks
X
-
A
A
-
-
A
-
-
A
-
*pit(u)~
-
X
-
-
-
X
X
-
-
7
-)
•pfk^eh,-
-
A’
A
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sloetree
*dhergh-
X
-
X
-
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
Willow
*sal(i)k-
X
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*ueIiko/eh a -
-
-
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
*ueit-
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
-
X
X
Yew
*h jeiuos
X
-
X
X
X
-
-
-
X
-
-
*taksos
-
X
-
-
X
-
X
-
-
X
-
Toch
and ‘oak’. This multiplicity of reconstructed forms may involve
geographical complementation, e.g., eastern versus western
dialectal terms, or functional specialization where there was
the use of one part or of one species of tree for a specific
purpose, e.g., willow osiers are used for baskets and fences.
To a degree that goes beyond other semantic sets, the
arboreal terms and the tree names in particular indicate a
relatively strong western-central area that includes Celtic,
Italic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic. Among these Slavic shows
the highest rate of mutual correspondence, which may suggest
that its ecological area corresponds relatively closely with that
of the earliest Indo-Europeans. It should also be observed,
however, that a number of the terms for trees, though found
across a range of west or central European stocks, may have
entered the continuum of early IE languages from non-IE
substrates, e.g., one if not both of the ‘apple' words. The
relative paucity of inherited tree names in lndo-Iranian could
easily be accounted for by the long sojourn of these groups in
the relatively tree-less region of the Kazakhstan steppe and
Central Asia. In addition to the often discussed names for
particular genera of trees, there are also some excellent terms
for the basic parts of the tree: branch, root, bark, twig. Indeed,
we can assume that the speakers of PIE were strongly oriented
to their forests and groves as sources of anything from fire-
wood, timber and bast to religious and artistic inspiration.
Combined linguistic, archaeological and even modern
ethnographic evidence demonstrates many specific uses and
functions of trees: the ash, hornbeam and oak for spears; the
— 600 —
TRICKSTER
yew, hazel and aspen for wands and other sacred or ritual
instruments; the willow for withies. More interesting are the
large complexes, notably those involving the oak and the
birch. We can reconstruct at least two names for the ‘oak’ and
the word for ‘tree’ is so strongly connected with the ‘oak’ that
at least a case can be made that this was its primary meaning.
The term for ‘acorn’ is also well attested and we have a weaker
but still cognate ‘mistletoe’. Archaeologically and historically
there is overwhelming evidence for worship in oak (and
beech) groves, and for religious and mythological association
of the oak with mountains, lightning and a high god; in short,
many parts and aspects of the oak form part of an early druidic
sort of religion.
Quite different from the oak complex is the symbolic sphere
of the birch. The word that we can reconstruct with confidence
appears to have been feminine both grammatically and
lexically. In folklore and myth from the Baltic to the Vedic
texts of India, the birch seems for long to have symbolized
young, virginal femininity. The birch and oak, however, are
but extreme examples of the many nuances of every arboreal
term, including ‘branch’ and ‘root’, and of the rich texture of
nuance that interconnects the members of the arboreal set as
a whole to each other and to many other symbols in the early
IE world.
See also Alder; Apple; Ash; Aspen; Bark 1 ; Beech; Berry;
Birch, Branch; Cherry; Elm, Fir; Fork (of tree); Grove;
Hawthorn; Hazel; Hornbeam; Juniper; Knot 2 ; Linden;
Maple; Mistletoe; Mulberry; Nut; Oak; Pine; Plants,
Sap; Sloetree; Willow; Yew. fPE J
Further Readings
Campbell, L. (1990) Indo-European and Uralic tree names.
Diachronica 7, 149-180.
Friedrich, P (1970) Proto-Indo-European Trees. Chicago, University
of Chicago.
Hamp, E. P (1973) Review of Paul Friedrich Proto-Indo-European
Trees. American Anthropologist 75, 1093-1096.
Hoops, J. (1905) Waldbaume und Kulturpflanzen im Germanischen
Altertums. Strassburg, Triibner.
Huld, M. (1981) Albanian corrigenda to Friedrichs Proto-Indo-
European Trees. KZ 95, 302-308.
Huntley, B. andH.J. Birks(1983) An Atlas of Past and Present Pollen
Maps for Europe: 0 - 13000 Years Ago. Cambridge, Cambridge
University.
Nejshtadt, M. I. (1957) Istoriya Lesov i Paleografiya SSSRvGolotsene.
Moscow, Nauka.
TRICKSTER
A mythological “Trickster” is not a figure easily located
nor much investigated in the broad Indo-European context.
No remainder of any believable Trickster-Culture Hero has
been found in any of the various IE traditions; that is, as a
primitive mythic being of vast but semi-comic dimensions
and erratic and disorganized powers, who blunders into the
creation of human culture (but who also may be the originator
of death among humankind). Although in no way assignable
to PIE antiquity, there are reflections of a Trickster god in the
divine pantheons of IE-speaking peoples. We can tentatively
point to the Greek Hermes who shows contrary and reversing
patterns of action, an emblematic image of masking, trouble-
making, and even of the perverse. The same is true of the
Norse god Loki, ‘first creator of trickeries,’ who is identified
as one of the /Esir, the gods of sovereignty, order, and war,
and yet is called both an enemy and a servant of the other
Norse gods. Georges Dumezil showed the clear parallelism
between Loki and the Ossetic Syrdon, who displays the same
contrary and malignant nature, and the same servant’s role,
among the Nart heroes of the Ossetian tales, hut he was
reluctant to equate these two figures with the archaic and
archetypal Trickster-type as explored in Amerindian cultures
by Paul Radin and defined by Carl Jung. Nevertheless,
Dumezil did argue for at least generic comparisons between
the Norse Loki, the Roman Tarpeia, the Avestan Angra Mainyu
as well as the Ossetian Syrdon.
One important mode of the Trickster is locatable in the IE
epical context, where he already appears in the person of
Odysseus, the great-grandson of Hermes, in the lliad\ called
he of many wiles (/roAu/itjng) , a crafty, manipulative,
untruthful but respected hero and war-king whose friend and
divine ally was Athene, the goddess of craft and of intelligence.
Odysseus sets up a pattern that will be seen widely elsewhere
in IE epic, by being often paired with a “straight ", blunt and
physically heroic warrior, in this case the hero Diomedes. Such
a pairing of Trickster-hero and a muscular and unthinking
partner is also seen in the Welsh Celtic context, where Cei is
paired with knightly Bedwyr. Cei is himself a complicated,
two-sided figure, a warlock but also a great warrior, who
eventually declines into the buffoon-like Sir Kay of the later
Arthurian romances. In the Old Irish hero-tales, such as the
Ulster Cycle, some tricksterish characteristics are seen in such
mocking, trouble-making and contrary figures as Bricriu
Nemthenga (poison-tongue) and Dubthach Doeltenga (chafer-
tongue). A special reflection of the warrior- Trickster appears
in the Serbo-Croat heroic songs collected by Parry and Lord:
“Tale of Orasacs” or “Tale the Fool” acts as planner, spymaster,
executioner and jester to a collective of hero- warriors and
border- fighters.
Trickster can be associated with other figures who aid and
assist in the warrior function, especially with the Smith, also
a master of craft and (like the most archaic Trickster) a creator
of culture. Their similarity also includes the manipulation of
magical powers, and their “blackened”, distorted, and
disheveled appearance, in which both show contrast to and
reversal of the usual perfection of the surface of the hero-
warrior’s persona. Possibly Smith and Trickster descend from
the same root, as they are usually closely allied with but not
precisely part of the most archaic IE ideological structure. In
general, the IE epical Trickster, the most widely seen example
of the general type, acts as a foil to the usual warrior-hero,
showing special knowledge, craft, and word-skills; he is also
601 —
TRICKSTER
likely to be a survivor, as the usual hero is not. The erotic
element seen in the Trickster in other non-IE traditions is
mostly missing, or not very prominent, in the IE versions of
the Trickster’s acts and adventures.
See also Craft God; Eschatology; Smith God. [D.A.M.]
Further Reading
Dumezil, G. (1948) Loki. Paris, G.-R Maisonneuve.
TRIPOLYE CULTURE
The Tripolye culture stretches from Romania (where it is
known as the Cucuteni culture) to the western Ukraine and
dates to the period c 4500-3000 BC. The culture is attested
from well over a thousand sites in the form of everything
from small villages to vast settlements comprised of hundreds
of dwellings surrounded by multiple ditches. The arrangement
of houses and other structures is often seen to be in the form
of a circle or concentric circles with one or several houses in
the center of the settlement. An alternative arrangement
includes rows of houses aligned along the side of a river. The
houses themselves may vary from small dwellings, presumably
of a nuclear family, to much larger houses, including examples
with a second storey. The larger structures have been taken
to be the dwellings of extended families while the size of the
settlements has been correlated with clan or tribal units. Clay-
built ovens and hearths are known from the interior of sites
and clay models of houses attest the existence of furniture
and wall decorations. In some instances buildings identified
Tripolye a. Distribution of the Tripolye culture.
as shrines have been uncovered and clay platforms (?“altars”)
have frequently been identified in structures.
Wood remains indicate something of the range of the
arboreal environment of the Tripolye culture and include fir
(Picea excelsa ), pine (Pinus sylvestris), alder ( Alnus ), birch
( Betula ), hornbeam ( Carpinus betulus), beech ( Fagus
sylvatica), oak ( Quercus robur ), elm ( Ulmus laevis ), linden
( Tilia cordata), ash ( Fraxinus excelsior ), and hazel ( Corylus
avellana). The mixed agricultural economy is attested with
the remains of wheat ( Triticum monococcum, T. dicoccum,
TV aestivum, T. spelta ), barley ( Hordeum vulgare ), millet
( Panicum miliaceum ) and oats ( Avena ). Among the lentils
and pulses there are pea (Pisum sativum ) and bitter vetch
( Vicia ervilia). Other plant remains for the early and middle
period of the Tripolye culture include the cherries ( Prunus
cerasifera , P. domestica ), the vine ( Vitis ) and apricot
(. Armeniaca vulgaris ) which by the Late Tripolye period were
augmented by further forms of cherries ( Prunus spinosa,
Cornus mas, Cerasus avium), pear ( Pyrus ), apple ( Malus ),
grape vine ( Vitis vinifera ), hawthorn ( Crataegus ) and
wayfaring-tree ( Viburnum lantana). Among the domestic
fauna cattle generally predominate but ovicaprids and pig
are also well represented except in the latest periods where a
shift in settlement into the more arid steppe region sees a
very marked decline in domestic pig on late Tripolye settle-
ments. Wild species included red and roe deer, elk, aurochs,
wild pig, horse, bear, beaver, badger, otter, wolf, fox, wildcat,
marten, hare, squirrel, cricetus (hamster), and isolated
instances of antelope, wolverine, polecat, lynx, hedgehog,
mole, vole, spalax and citellus (squirrel).
The Tripolye culture attests a wide range of material culture:
flint tools, polished stone axes, imported copper ornaments
and tools. Simple plowshares have also been uncovered. Of
special note are the stylized figurines and fine wares of painted
pottery, less frequently ornamented in relief or by excision.
These reflect an extensive system of ornamentation which
include both zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figures which
have been interpreted as reflections of religious beliefs. The
anthropomorphic figurines are usually female and ornament
on ceramics has also been associated with a female deity or
deities. There is a wide variety of other motifs which have
generated considerable speculation, e.g., trees are depicted
and have been interpreted as sacred trees, cattle have been
interpreted as aspects of a bovine goddess.
In origin, the culture is seen as a projection of southeast
European agriculturalists to the east and its closest genetic
connections, seen particularly in ceramics, are with Neolithic
cultures of the Balkans (Boian, Hamangia) and the Linear Ware
culture. On the other hand, the Tripolye culture was in regular
contact with the steppe and forest-steppe cultures, especially
■603 —
TRIPOLYE CULTURE
the Sredny Stog and Yamna cultures. The culture has been
variously seen as Proto-Indo-European where its architecture
has suggested the extended family type ascribed to the Indo-
Europeans or a non-IE culture that was first threatened and
then overwhelmed or absorbed into the putatively IE steppe
cultures to its east (as in the “Kurgan theory”). In its later
phases, it shows evidence of an amalgamation of both native
cultural elements (painted wares, figurines) and steppe
elements (shell-tempered coarse wares, kurgan burials).
See also Kurgan Tradition; Sredny Stog Culture;
Usatovo Culture ; Yamna Culture . [JEM.]
Further Reading
Masson, V M. and N. Merpert (1982) Eneolit SSSR. Moscow, Nauka.
TROOP see COMPANION
TROUT
*pikskos ‘trout ( Salmo trutta ); fish’. \1EW 796 ( *peisk-)\
Wat 48 ( *peisk-)\ GI 454 ( *p h eisk h - ~ *p h isk h h\ Buck 3.651 .
Olr lasc (gen. eisc ) ‘fish’ (< *peiRsRos with new full-grade
but in any case assuring the cluster *-ksR- rather than *-sk~),
Lat piscis ‘fish’ (with a not well-explained change from an o-
stem to an /-stem), piscina ‘fish-pond’, ON /1'skr‘fish’, OE fisc
‘lish’ (> NE fish), OHG fisk ‘fish’, Goth fisks ‘fish’, perhaps
Alb pishk ‘fish’ (if not borrowed from Lat piscis), OInd piccha-
‘calf (of the leg)’, picchila- ~ picchala - ‘slimy, slippery’.
Although the Old Indie word conforms well with linguistic
expectations its underlying semantics are rather complicated.
There appears to be a widespread association in many different
language stocks between the calf of the leg and the belly of a
fish full of roe, e g., Rus ikra ‘fish roe; calf of leg’, N Dutch
kuit ‘fish roe; calf of leg’, Estonian kala (‘fish’)-mari ‘fish roe’
and saare (‘leg’) -mari ‘calf of leg’. Some iconographic support
comes from the presumably Indo-lranian burial in the Iron
Age tombs of Pazyryk in the Altai mountains where an
individual was tattooed with a fish down the length of his
right shin, thus rendering his calf the equivalent of the fish’s
belly. Rus (and other Slavic) piskati ‘groundling ( Cyprinus
gobio)', sometimes included here, is probably rather a
derivative of *pisk- ‘whistle’ (because of the noise such fish
make). Latin and Germanic show an identically constructed
denominative verb, *pi(k)sk-eh a -: Lat piscari ‘to fish’, ON
fiska ‘to fish’, OE fiscian ‘to fish’ (> NE IverbJ fish), OHG
fiskon ‘to fish’, Goth fiskon ‘to fish’. The nearly certain
derivation of *pikskos from *pik-sko- ‘spotted’ or the like
indicates that the earliest ichthyological meaning was ‘trout’.
Similarly in Slavic we have descendants of a late P1F. *pik-ro-
meaning ‘trout’, e.g., Czech pstruh , Rus pestruska, or in Celtic
and Germanic derivatives of *perk- ‘speckled’, e.g., Mir ere
‘speckled, trout, salmon’ (but Weis erch only ‘speckled’), OE
fom(e) ‘trout’, OHG forhanna ‘trout’ (but Grk Kepicr] ‘perch’
rather than ‘trout’). Possibly Hit parhu- ‘± fish’ may also belong
here. Widespread and old. The distribution of the trout covers
all of Europe and extends well into Asia. It seems likely that
already in the later stages of PIE this word was becoming
generalized to ‘fish’ and competing with *dhghuh x - ‘fish’.
See also Fish; Salmon. [D.Q.A.l
Further Readings
Hamp, E. R (1973) Fish. JIES 1, 507-512.
Sadovsky, O. J. (1973) The reconstruction of If: *pisko- and the
extension of its semantic sphere. JIBS 1 , 81-100.
TROY
The famous settlement of Troy (identified with the modern
site of Hisarlik in northwest Turkey) provides the name for
the early Bronze Age culture of northwest Anatolia. The
culture, which marks the beginning of the early Bronze Age
in this region, dates to c 3300 BC (although the site of Troy
itself is some centuries later). Sites such as Troy 1, Demirci
Huyuk, Klazomenai-Limantepe are all fortified with stone
walls and reflect the incipient urbanism of this period with
early metal working, craft specialization, etc, Troy itself
represents a deposit over 20 m high that is divided into 41
architectural levels spanning eight main periods and many
sub-phases. Through the course of its existence it has been
variously assigned as a marker for Indo-European intrusions
into (or out of) Anatolia.
Troy initially began as a fortified settlement (Troy 1, c 2900
BC) surrounded by rubble-filled stone walls that may have
stood over 7 m high. The interior comprised single-roomed
houses, including an apsidal house. Apsidal houses are taken
by some as markers for IE movements from the Balkans
southwards (they are also found in Greece where they play a
role in some discussions of Greek origins; in actual fact, they
are widely found across Europe from the Neolithic period
604 —
TROY
onwards and are no certain ethnic marker in themselves
although they might indicate the movement of a particular
architectural tradition). Remains of both cereal agriculture
(wheat) and stockraising (cattle, sheep/goat) have been
recovered. Ceramics bear many parallels with those of the
Bulgarian early Bronze Age cultures, such as Ezero, and the
proposition that some form of close interaction sphere is
probable. Some adduce other parallels such as the stone -built
fortresses which are also found at Ezero in Bulgaria and
Mikhaylovka north of the Black Sea. On the basis of twenty-
seven proposed Thracian-“Trojan” isoglosses, L. A. Gindin
has suggested that the Proto-Thracians predominated in the
early settlement of Troy. According to the “Kurgan theory” of
IE origins, steppe pastoralists reorganized the populations of
the Balkans about such citadels and hence Troy 1 and related
sites might mark the earliest intrusion of Indo-Europeans
(Proto-Anatolians?) into Anatolia. Others would prefer to
reverse the direction of proposed movements and influences
and derive the European parallels from Anatolia. Although
the domestic horse is not found here at Troy until much later
(cognates for the horse word can be found in Luvian), the
presence of the horse in western Anatolia on other sites does
emerge by this time.
By Troy II (c 2500 BC) the interior architecture of the site
v£th its great megaron ‘large house’ and large circular hearth
has often been interpreted as a royal residence. During this
phase of occupation a series of hoards of gold and silver were
also deposited which can be paralleled across Anatolia at other
sites (the sb-called “Treasure Elorizon”). Cultural contacts
across the Aegean are particularly marked. Face urns (vessels
shaped and ornamented as a head), similar to those also
known in the Baden culture, begin to appear (and will
continue through several more periods).
Of the periods, much emphasis has been placed on Troy
VI (c 1 700-1 300 BC) which sees the earliest evidence for the
domestic horse, at the site and a horizon of occupation that
has frequently been ascribed to a new people. The linguistic
identity of the Trojans at this time has been much discussed
since there are some hints that names current in the Iliad are
to be found in Hittite and Luvian texts of the fourteenth
century while traces of Anatolian names are found in Homer’s
catalogue of Trojan allies in the Iliad. Prominent among the
names is the Hittite reference to the country of Wilusa (cf.
*(W)ilios , Grk (F)iXioq), which on occasion even carries the
same epithet, i.e., Grk (F){Xwq aureivt] and Hit alati wilusati
‘steep Wilusa’. The non-Anatolian sounding personal name
Alaksandus is compared with Grk ’Ahelqavdpoq ‘Alexandras’
(the son of King Priam, whose own name has been compared
with Luv Pariya-muwas) . These names have prompted some
to argue that, the occupants of Troy VI may have been
Anatolian, specifically Luvian in their speech. Alternatively,
as Troy VI has been regarded widely as a possible marker of
intruders, some have suggested that it may have been occupied
by Phrygian populations from the Balkans (although they
remain linguistically unattested until the eighth century, long
after Troy itself was abandoned). This period also sees the
appearance of Minyan Ware, a pottery found in both Anatolia
and widely over Greece, which some have seen as a marker
of Greek movements into Greece. During Troy VI l (c 1 300—
1100 BC) there is a sudden break (between Troy Vila and
VI lb) which sees the appearance ot knobbed ware, a ceramic
style distinctive of the Balkans, which offers another candidate
for Balkan intrusions which have also been assigned to the
Phrygians. For those who enjoy literary-historical speculation,
late Troy VI or the following Troy VU are the traditional
candidates for Homer’s “Troy” described in the Iliad.
See also Anatolian Languages; Baden Culture;
Ezero Culture, fj . P M . 1
Further Readings
Blegen, C. (1963) Troy and the Trojans. London, Thames and
Hudson.
Gindin, L. A. (1993) Naseleniye Gomerskovskoy Troy Moscow,
Nauka.
Watkins, C. (1986) The language of the Trojans, in Troy and the
Trojans . ed. M. Mellink, Bryn Mavvr, Bryn Mawr College. *15-62.
— 605 —
TRUE
i"
TRUE
*hisdnt- ‘real, true’. [7£W 340-341 (*es-); Wat 17 (*es-);
GI 256, 264 (*es-)]. Lat sons ‘guilty’, ON sannr ‘true, guilty’,
OE sop ‘true, genuine, real; justice, truth’ (cf. NE soothsayer ),
sodian ‘prove true, bear witness’ (> NE soothe ), Hit asant-
‘being, existing, real, true’, Av haQya- ‘true’, Olnd satya- ‘true’
(Indo-lranian < *h]s$t}6s), sant- ‘being, existing, real, true’.
In origin the present participle of *h\es- ‘be’ but already in
PIE specifically “true, real’ as well as ‘being, existing’. Also
already of PIE age is its juridical use a^a confession of guilt,
e.g., Hit asan-at iyanun-at ‘it (is) true, I did it’.
*vehiros ‘true’. [IEW 1166 (*yero-s); Wat 77 ( *wero-)\
Gl 370; Buck 16.661. Olr fir 1 true’, Weis gwir 1 true’, Lat verus
‘true’, OHG war ‘true’. A northwest IE adjective formed on
the root *y £h\r- ‘confidence, faithfulness, agreement’, e.g.,
ON Vcerr ‘friendly’, OCS vera ‘belief, confidence, faithfulness’.
An expanded form *u(hi)erhy- perhaps occurs in Lat vereri
‘revere, honor’, Latv verties ‘notice, see’, Grk enopovxai ‘they
supervise’, Hit werite ‘fear’, TochA war- ‘smell’, TochB war-
sk- ‘smell’.
See also Belief; Tree. IE.C.R, D.Q.A.)
Further Reading
Watkins, C. ( 1 995) How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European
Poetics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
TRZCINIEC CULTURE
The Trzciniec culture is a middle Bronze Age (c 1600-
1200 BC) culture of Poland and the western Ukraine, the
remains of which are found from the Vistula to the middle
Dnieper. Architectural remains are normally not well pre-
served but there is evidence for both surface and semi-
subterranean houses. In the eastern Trzciniec site of Pustynka,
fifteen to twenty houses were arranged in several rows along
a lake side; the houses measured about 10 x 5 m in size.
Mixed agriculture with cattle followed by pig appears typical
and the technology employed both bronze and flint tools,
especially sickle blades; the ceramics indicate a Corded Ware
ancestry for the culture. Burials are found both under flat
graves and barrows and the burial of a man and woman or
even multiple burial, perhaps in a wooden mortuary house,
is known. The placement of males in the central chamber of
mounds has suggested that these may have served as collective
tumuli for patriarchal families. Trzciniec is regarded as the
western component of a common Trzciniec-Komarov culture
group with regional differences of site location, ceramic styles
and mortuary practice. Generally, the Trzciniec along with
the Komarov culture is associated with the Proto-Slavs.
See also Corded Ware Culture; Komarov Culture;
Slavic Languages. IJ.RM.]
TURN, TWIST
*k w el- ‘turn’ (pres. *k w 6le/o-) [JEW 639 ( *k y ei-); Wat 33
(*k w el-)\ GI 622 ( *kh oe l-)\ BK 317 ( *k w [ h Jul-/*k w [ h ]ol-)\ .
Trzciniec a. Distribution of the Trzciniec culture.
Trzciniec b. Plan of house; c. Bowl from an urn burial;
d. Section through kurgan; e. Plan of village of Austynka.
— 606 —
TURN, TWIST
Olr cul ‘wagon’, Lat cold ‘dwell’, Alb sjell ‘turn around’, qell
(< *k w oleie/o-) ‘carry’, Grk neXcn ‘be in motion; be’, noXoq
‘axle’, ncoXeopai ‘go up and down in a place; frequent, wander
about; pursue a walk in life’, Av caraiti ‘circulates’, OInd carati
‘moves, wanders, drives’, TochAB ‘endure, bear’, 2 kal-
‘lead, bring’. Widespread and old in IE.
*k w leu- ‘turn’. Olr cloid ‘turns back, defeats’, Alb qeshe
(< *k w Ieud-s-ip) ‘was’, TochA lutk-(< *dutk-< *klutk-) ‘turn;
become’, TochB klutk- ‘turn, become’ (Toch < *k w leud-
ske/o-). An enlargement of the previous verb.
*trep- ‘turn’. [/JEW 1094 ( *trep-)\ Wat 72 ( *trep-)\ G1 187
(*t h rep h -)\ Buck 10.12], Lat trepit ‘turns’, Grk rpETtca' turn’,
xpoKT} ‘change’, rpomdco ‘turn, change’, perhaps Hit teripp-
‘plow’ (if < *‘tum the earth’), OInd trapate ‘becomes perplexed,
is embarrassed’, traps ‘perplexity, shame, embarrassment’.
With or without Hittite, obviously old in IE.
*yert- ‘turn’ (pres. *y 6rte/o-). [IEWl 156-1 158 (*uer-t-);
Wat 76-77 {*wer-)\ GI 623 ( *Hwer-t h -)\ Buck 10.12], Olr
do-fortad ( DIL do-fortai ) ‘poured out’, Lat verto ‘turn’, ON
vera ‘become’, OE weorpan ‘become’, OHG werdan ‘become’,
Goth wairpan ‘become’, Lith verciu ‘turn’, Latv versu ‘turn’,
OCS vrlteti sp ‘draw round’, Grk (Hesychius) fipardvccv (<
*y ratanon) ‘ladle’, Av varat- ‘turn’, Sogd wrtn ‘chariot’, Oss
waerdon ‘cart’, Mitanni -wartanna ‘lap around horse-track’,
OInd vartate ‘turns’, vartayati ‘moves, sets in motion’, TochA
wart- ‘throw’. Cf. Olr frith ‘against’, Lat vorsus ~ versus
‘against’, OCS vrusta ‘age’, TochB wrattsai ‘against’. Widespread
and old in IE.
*ijeig/k- ‘± turn, yield’ [IEW 1130-1 131 (*weik-)\ Wat 75
( *weik-)[ . ON vikva ~ vlkja ‘move, turn’, OE wican ‘yield,
give ground’, OHG wihhan ‘yield, give ground’, Lith vigrus ~
viglas ‘quick, nimble’, Grk eikoj ‘yield, give ground’, Av vaeg-
‘sling, throw, swing’, OInd vij ate ‘heaves, speeds, flees away’,
TochAB wik- ‘(decrease and) disappear’. Widespread and old
in IE.
*tjendh- ‘wind, twist (particularly flexible branches and
withies)’. [IEW 1 148 ( *uendh-)\ Wat 76 ( *wendh-)\ Gl 632
( *wend b -y, BK 498 ( * war}-/* war}-)]. Umb pre-uendu ‘turn’
(?), ON vinda ‘twist, wind’, vpndull ‘bundle of hay twisted
together’, vpndr ‘rod’, OE windan ‘turn, twist, wind’ (> NE
wind), OHG wintan ‘wind’, Goth bi-windan ‘wrap’, wandus
‘rod’, Grk KavvotOpov ‘basket-carriage’, (Hesychius) aOpaq
‘wagon’ (Grk < *updhro -), Arm gind ‘ring’, OInd vandhura-
‘(wicker) basket tied on a wagon, wicker carriage’, TochAB
want- ‘± cover, envelop’. A word that is both widespread and
old in IE.
*derbh - ‘turn, twist’ (or ‘bundle, bind together [by
twisting]’?). [IEW 211-212 ( *derbh -); Wat 12 {*derbh-)\.
OE tearflian ‘turn, roll, wallow’, OHG zerben ‘turn about’,
Rus dorob ‘box, sieve’, Arm torn ‘cord’, Av daropda- ‘bundle
of muscles’, Paraci andarf(< *ham-darb~) ‘sew’, OInd dfbhati
‘knots, ties’. Perhaps Grk ddpKq ‘basket’ belongs here if a
hypothetical *darphe has been influenced by xdpnr\ ‘large
basket’ (itself of unclear etymology — perhaps one or both of
these words has been borrowed from some other IE group).
In the IE east (Armenian, Iranian, Indie) this verb seems to
have meant ‘bundle, bind together (by twisting)’. In the
extreme west (Germanic) the basic meaning was apparently
‘turn, twist’. In a central area (Slavic, Greek) it would appear
to have been ‘plait’. It is not easy to determine which of these
meanings was more original for what is obviously an old word
in IE.
*/cy erp- turn’. [IEW 631 (*kuerp-)\ Wat 34 ( *kwerp-)\ .
Mir carr ‘spear’, Weis par ‘spear’, ON hverfa turn’, horfa ‘turn,
think, look’, OE hweorfan turn, change’ (> NE wharx’e), OHG
(h)werban ‘turn’, wirbeV swirl, whirlpool’, Goth hairban ‘walk
about’, Grk Kapnoq ‘wrist’ (i.e., ‘where the hand turns’),
KocpnaXipoq ‘rapid’, TochB kurp- be concerned with’ (< turn
oneself toward’). Reasonably widespread and old in IE.
*tyer- ‘stir, agitate’ [IEW 1 100 ( *tuer-)\ Wat 72 ( *twer -);
Gl 115]. Lat trua ‘scoop, ladle’, Swed tvara ‘stir, agitate’, OE
pweran ‘stir, churn, agitate’, OHG dweran ‘turn about quickly’,
Grk orptivoo ‘drive, agitate’, Av Owasa- (< *tvar-ta-) ‘hurrying’,
OInd tvarate ‘hurry’. Geographically widely spread, if rather
sparsely attested. An old word in IE.
*yetp- ~ *yei£>- ‘turn, move with a turning motion’. ] IEW
1131-1132 ( *ueip- - *ueib-)\ Wat 75 {*weip-)\. With *-p-:
Weis gwisgi ‘lively’, ON \ifa ‘arrive as by chance’, veifa ‘be in
swinging, trembling movement’, OE w&fan ‘clothe’, wafian
‘wave’ (> NE wave), OHG ze-weiban ‘scatter’, weibon ‘waver,
hover’, Goth bi-waibjan ‘surround, clothe’, OPrus wipis
‘branch’, Lith vieptis ‘distort one’s face’, Latv viept ‘mask’, Av
vip- ‘throw, release (of seed)’, OInd vepate ‘trembles, is
agitated’. With *-b- also Lat vibrarc ‘move tremblingly’, ON
veipa ‘wrap’, veipr ‘headcovering’, OE wipian ‘wipe’ (> NE
wipe), wape ‘handkerchief’, OHG wifan ‘throw’, weit
‘(head)band’, Goth weipan ‘crown’, Latv viebt ‘make grimaces’.
To either might belong TochB wip- ‘shake’. In one form or
the other widespread and presumably old in IE.
*ye/-‘turn, wind, roll’. [ IEW 1 140-1 143 ( *uel-)\ Wat 75-
76 (*we/-); BK 486 (*wa/>V*uW>'-)l. Olr filhd bends’, Bret
goalenn ‘green twig’, Lat volvo ‘roll, turn’, ON vil intestine’,
OE wielwan ‘roll, turn over’, Goth wahvjan ‘roll, rotate’, Lith
veliu ‘full or mill (cloth); felt (hats)’, Latv velt roll, rotate’,
OCS valiti'roW, Alb vjell ‘vomit’, Grk ei Xeco turn, wind’. Arm
gelum ‘turn, wind’, OInd valati ‘turns’, TochA walyi ‘worms,
maggots’, TochB yelyi ‘worms, maggots’. Widespread and old
in IE.
*slenk-'tum, twist (like a snake)’. [/EVV9b 1-962 ( *slenk-
~ *sleng-)\ Wat 61 (*sIeng' iV h-)\ . Weis llyngyr ‘worms,
maggots’, ON slyngva throw, sling; twist (yarn), twine
(thread)’, OE slingan ‘worm, twist oneself, creep into’ (> NE
sling), OHG slingan ‘worm, twist oneself, creep into’, slango
‘snake’, Lith slenku crawl (like a snake)’, Latv slikt ‘sink’. A
“westernism” in late IE.
*suerbh- turn, move in a twirling motion’. [IEW 1050-
1051 ( *suerbh-)\ Wat 68 ( *swerbh-)\ . Weis chwerfar
‘whirling, turning’, chwerfan spindlewhorl’, ON sverf a file;
whirl around’, OE sweorfan ‘wipe, rub , OHG swerban rub
off, dry off’, Goth af-swairban ‘wipe off’, Latv svarpstit ‘bore’.
— 607 —
TURN, TWIST
OCS svrabu ‘scabies’. The attestation of this word is geo-
graphically central and western in IE. Probably a late and
dialectal word in PIE.
?*(u)rep- ‘turn, incline’. Grk penco ‘incline oneself, be
inclined to’, ponr\ ‘inclination’, TochA rapurne ‘desire,
cupidity’. Perhaps dialectal in late PIE.
See also Bend; Neck; Rub; Shake; Tear 2 ;
Wagon; Wheel; Wind. [D.Q.A.l.
TWIN
*iemds ‘twin’. [IEW 505 (*iemo-), Wat 79 (*yem-); Gl
680-681 (*q’emo-)\. OIr emon ‘twins, Lat geminus{ < *iem-
ono-) ‘twin’, Av yama - ‘twin’, Olnd yama- ( < *iemos) ‘twin’.
Perhaps also Eat Remus by assimilation to Romulus , cf. the
Indo-lranian (mythological) figures: Av Yimo , Olnd Yama.
On the other hand, ON Ymir, the name of a giant, is not
relatable; the stem vowel must be long to account for the
desinence. Lith jumis ‘double fruit’ is similarly questionable.
Despite several dubious cognates, the solid attestation of this
word from Ireland to India confirms that it was the PIE word
for ‘twin’.
See also Cosmology; Divine Twins. [M.E.H.J
V
— 608 —
•u-
UDDER see BREAST
UNCLE
?*pfa a trdus (gen. *pfy a truds) (male) paternal relative; fathers
brother’. \1EW 829 ( *patruiuo-s)\ GI 669 (*pfrlit h ruwio-)\
Buck2.51; Szem 1 1; Wordick 124-1251. Grk Tudzpcoq ‘(male)
paternal relative’, (particularly ‘fathers father, father’s brother’).
Although attested in a single stock, it shows both an unusual
and non-productive derivational process that suggests con-
siderable age within Indo-European. Moreover, there are
further derivatives which greatly increase its geographical
spread. Thus we have *p(fa a )tru(u)ids ‘relating to the father’s
side’ in Lat patruus ‘father’s brother’ (regular from
*pfr a tru(u)ids or *pfa a tru(u)6s ), (Old) Lith strujus ‘grandfather,
old man’, Lith strujus ‘father’s brother; mother’s sister’s
husband’, OCS stryjl ‘fathers brother’, ORus stryj ‘father’s
brother’, Rus stroj ~ stryj ‘father’s brother’, Av tuirya- ‘father’s
brother’ (Balto-Slavic and Iranian with different reductions
of the difficult initial cluster *ptr -), OInd pitgvya- ‘father’s
brother’. In Greek and Armenian the same form gives
jzaTpvioq ‘step-father’, Arm yawray ‘step-father’ with a
different semantic specialization.
There is no certainty that either *ph a trous or *ph a tru(u)ids
was the designation for ‘father’s brother’ in PIE. Certainly it
was in a series of dialects that gave rise to Balto-Slavic and
Indo-Iranian. *ph a tru(u)ios is certainly a possible candidate
as the PIE shape of Lat patruus. In modern western languages,
where Eskimo kinship systems tend to dominate, matrilineal
and patrilineal uncles are not differentiated, a situation also
seen in some minor terms, notably Lith dtde ‘uncle’. The
relationship of this word to OCS djadu ‘grandfather’ (but note
Rus djadja ‘uncle’) indicates that this is a reduplicated child-
word, of the same sort as is seen in Grk Oeiog' uncle’.
??*h 2 tuh 2 - ‘grandfather; (?) mother’s brother’. [ IEW 89
( *auo-s)\ Wat 4 ( *awo -)\ Gl 669 ( *HauHo-)\ Buck 2.51; Szem
11; BK 4L6 ( *baw -)\ . As ‘mother’s brother’ attested only in
derivatives: MWels ewyth(y)r ‘uncle’, Bret eontr ‘mothers
brother’, Corn ewnter ‘mother’s brother’ (Celtic < *h 2 euhje/
on-tro-s), Lat avunculus (< *h 2 Cuh. 2 Vn-tlo-s ) ‘mother’s
brother; mother’s sister’s husband’, (Plautine) aunculus
(whence French onclc , NE uncle and Alb ungj ‘uncle’), OE
earn (< *ea-ham , still dissyllablic in Beowulf) ‘mother’s brother’
(> NE [Scots] eme ‘uncle’), OHG dheim ‘mother's brother (as
if < *h 2 euh 2 o(n)~ + *I<oimos, thus ‘living in grandfather's
home’?), OPrus awis ‘uncle’ (specifically ‘mother’s brother’?),
Lith avynas (< h 2 euti 2 -ih x nos ) ‘mother’s brother’, OCS u/f
‘mother’s brother’, ORus ui ‘mother’s brother’ (OPrus and
Slavic < *h 2 euti 2 iios).
Derivatives include OIraue ‘grandson’, ON ai ‘grandfather’,
possibly Alb vella ‘brother’ < ‘cousin’ < ‘mother’s brotherfs
son)’ reflecting either a metathesized diminutive *walada <
*awadla < *h 2 eudh 2 ~dhlo- or compound *awadlii <
*h 2 euh 2 d-dhlo-eh- r . Certainly there was a thorough-going
tendency in the west and center of the IE world to create a
term for ‘mother’s brother’ on the basis of undoubtedly P1H
*h 2 euh 20 S ‘grandfather’. Whether we can reconstruct an
additional meaning ‘mother’s brother’ for *h 2 eul) 20 s in PIE
itself is much more problematic.
*syesrii'os ‘pertaining to a sister, sisterly; sister’s son;
?mother’s brother’. In the latter meaning only in Arm k‘eri
‘mother’s brother’. Related are OSwed swiri ‘mother’s sister’s
son’, OE swor ~ (ge)sweor ‘mother’s sister’s son’, geswirga
‘sister’s son; mother’s brother's/sister’s son, father’s sisters son’.
Assuming ‘sisters son’ as the oldest meaning allows us to
explain Arm ‘mother’s brother’ as an example of reciprocal
naming (cf. Olr aue ‘grandson’ from *h 2 euli 20 S ‘grandfather’
— 609 —
UNCLE
or OHG enikl ‘grandson’ from ano ‘grandfather’).
?*meh a trdus ‘mothers brother’, [cf. IEW 700 - 701 ], Grk
pijxpcog ‘mother’s brother’. No other direct cognates exist but
Robert Beekes has suggested that the existence of a PIE
feminine *weh a truh a - ‘mother’s sister’, presupposes the prior
existence of such a masculine form which may have only
survived in Greek.
?*dhehi- ‘uncle’. [IEW 235 (*dhe~ ~ *dhe-dh(e)-), Buck
2 . 51 }. Perhaps Lith dide ‘uncle, father’s brother, mother’s
sister’s husband’ (if not borrowed from Russian), Rus djadja
‘maternal uncle’ (cf. the related OCS djadu ‘grandfather’), Grk
Oeiog ‘uncle’. The relationship between these words is not
certain as the Lithuanian word may be a borrowing from
Russian and, although both the OCS and Russian forms are
related, the latter is not derived from the former. At best, a
word of the center of the IE world but also possibly
independent formations built on common forms employed
by children, e.g., NE dad(dy).
Mother’s Brother
Since Delbruck’s analysis of IE kinship terms it has been
clear that terms for *h2euh2- ‘mother’s brother’ are derived
from *h2euh20s ‘grandfather’ although some languages
possess a number of other derivatives for ‘mother’s brother’
that most regard as later developments (e g., Grk pTjxpoyg
‘mother’s brother’, OInd matula- ‘mother’s brother’). Neverthe-
less, the association between the two terms has been regarded
as crucial evidence for reconstructing an Omaha kinship
system for Proto-Indo-European. Along with the proposed
identity of ‘sister’s son’ and ‘daughter’s son’ under a common
form *nepdts, the Omaha system would predict the lexical
identity of 'grandfather, mother’s father’ and ‘mother’s brother’,
here suggested under a common term *h2euh20s. The
argument rests on the proposition that as some stocks give
the meaning ‘grandfather’, some give the meaning ‘mother’s
brother’, and some give both meanings, it is logical to recon-
struct both denotations to the proto-form. The evidence for
this is in fact considerably more circumstantial and as with
attempts to assign two kinship denotations to *nepots, there
are also critics of those who would try to unite ‘grandfather’
and ‘mother’s brother’ under *h2euh20s.
The meaning ‘grandfather’ is uncontested as that is the
meaning (and the only meaning according to the critics) one
recovers from the lexically cognate sets. Unlike the arguments
concerning *nepdts where individual stocks do combine the
two kinship categories under the same term, all of the pro-
posed evidence for ‘mother’s brother’ rests on derivations from
*h2euh20s and there is no certain example in any stock where
precisely the same form gives both ‘grandfather’ and ‘mother’s
brother’. The derivations vary according to stock or even
within the same stock: Celtic extends the original root with
the suffix *-tro-, Latin extends with a diminutive *-t/o-,
Germanic forms a compound with *-haima- variously
explained as ‘house’ (PIE *koimos ), i.e., ‘one who lives in
grandfather’s house’ or with *k w oimos ‘value’, i.e., ‘dear
grandfather’, cf. Weis tad-cu ‘grandfather’ (< ‘dear father’),
Lithuanian extends with *-ih x nos , Old Prussian and Slavic
both employ the familiar derivative suffix *-ios. On com-
parative grounds then ‘mother’s brother’ cannot be shown to
be one of the meanings of *h2euh20s. Moreover, it is not
attested with the meaning ‘mother’s brother’ in either Anatolian
or Armenian where there is no derived form for mothers
brother’ but only the basic form ‘grandfather’. Finally, the
critics argue, one cannot even advance a common derivational
form of this word back to PIE: the various root-related forms
for ‘mother’s brother’ would appear at best to be post-PlE
developments in every individual stock in which they appear;
moreover, these are confined to the western and central parts
of the IE world.
One is left then with a circumstantial “tendency” in the
west and central regions of the IE world to employ the word
for ‘grandfather’ when coining a word to denote ‘mother’s
brother’ (obviously, supporters of the Omaha hypothesis
would argue that this tendency was driven by the fact that
the two denotations had been combined in the same word in
the proto-language). It could be argued that even in Omaha
kinship systems there is only a tendency to equate ‘mother’s
brother’ with ‘grandfather’ (and the latter term need not refer
exclusively to ‘mother’s father’). It is noteworthy that in Omaha
itself (the “eponymous ideal” of the Omaha kinship type) there
is no equation of ‘mother’s brother with ‘grandfather’. Heinrich
Hetterich suggests (as many others had before him) that there
was no specific term for ‘mothers brother’ in PIE (or at least
we have no grounds for reconstructing one) and that t he cross-
relatives were probably denoted descriptively (e.g., in addition
to the etymologically difficult Olr amnair ‘mother’s brother’,
Old Irish commonly employed a descriptive term, hrathair
mathar ‘mother’s brother’). To explain the widespread
tendency to derive the word for ‘mother’s brother’ from
‘grandfather’ the critics of the Omaha hypothesis often point
to the special relationship obtaining between the ‘mothers
brother’ and ‘sisters son’ among the early IE stocks.
It has often been observed that in patrilineal societies, as
one would reconstruct for Proto-Indo-European, the relation-
ship between father (and father’s brothers) and son is that of
a stern disciplinarian and obedient child, i.e . , the relationship
is emotionally “cool”. In contrast, the boy will enjoy a much
more affectionate relationship with his mother’s brother who
is outside the boy’s lineage. Examples of such a relationship
can be cited from early IE peoples, the most frequently quoted
being that of Tacitus ( Germania 20 ) on the early Germans
where he observes that a sisters sons (sororum filiis ) are
regarded to be related to their mothers brother ( awnculum )
nearly as closely as to their own father (pater) and some tribes
prefer to extract hostages on the basis of such a relationship
as it involves a greater emotional hold on the family. Tacitus
clarifies the situation by emphasizing that the line of legal
descent and inheritance is from father to son, Here and other
examples from both the early historical record of the Indo-
European peoples and ethnographic samples from the rest of
— 610 —
UNDERWORLD
the world indicate that such relationships between mother’s
brother (or maternal grandfather) and nephew are common.
These relationships may have been intensified by the custom
of fosterage where a son would be sent to live with his mother’s
brother, e.g., the Irish Cu Chulainn and his mothers brother
Conchobor. The reasons for such a relationship are generally
attributed to a number of factors: both the son and mother’s
brother are connected to each other through the same woman
with whom they share an affectionate bond (mother-son,
sister-brother); in a patrilineal descent system, the mother’s
brother (or mother’s father) will have no authority to exercise
over his sister’s children since they are raised in a different
kin-group (this is the opposite of the avunculate which
operates in matrilineal systems where ‘mother’s brother’ will
occupy the role of stem disciplinarian as descent is reckoned
along the mother’s line; in this situation the father is in a
more friendly relationship with his son). Hetterich suggests
that as the Indo-Europeans moved to a more settled society,
interpersonal relationships between previously distant
relations became much closer and intense and new terms were
required to designate them. In the case of the ‘mother’s
brother’, the term for the only other male who occupied a
higher generation and might stand in an affectionate
relationship with a boy would have been the ‘(maternal)
grandfather’ and it was from this word that new terms for the
‘mother’s brother’ were derived. O. Szemerenyi, while agreeing
with the interpersonal relationships, suggests rather than the
derivation is more easily explained by the fact that when the
maternal grandfather (mother’s father) died, her eldest brother
would assume her father’s position, i.e., the eldest ‘mother’s
brother’ was invariably a potential ‘grandfather’.
See also Grandfather; Kinship. [M.E.H., J.PM.j
Further Readings
Beekes, R. S. P (1976) Uncle and nephew. J1ES 4, 43-63.
Bremmer, J. (1976) Avunculate and fosterage. JIES 4, 65-78.
Hetterich, H. (1985) Indo-European kinship terminology. Anthro-
pological Linguistics 27, 453-480.
UNDER
*$dh6s~ *$dhero- ‘under, low’. \IEW11\ (*ndhos)\ Wat
43 ( *pdher-)\ Buck 12.32}. From *pdhes: ON und ‘under’,
Arm and ‘under’, Lycian etTdown, below’, OInd adhas ‘under’,
TochA anc ‘downward, under’, TochB ette ‘downward, under’
(both Tocharian forms with partially unexplained phono-
logical developments); from *ndhero-: Lat infemus ‘lower’,
Infra ‘below, under, beneath’, ON undir ‘under’, OF. under
‘under’ (> NE under), OIIG untar(i) ‘under’, Goth undard
‘under’, perhaps Grk dOepi^w 1 despise’, Lycian etre/i- ‘lower’,
Av adara- ‘the lower’, OInd adhara- ‘lower’. Old in IE.
*ner ‘under’. [IEW 765 (*ner-); Wat 44 (*ner-)j. Umb
nertru ‘left’, ON nordr ‘north’, OE norp ‘northern’ (> NE
north), OHG nord ‘north’, Grk veprepoq ‘further below,
deeper’, vepOev ‘from below’, veipoq(< *nerios) ‘the deepest’,
TochB nor(< *neru) ‘below, beneath, under, down’. Old in
IE. Cf. Lith neriu ‘plunge, dive into', nerove ‘water nymph’.
Note that the north is to the left when facing the rising sun,
which was the PIE orientation for direction; the north is also
the ‘low’ in contrast to the south where the noon-day sun
reaches its height.
See also Adpreps; Direction; Up. [D.Q.A., A.D.V.}
UNDERWORLD
A number of Proto-Indo-European deities were represented
as belonging to the underworld, beneath the physical surface
of the earth. Their duties could include ruling or judging the
souls of the dead, aiding the souls’ transition between life
and the afterworld, overseeing the processes of decay or rebirth
from the soil, and guarding mineral resources. These deities
were regarded with fear and were placated with special
chthonic sacrifices, such as pigs or black animals.
Rulers of the underworld could be gods or deified men.
The Greek god Hades (also called Ais and Aidoneus, Roman
Dls or Pliito) is the most clearly depicted chthonic deity,
accepting the souls of the dead into his subterranean kingdom
but not interacting with them in any way. The mineral
resources of the earth were his, and he is often depicted with
a wolfskin cap which represents both his function as guard
dog at the gate of his realm and the wolfish ferocity of his
character, attested by such epithets as navrotpayog ‘all-
devourer’ and oapKotpayoq ‘body-devourer’. But although he
was viewed with dread for what he represented, Hades was
not considered to be hostile to humanity; another of his
epithets was noXv^evoq ‘hospitable’, and the name Hades
can be analyzed as ‘reunionist’ from *sqt-uid~, referring to
the souls’ reunion with their ancestors. Appropriate sacrifices
to Hades were black cocks, cows, sheep, or pigs, offered in
the evening or at midnight in a pit.
Rulers of the dead in other branches of IE often had some
more important aspect as well. The Norse Forr was god of
battle and thunder as well as the leader of the souls of thralls
or those who did not die a warrior death. Slavic Perun,
Lithuanian Perkunas, and Thracian Zalmoxis, all thunder
gods, also were associated with the spirits of the dead, as was
Baltic Pecullus or Patollus (with many variant spellings).
Pecullus was closely connected with Lithuanian Velinas (also
Velnias, Old Russian Veles or Volos), god of horned animals
but also god of the underworld. Here the link is between the
death aspect and the fertility aspect of the underworld.
There is some evidence in both Hittite and Baltic for a
goddess of the dead, a chthonic solar deity, akin to the Hattie
Lelwani, but this is probably the result of borrowings. Greek
Demeter too has underworld associations; at Phigalia in
Arcadia there was a cult of Demeter as Death-Mother, and
her daughter Persephone was Hades’ consort for part of the
year. But in both of these cases, the death aspect is a facet of
the vegetation cycle, the fallow period which precedes new
growth, rather than a real connection with the spirits of the
human dead.
In some IE branches the ruler of the afterworld was a deified
— 611 —
UNDERWORLD
man, an ancestor of the human race and the first man to die.
Indie Yama discovered the Path of the Fathers and followed
it to the afterworld, where he became King of the Dead (RV
10.14). His original responsibility was merely to preside over
the happy reunions of the spirits of the dead, but in later
literature he chose who would die, pursued and captured
their souls, and judged the dead. In the west, Celtic Donn
and his grandfather Bili were both considered original
ancestors of the Celtic people and gods of the dead.
Indie Varuna, god of creation and cosmic law, assisted Yama
in judging the souls of the dead and consigning some to
annihilation or punishment; in Avestan tradition Mi0ra,
Sraosha, and Rashnu shared the judging, and in Hades,
according to Greek tradition, Minos, Rhadamanthys, TEacus,
and Triptolemus performed the same function.
• Also associated with but not resident in the underworld
were the psychopomps, gods who guided the spirits of the
dead to their final destination. Indie Pusan, the pathfinder
and god of flocks, and Greek Hermes, the messenger god,
both had this as a secondary function.
Another aspect of the underworld is the decay and
disintegration of death; this was represented in Indie by Nirjta
and his consort Niryti, to whom only black grains or animals
were offered. Iranian Nasu was an Iranian double of Nirpi,
with a Roman counterpart in Lua Mater. It is probable that
Polish Nyia can also be added to the list, giving sufficient
evidence to posit a PIE goddess of decay.
Death itself can be seen as a personified agent: Greek
Thanatos, the Roman Orcus, and Breton Ankou track down
and capture the souls of those who are to die. These are gods
without personalities or cults, and need not be taken as
reflections of a PIE original. However, there is evidence
throughout the different branches for sinister female spirits
or goddesses connected with death and the underworld. Greek
Moira, originally a minor goddess of fate, became linked with
death and was occasionally represented as the dealer of death.
The Erinyes, avengers of wrongs, the Harpies, birdlike spirits,
and the Keres, malevolent birds of prey, were all female death-
dealers based in the underworld. The Irish Momgan was a
goddess of war, sometimes referred to as the three Morngans,
she presaged death in battle and chose those who would die.
The Norse Valkyries were winged female choosers of the slain,
but associated with the sky-afterworld Valhalla where the souls
of those who died in battle were rewarded. However the disir,
female spirits who met the souls of the dead, did have an
underground association. These may be a reflection of the
earth or hidden goddess, seen in Greek Calypso, Norse Hel,
Germanic Frau Holle, Batavian Nehalennia, Frisian Hludana,
and Roman Mania or Laria: each of these names contains a
root meaning ‘hide’, referring to the role of earth in concealing
the disintegration of the corpse. The Greek witch-goddess
Hekate with her shadowy chthonic origin and functions may
also belong in this category.
A final group of minor deities resident in the underworld
is the ferrymen, of whom the Greek Kharon, who ferried the
souls of the dead across the underworld river Styx or Acheron,
is the best known. In Norse mythology Odinn was occasionally
seen in the guise of an otherworldly ferryman, and Gudmundr
also acted as a ferryman between the human world and a
supernatural realm. Celtic Barinthus, who took the dying King
Arthur to Avalon in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Vi fa Merlini ,
may be another representation ol a PIE concept.
It is apparent that the PIE underworld was inhabited by a
number of different deities and spirits, including a ruler of
the dead, a hider goddess, a goddess of decay, and one or
more choosers of the dead. In addition, various deities with
other primary duties had an underworld aspect.
See also Death Beliefs. [L.J . H . ]
Further Readings
Giintert, H. (1919) Kalypso. Halle, M. Niemeyer
Schnaufer, A. (1970) Fruhgriechischen Totenglaube. New York,
Olms.
UP
*hiupd up (from underneath), rising into view’. [IEW
1106 ( *upo)\ Wat 72-73 (*upo); G1 104J. OWels gwo-
(preverb), ON oPover’, OE ufe- ‘on’, OHG oha ‘over’, Goth
uPunder’ (cf. with geminated consonant ON upp, OE upp(e)
‘up’), Grk vko ‘(to) under, by , towards, at (the time of)’, Av
upa ‘towards’, Olnd upa ‘upwards, towards’. The underlying
verb is preserved in Hit upzi ‘(the sun) rises’ and Alb hypem
(< *h4up-ie/o -) ‘go up’, hyp i ~ hipi (< *hjup-me/o) ‘mount,
climb up on’. In the various stocks the meaning has tended
to be specialized to either ‘underneath’ or ‘up’. Old in IE.
*s-h 4 upd ‘underneath’. [Gl 1041. Lat sub ‘under’, animaha
suppa ‘animals (on all fours)’, sus- (< *subs -) ‘under’, Arm
hup ‘near’, Hit suppala- ‘animal’, TochB spe ‘near’. This
combination, presumably originally identical in meaning with
the previous entry, has tended to be restricted to the meaning
‘underneath’.
*Qd ‘upward, out (from under)’. [IEW 1 103 ( *hd-)\ Wat
72 ( *ud-)\ Gl 212 ( *ut h -/*ut’ -)J. ON ut ‘out’, OE t it ‘out’ (>
NE out), OHG uz ‘out’, Goth ut ‘out’, Grk (Cypriot) v - ‘on’,
Olnd ud- ‘out of’. Cf. *ud-s : Olr os- ‘up, off’, Lat us-que
‘continuously’, ON or ‘out of’, OE or- ‘out of’, OHG ur- ‘out
of’, Goth us ‘out of’, Lith uz- ‘for, toward’, Latv uz ‘to’, OCS
vuz ‘up to’, Av us- ‘up (on)’. Germanic also has suffixed forms:
ON utan ‘outside’, OE utan ‘outside’, OHG uzan(a) ‘outside’.
Cf. *ud(s) + -trpmo- in Indo-lraman: Av us-tama- ‘last’, Olnd
ut-tama- ‘highest’. Old in IE.
*h a en-h a e ‘up (onto), upwards, along’. [IEW 39-40 ( *an)\
Wat 2 ( *an)\ BK 425 (*an y -/*an>’)). OH on ‘on’ (> NE on),
OHG an ‘on’, Goth ana ‘at, on’, Grk avd 'up on, up along;
over, through, among’, Av ana ‘onto’. Old in IE. Cf. Lith anot(e)
‘according to’.
*h a en-u ‘up (onto), upwards, along’. [//: VV 39-40 ( *anu)\
BK 425 ( *an>'-/*an> r )] . Av anu ‘after, corresponding to,
towards’, Olnd anu ‘after, along, over, near’, TochA esak ‘on
top of’, TochB omsmem ‘from above’ (Toch < *h a enu-dhi).
An “easternism” in IE.
See a Iso Adpreps ; Over . [D.Q.A.]
— 612 —
URNFIELD CULTURE
URINATE
*h 3 meighe/o- (*h 3 min(e)gh-) ‘urinate’. [IEW 713
( *meigh-)\ Wat 40 ( *meigh-)\ Buck 4.65] . Lat meid ~ mingo
‘urinate’, ON mlga ‘urinate’, OE mlgan ‘urinate’, Lith minzii
~ mezu ‘urinate’, Latv mlzu ~ mezu ‘urinate’, SC mizati
‘urinate’, Grk oueixo) ‘urinate’, Arm mizem ‘urinate’, Av
maezaiti ‘urinates’, OInd mehati ‘urinates’. With wide geo-
graphical spread and near identity in form and meaning, the
verb is a very strong candidate for PIE status. Cf. the nominal
derivatives: OE micga ‘urine’, Grk o/ieix/aa ‘urine’, Arm mez
‘urine’, Av maesman- ‘urine’, gao-maeza ‘cow-urine’, OInd
meha- ‘urine’, TochB mi£o ‘urine’. These are all very banal
derivatives of the basic verb, none of which is necessarily
very early.
See also Anatomy; Clean. [D.Q.A.]
URNFIELD CULTURE
The Umfield culture is the major late Bronze Age (c 1 BOO-
ZOO BC) culture of temperate Europe. Its name derives from
its most characteristic site type, cemeteries involving the
deposition of the cremated bones in an urn, usually capped
by a plate or specially designed top, and accompanied by
weapons and ornaments. Settlements are known and concen-
trations have suggested tribal territories across the Urnfield
territory. Defended settlements, especially hillforts and
promontory forts, are among the most spectacular along with
a number of lake-side and island sites. Much less substantial
undefended sites are also recorded. Technologically, the
Umfield culture embraces the final development of late Bronze
Age metalwork, seen in bronze swords, razors, knives, sickles,
a wide variety of pins, and sheet metal work displayed in the
production of helmets, armor, shields and vessels. The culture
is divided into many regional groups, the most substantial
being the Lusatian (Lausitz) group or culture that occupied
Poland, east Germany, the former Czechoslovakia and the
western Ukraine.
The Urnfield culture has often been ascribed with
individual or multiple ethnic identities and a number of IE
expansions have been credited to the appearance of urnfields
in the peripheral regions of Europe. As the urnfields of western
Europe occupy the same region as the later Hallstatt and La
T£ne cultures, it has been identified as Proto-Celtic. This
identification has been regarded as particularly important with
regard to the emergence of the Celts in Iberia since the
subsequent Celtic-associated cultures, the Hallstatt and La
Tene, are virtually absent from Iberia while there is at least
evidence for some Urnfield contacts although, it must be
admitted, the distribution of Urnfield sites does not correlate
specifically with Celtic settlement. The appearance of the
Villanovan culture in Italy and its subsequent development
in the late Bronze Age has also been credited to Umfield
migrations (also simply to technological and ritual diffusion)
and hence the Umfield culture has been seen as Celtic and
Italic (and Venetic). Further east, where the Umfield culture
appears in Croatia or east central Europe, an Illyrian identity
Umfield b. Reconstruction of Umfield warrior; c. Ura.
— 613 —
URNF1ELD CULTURE
has been sought while those who seek the Slavic homeland
in Poland would claim the Lusatian culture as Proto-Slavic.
See also Celtic Languages; Golasecca Culture;
Hallstatt Culture; Italic Languages; La TEne Culture;
VlLLANOVAN CULTURE. [J.PM.]
USATOVO CULTURE
Usatovo is a late variant (c 3500-3000 BC) of the Tripolye
culture occupying the northwest area of the Black Sea. The
culture has been regarded as a mixture of native southeast
European Neolithic elements (painted ceramics, figurines, flat
graves) and culture traits drawn from the steppe cultures
(shell-tempered coarse wares, tumulus burial, horse). It also
displays metallic items, both arsenical bronze and silver, which
suggest more distant contacts with the north Caucasus. Within
the “Kurgan model” of IE expansions, the Usatovo culture
reflects the domination of the Tripolye agriculturalists by the
presumably IE-speaking steppe tribes. On the other hand,
the territory of the Usatovo culture was not previously
occupied by the Tripolye villagers and Usatovo expansion
into the steppe region around Odessa may account for a much
more complex cultural genesis. Either way, the Usatovo culture
shares similarities with a series of other terminal Copper Age/
early Bronze Age cultures of the Balkan-Danubian region and
a circum-Pontic interaction sphere of contacts (seen, for
example, in the spread of copper and bronze daggers) would
appear to have extended from the steppe south through the
Balkans to north Anatolia and Troy.
See also Cernavoda Culture; Kurgan Tradition;
Tripolye Culture; Yamna Culture. [J.PM.]
USE
*dheugh- be useful, produce something useful’ (pres.
*dhdughei ) [/EW271 ( *dheugh-)\ Wat 14 ( *dheugh-)\ Buck
5.87]. Olr dual (< *dhughlo-) ‘fitting’, duan (< *dhugh-
neh a -) ‘poem’, ON duga (pres, daug) ‘be useful’, OE dugan
(pres, deag) ‘be useful’, dyhtig ‘doughty’, ge-dlegan ‘carry out,
prevail’, OHG tugan (pres, toug) ‘be useful’, tuht ‘usefulness’,
Goth dugan (pres, daug) ‘be useful’, Lith daug ~ daugi(a)
‘much’, Latv daudz ‘much’, Rus duzyj ‘strong, healthy’, Grk
Tvyxava) ‘meet, attain a goal’, rvyri ‘success, good fortune’,
revxco ‘prepare’, OInd dohati ~ dogdhi ‘extracts, milks’
(< * ‘brings into use’). Widespread and old in IE.
*bheug- ‘use’ (pres. *bhun6kti/ *bhunkt6f) [ IEW 153
( *bheug-)\ Wat 8 ( *bheug -)]. Lat fungor ‘am engaged in,
perform’, perfungor ‘use up’, OInd bhun&kti ‘aids, serves,
protects’, bhunkte ‘enjoys, uses, consumes’. Though not
widely attested, the geographical distribution strongly suggests
PIE status.
?*neud - ‘use, enjoy’. [IEW 768 {*neu-d-)\ Wat 44-45
(*neud-); Buck 9.423], ON njota ‘use, enjoy’, nyt ‘profit,
advantage’, naut ‘work animal, ox’, nautr ‘wealth’, OE neotan
‘use, enjoy’, nytt ‘profit, advantage’, neat ‘work animal, ox’
(> NE neat), OHG niozan ‘make use of’, noz ‘cattle’, Goth
niutan ‘attain, enjoy’, ga-niutan ‘obtain, catch’, Lith nauda
Usatovo a. Distribution of the Usatovo culture.
Usatovo b. Plan of kurgan at Usatovo; c. Bronze dagger; d. Late
Tripolye pot; e. Usatovo figurine; f. Corded-decorated vessel
(“kitchen ware”).
— 614 —
UTERUS
‘use, property’, Latv nauda ‘money’. Restricted to Baltic and
Germanic; perhaps a word of the IE northwest.
See also Accomplish; Clean; Milk. [D.Q.A.I
UTERUS
*gf w ^elbhus ‘womb’. \1EW 473 (*g^elbh-)\ Wat 24-25
( *g w eibh - ); Gl 7 16 ( ^eifc/ 1 -); Buck 4.47; BK 338 ( *k’ w albV
*k w 9 lb -)] . OE cilfordamb ‘ewe lamb’, OHG ki/6ur‘ewe lamb’,
Grk 8eX(pvq ‘uterus’, ccSeX (peoq (< *sip-g w elbheios ‘from the
same womb’) ‘brother’, Av gorgbus- ‘new-born animal’. Also
*gf w )olbho - ‘womb, fruit of womb’ in ON kalfr ‘calf’, OE cealf
‘calf’ (> NE calf), OHG chalb ~ chalp ‘calf, Goth kalbo ‘calf’,
Grk (Hesychius) 8oX<poc, ‘womb’, Av garowa- ‘uterus’, Olnd
garbha- ‘uterus’. The Germanic words suggest an initial *g-,
the Grk *g w ~. Indo-lranian is indecisive. The pre-Greek *g w -
(attested Grk d-) may owe its labialization to assimilation to
the following *-bhu~. Conversely the non-labialized initial in
Germanic may be dissimilatory. In either case *g (w) elbhus
would appear to have been at least the late PIE term for
‘womb’. More difficult to relate are: ON hvelpr ‘young animal,
whelp’, OE hwelp ‘young animal, whelp’ (> NE whelp), OHG
welf ‘young animal, whelp’ (< *k w elbos)\ OCS zreh $ (<
*g w erbhen -) ‘foal’, Grk ppeyoq (< *g w rehhos ) ‘foetus; new-
born’; more distant yet are Hit huelpi- ‘young, fresh, new,
unripe; new-born animal’ or Lat vu/va ~ bolva ~ volba ‘womb’
and Olnd ulba- ~ ulva ‘membrane covering the embryo;
womb, vulva’ Perhaps we have more than one word here,
sufficiently similar in phonological shape and semantic
referent to have naturally influenced one another in ways we
cannot now disentangle. Alternatively there may have been a
single PIE form whose meaning was such that its shape was
subject to taboo deformation.
See also Anatomy; Bear 2 ; Sexual Organs and Activities.
[D.Q.A.I
VAKHSH CULTURE
The Vakhsh culture is a late Bronze Age culture situated in
the middle and lower reaches of the river Vakhsh of southern
Tadzhikistan. It is dated to the period c 1700-1500 BC and
would appear to be somewhat later than the neighboring
Bishkent culture with which it shares many parallels. Settle-
ment evidence is meager but does attest to the use of stone
walls and mud-brick constructions; at Kangurt Tut in the
Vakhsh valley the houses contained living quarters, hearths,
and storage pits for grain (barley and wheat). Faunal remains
revealed cattle, followed by sheep/goat, horse, donkey, camel,
deer and dog.
The Vakhsh culture is known primarily from its burials.
These were made in catacomb graves with entrance shafts
blocked by earth and stones and the whole grave covered
over with a mound. The ritual use of fire was associated with
a quarter of the tombs. Males were buried on their right sides,
females generally on their left; orientation was to the north.
In some cases the graves served as cenotaphs — occasionally
clay figurines replaced the remains of the deceased. The grave
goods were generally poor: hand-made pottery predominated
as one would expect from a pastoral society although 30% of
the vessels were wheel-thrown. Among the few metal remains
were razor-like knives and mirrors; arrowheads were made
of flint or bone.
The ceramics of the Vakhsh culture contain a mixture of
both steppe wares and those more typical of the BMAC and
the culture has been interpreted as an amalgam of two
traditions, one involving settled agriculturalists and another
of more northerly based pastoralists who may have engaged
in long distance transhumance with their flocks. But Bertille
— 617 —
VAKHSH CULTURE
l i
m
Vakhsh b. Simple pit grave; c. Catacomb grave.
Lyonnet has suggested that there are problems in seeing the
culture as a simple amalgam. The paucity of metal artifacts
has suggested that identifying the Vakhsh culture as part of
the Andronovo continuum of well developed metal-using
cultures is far from entirely certain while some 19% of the
ceramics have no local parallels in Andronovo or the
neighboring territories. As is the case with the Bishkent
culture, the Vakhsh culture has generally been linked with
early Indo-Aryan movements southwards from the steppe
which involved a certain amount of cultural assimilation as
they passed through Central Asia but Lyonnet warns that if
the Andronovo component is uncertain we may be dealing
with an unknown ethno-linguistic element.
See also Bishkent Culture; BMAC; IndoIranian Languages.
U PM 1
Further Readings
Lyonnet, B. (1994) Central Asia, the Indo-Aryans and the Iranians;
some reassessments from recent archaeological data, in South
Asian Archaeology /, ed. A. Parpola and P Koskikallio, Helsinki,
425-434.
Vinogradova, N. (1991) Interrelation between farming and ‘steppe’
tribes in the Bronze Age south Tadjikistan, in South Asian
Archaeology 1991, eds. A. j. Gail and G. Mevissen. Franz Steiner
Verlag, 289-301.
VALLEY
*dhdlh a os ‘valley; vault, cavity’. [IEW 245-246 ( *dhel-)\
Wat 13 ( *dhel-)\ . Weis do/ ‘valley, meadow’, ON dalr ‘valley;
bow’, OE dael ‘valley’ (> NE dale), OHG tal ‘valley’, Goth dais
‘ravine, valley’, OCS dolu ‘pit, valley’, dole ‘below’, dollnl
‘being below’, Rus do/ ‘valley, underside’, dolfnij' being below’,
perhaps Grk OoXog ‘vault’ (though its connection here has
been doubted), Sarikoli Ser ‘ravine’, Yazghulami Stir ‘ravine’.
Cf. also OE dell ‘ravine, dell’ (> NE dell), MHG telle ‘ravine’
(as if < *dholh a io-), ON doel ‘small valley’, OHG tuolla ‘small
valley’ (as if < *dholh a ieh a -), ON dsela ‘ditch’ (as if <
*dhelh a ieh a - ), OHG fo/(a)- ‘channel, pit’ (as if < *dh(h a o/eh a d,
Grk QdXagog ‘inner room of a house, storeroom; abode;
sheep fold; hold (of a ship)’ (as if < *dhlh a mos). Some have
claimed the Slavic words are borrowings from Germanic but
more commonly they are taken as native. The Greek words
are often rejected on phonological grounds, though they are
not problematic if we derive them from *dholh, r rather than
*dhol-. Widespread and old in IE.
*ldnko/eh a - ‘valley’. [IEW 676-677 i.*lonka)\. Late Lat
*lanca (< Gaul?) ‘depression, bed of river’ whose reflexes are
found in the south of France, in French-speaking Switzerland
and in northern Italy, Swiss German lauch ‘trough’ (from the
same source), Lith lanka ‘valley, river-meadow’, OCS Ipka ‘gulf,
valley, meadow, marsh’, Rus (dial.) luka ‘river-meadow, Hood
plain’, TochB lehke ‘valley’. From *lenk- ‘bend’. The agreement
of Balto-Slavic and Tocharian would seem to guarantee this
word for at least late PIE.
See also Cavity. [A.D.V, D.Q.A.l
VARNA
Varna refers to the famous Copper Age cemetery on the
Black Sea coast in Bulgaria. The cemetery, which dates to the
period c 4500-4000 BC, is one of if not the richest known in
early prehistoric Europe. It has yielded so far 28 1 graves which
may be divided into three groups: fifty-six cenotaphs where
the burial was altogether absent or only a few bones have
been deposited; ninety burials in the extended position which
have been usually assigned to males; and sixty- five burials in
the flexed position (assigned as a rule to females). The head
is generally oriented NNE. The wealth of metallic and other
objects in the graves was exceptional. Several graves contained
clay masks which were decorated or had features such as the
mouth delineated by gold and copper ornaments; these were
identified as female masks as they are easily paralleled by the
masks depicted on female figurines in the east Balkans.
Scepters and perforated axes with gold decorated handles were
found. Over three thousand objects of gold (6 kg) were
recovered along with a large quantity of copper artifacts. Other
goods included fifty stone axes, bone and antler objects, a
thousand shell ornaments, stone beads, flint blades, scrapers,
and six-hundred pots.
The variation in wealth among the graves has generally
been interpreted as indicating marked differences in the status
of the deceased and, consequently, has supported the hypo-
thesis that this region of the east Balkans already saw the
development of some form of stratified or ranked society in
the Copper Age. It is important to note that among the
— 618 —
VARNA
wealthiest burials were several assigned to males and burials
with a golden diadem and scepter are plausibly interpreted
as symbols of power. Children were sometimes accompanied
with very rich grave goods and symbols of authority which
suggests that they belonged to important families. The general
conclusion is that Varna along with several other contem-
porary cemeteries of the same region reflect well stratified
societies. This interpretation has been held to be in contrast
with that of other mortuary evidence for the Balkans that
suggested egalitarian societies during the Neolithic and
Copper Age.
In the “Kurgan theory” as propounded by Marija Gimbutas,
marked social hierarchies with males at their apex were
introduced to the Balkans by the Indo-Europeans who should
have appeared in the region only after the floruit of the Varna
cemetery. She interpreted the rich male burials at Varna as
indicating the localized acquisition of exotic goods by
tradesmen and not evidence for the emergence of IE chieftains
although she also suggested that the movement to personal
possessions (in opposition to communally-held wealth) may
have been under the influence of Indo-Europeans. Jan
Lichardus endorses this latter theory and has suggested that
pastoralists from the steppelands (the Sredny Stog culture)
would have periodically come into contact with the settled
agriculturalists of the east Balkans (we know that they obtained
copper from them which was exchanged as far east as the
middle Volga) and influenced the local social structure and
beliefs with their own. That a steppe element may have been
involved has been recently supported by the discovery of a
small cemetery at Giurgiule§ti on the lower reaches of the
Prut. Here were found burials interred according to the rituals
of the steppe, e.g., buried in the flexed supine position, use
of ocher, catacomb and timber constructions, and with
artifacts typical of the steppeland cultures (the Novodanilovka
culture) but there were also objects more typical of Varna,
e.g., a gold decorated “baton”. Another feature, sometimes
attributed to the Indo-Europeans by supporters of the “Kurgan
theory”, is the marking of sex in the burial rite and at Varna
and several other sites, males are placed in a position
(extended) that contrasts with that of females (flexed).
It has also been suggested that the Varna cemetery may
reflect something other than social status of the individuals
but that there is persuasive evidence for the expression of
religious ideologies, some of which have been proposed with
reference to traditions found among the Indo-Europeans.
Some 20% of the grave pits lack any evidence of the deceased
and it is held unlikely that all of these can be explained simply
as individuals who died too distant from the site to be buried
within the cemetery. They include some of the wealthiest
burials and it has been suggested that they reflect the deposi-
tion of the symbols of power and not the leaders themselves.
The widespread practice of replacing a king (or a substitute),
ritually or otherwise, is known throughout the Near East and
neighboring territories where it has long been placed in an
interpretive framework which associates the king with the
fertility of the land which may be renewed by despatching
the former king after a set period. In this scheme, the
exceptionally wealthy graves, with ornaments and objects
arranged in the same relative location as those graves with
skeletal remains, may represent the ritual “killing and disposal”
of the leader of a society after a set time period. It has also
been suggested that the presence of copper tools, especially
those employed in the working of wood and metal, were
symbolic of the concept of the craftsman as specifically the
“creator” as occurs frequently in IE religious literature where
smith deities are portrayed as fashioning the world, other
deities or mankind. Three of the “smith” burials were found
adjacent to the three burials with clay masks which has
prompted their interpretation as matched pairs of male “smith”
burials and female masked burials. It should be emphasized
that while various archaeologists have attempted to interpret
the burials in light of evidence taken from Indo-European
cultures, none of these models is in any way unique to the
Indo-Europeans.
See also Social Organization . [J . P M . ]
— 619 —
VARNA
Further Readings
Fol, A. and J. Lichardus (1988) Macht, Herrschaft und Gold. Saar-
briicken, Modeme Galerie des Saarland-Museums.
Gimbutas, M (1991) The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco,
Harper.
Haheu, V and S. Kurciatov (1993) Cimitirul plan eneolitic de llnga
satul Giurgiule^ti. Revista Arheologica 1993, 101-114.
Zanotti, D. (1991) Varna: The interpretation of the evidence from
the necropolis. Orpheus 1, 5-20.
VAULT
*kamareh a - ‘vault’. [IEW 524 ( *kam-er-)\ Wat 26
( *kamer-)\ Buck 7.21], Grk icagccpG ‘vault’, Av kamara ‘belt’.
From *kam-er- ‘bend, curve’. Common Latin camera is a
Greek loan which gives French chambre > NE chamber. A
central isogloss or possibly borrowed into Iranian from Greek
which itself borrowed it from an unknown source.
See also Valley. [A.D.V]
VEGETABLES
?*Slu- ‘± esculent root’. [IEW33 ( *alu -)] . Lat alium ~ allium
‘garlic’, alum ~ alus ‘comfrey ( Symphytum officinale )’, OInd
alu- ‘an esculent root ( Arum campanulatam)’ , alukam ‘the
esculent root of Amorphophallus campanulas’. The exact
meaning of the ancestor of these two words, if indeed their
similarity reflects inheritance rather than chance resemblance,
is not determinable. Indeed, even in the Latin cognates there
is a marked difference between comfrey, whose roots and
leaves were employed as poultices for curing fractures, and
garlic, which was consumed both for culinary and medicinal
reasons. Probably but not certainly PIE.
*k6hikom ‘edible greens’ (< * ‘foliage’?). [IEW 544
( *keko-)\ G1 84 (*k h ek h o-)\ Buck 5.65], ON ha (< Proto-
Gmc *heh(w)6n -) ‘aftermath, second crop of hay’, OPrus
schokis ‘grass’, Lith sekas ‘green fodder’, Latv sgks ‘green
fodder’, OInd saka- ‘potherb, vegetable, greens’. Though its
attestation is sparse, it is also wide. Note that it refers to animal
food in the west but human food in the east. Clearly a word
of PIE date.
*kr£mh x us (gen. *knjih x 6us) (wild) garlic ( Allium sativum
or Allium ursinum)’. [IEW 580 ( *krem-)\ Wat 32 ( *krem -);
Buck 5.68] . Mir crem ~ crim ‘garlic’, Weis craP garlic’, perhaps
Grk Kpep(p)vov ~ Kpog(/i)vov (if from *kremh x uuom )
‘onion’. Cf. the derivative *kremh x uso/eh a -: OE hramsa ‘onion,
garlic’ (> NE ramson ), OHG ramusia ‘wild garlic’, Lith kremuse
‘wild garlic’, Rus ceremsa ‘wild garlic’, and perhaps Grk
Kpeg(g)vov if from *kremh x usom. A word of the west and
perhaps center of the IE world.
Except for Greek this word refers to the wild garlic ( Allium
ursinum ). Garlic is poorly preserved in the archaeological
record and the earliest evidence for domestic garlic (Allium
sativum ) derives from Egyptian tombs of the eighteenth
dynasty (sixteenth-fourteenth centuries BC) while Akkadian
texts suggest its existence in the Near East by the early second
millennium BC. In Europe remains are known buried under
the volcanic ash at Pompeii. The domestic garlic is believed
to derive from Allium longicuspis Regel, the wild garlic of
Central Asia, northern Iran and southeastern Turkey. Other
varieties of wild garlic are distributed across southern Europe.
It is not one of the plant remains found in the Swiss lake-side
dwellings which offer the most abundant evidence for early
preserved organic material in Europe.
*mfk- ‘± carrot’. ( IEW 750 (*mrk-)\. OE moru ~ more
‘carrot’ (> NE more), OHG moraha ‘carrot’, Rus morkovi
‘carrot’, Grk (Hesychius) ppotKava ‘wild vegetables’. At least
a late IE term in the west and center of the IE world. The
carrot ( Daucus carota) is a native of western and central Asia,
particularly Afghanistan, and its spread to Europe is at least
before the Christian era. Indeed, remains are known from
Swiss lake-side dwellings consistently from the Neolithic
period through the late Bronze Age. The wild carrot has a
reputation for being both tough and unappetizing but the
leaves might also be employed for medicinal reasons such as
easing bladder problems.
*rip6h a ~ ~ *rap6h a - ‘turnip ( Brassica rapa or B. napo-
brassica )’. [IEW 852 ( *rap-)\ Wat 53 ( *rap-)\ . Lat rapum ~
rapa ‘turnip’, ON rdfa ‘bony part of a horses tail’, OHG ruoba
~ raba ‘turnip’, Lith rope ‘turnip’, OCS repa ‘turnip’. Cf. Grk
panvq- patpvg ‘turnip’, poupavog ‘cabbage’. Cf. also Lat rapina
‘turnip field’, Lith ropiena ‘turnip field’ < *rapeineh A ~. The
interchange of *-e- and *-a- in the attested reflexes makes
the exact shape of this word difficult to recover. It is quite
possible (certain in the case of Greek) that this word has been
borrowed at various times from one IE language to another.
In some form, however, it is likely to have been at least late
PIE in date in the west and center of the IE world. The wild
turnip is distributed over Europe and western Asia. The date
of its domestication is unknown although the Romans
employed the turnip in northern France.
?*kaulds ‘± cabbage ( Brassica sp.)'. [IEW 537 ( *kau-li -);
Wat 27 ( *kaul-)\ Buck 5.69], Lat caults ‘cabbage’, Grk kcivXoc,
‘a vegetable of the cabbage kind: cole, kail, cauliflower’, Hit
kaluis(si)na (a kind of vegetable). In both Latin and Greek
there are identical words meaning ‘stem, stalk’. The dialect
distribution of this word suggests that it may have been
borrowed by the three IE groups from some Mediterranean
source but the fact that it appears to be a specialization of the
meaning ‘stalk’ (earlier cabbages, etc., had a distinct stalk)
means that the word itself is of PIE date. The distribution of
the wild cabbage encompasses the Mediterranean and Atlantic
coast from whence it was probably domesticated at some time
before the Roman period.
See also Agriculture; Food; Plants; Stalk. [D.Q.A., J.PM.l
VENETIC LANGUAGE
Venetic is an Indo-European language of northeast Italy
(the Veneto). The language is attested among the
archaeological remains of the later phases of the Este culture
that ran from c900 to 182 BC. The Venetic language is attested
from about two-hundred short inscriptions (none longer than
— 620 —
VENETIC LANGUAGE
ten words) that date from c 550 to 100 BC. The earliest were
written in a North Etruscan alphabet while those from c 150
to 100 BC were written in the Roman alphabet. By the first
century BC Venetic disappeared in the face of Roman (and
Latin) power.
The Este culture included towns at Este (ancient Atestine),
Padua, Verona and Vicenza. The inscriptions are found on
stone pillars, tombs and especially on votive offerings, in
particular bronze pins or nails found at the shrine of the
goddess Reitia at Fondo Baratela which were placed there by
women. Here there are known some twenty-four inscribed
pins or nails dedicated to the goddess (they have also been
explained as styli for inscribing wax tablets).
The Venetic language is clearly Indo-European and direct
correspondences with Italic can be made, confirming the
meaning of at least some words and indicating particular
features of Venetic phonology, e.g., inscriptions in the earlier
script employ z where in the Roman script the words begin
with a d , cf. zonasto ~ donasto. Although there is a certain
amount of uncertainty in how Venetic should be transcribed
phonetically, the meaning of at least some of the words causes
no great problem. For example, the pronoun eyo T
corresponds to Lat ego while Venetic vhraterei would render
Lat fratrl ‘to the brother’. Venetic ke has been seen to be
phonologically cognate with either Lat -que ‘and’ or Grk kgci
‘and’; syntactically it seems to function like Lat ef ‘and’ or the
Grk icat, i.e., it unites the two nouns on either side of it rather
than serves as an enclitic. The inscription meyo zonasto
vhuxiia vhouxontiiha Sainssei reitiiai could be rendered in
Latin as me donavit Fugia F(o)ugontiaca *sanatrici (an
unattested feminine of sanitrix) Reitiae ‘Fugia F(o)ugontiaca
gave me to Reitia the healer’. Venetic zonasto ‘gave’ is explained
as an s-aorist with a personal ending derived from the root
aorist class (seen, for example, in Grk e-So-ro ‘he gave’). There
are also examples of Venetic zoto ‘he gave’, without the s-
particle. The name vhuxiia has been explained as equivalent
to Av baoxtar- ‘savior, liberator’ and derived from *bheug(h)-
‘purify, free’. The paucity and brevity of Venetic inscriptions
precludes Venetic playing any significant role in the recon-
struction of the PIE lexicon although it does offer a number
of examples of otherwise widespread cognate sets, e.g. , Venetic
ekvon ‘horse’ (< *hje£yo-m), Venetic teuta ‘people’
(< *teuteh a ~). There are also examples of words that have
generated more discussion, e.g., Venetic ekvopeOarishas been
translated as the personal name ‘Equipetarius’, as an occu-
pational title such as ‘charioteer* or ‘groom’ (with an under-
lying je/cyos ‘horse’, which is quite plausible as a number
of its occurrences are associated with the depiction of a horse
or chariot), or a priest who presided at the funeral.
The dialectal position of Venetic has been a source of
considerable controversy. The hypothesis that it is closely
related to Illyrian has not proven widely accepted nor is it
likely to do so unless there is some really solid evidence of
the nature of Illyrian other than place and personal names.
Many regard Venetic as an Italic language, co-ordinate perhaps
Venetic Territory of the Veneti.
with Latino-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian. Certain peculiarities,
however, have suggested to some that it may be an
independent Indo-European stock. The Venetic accusative of
the first personal pronoun, me^o, establishes a paradigm eyo/
mexo which is in obvious contrast with Lat ego/ me and has
been argued by some to be more reminiscent of Germanic,
e.g., Goth ik/mik, however, these similarities have been
generally attributed to independent creations in both stocks
where the nominative singular influenced the accusative.
Perhaps more striking is Venetic selboisselboi ‘himself’ which
finds an Old High German parallel in selboselbo. But this
single correspondence seems weak grounds to thrust Venetic
out of the Italic and into the Germanic world although some
would still hold to the view that Venetic perhaps demands a
status separate from Italic.
The Este culture which reflects the archaeological back-
ground of the Venetic inscriptions derives from the Proto -
Villanovan horizon that spanned the length of Italy at the
end of the Bronze Age. Its own more distant connections
would then lie north of the Alps in the central European
umfields.
See also Este Culture; Indo-European Languages;
Italic Languages Ij.RM.]
— 621 —
VENETIC LANGUAGE
Further Readings
Beeler, M. (1949) The Venetic Language. Berkeley and Los Angeles,
University of California.
Lejeune, M. (1974) Manuel de la langue venete. Heidelberg, Carl
Winter.
Polome, E. C. (1966) The position of Illyrian and Venetic, in Ancient
Indo-European Dialects , eds. H. Bimbaum and J. Puhvel, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, University of California, 59-76.
Pulgram, E. (1978) Italic, Latin, Italian: 600 B.C. to A.D. 1260.
Heidelberg, Carl Winter.
VILLAGE
*R eiyos ~ *Ri\}6s ‘belonging to the household 1 (hence >
‘intimate, dear 1 ). [IEW 539-540 (*R tei-uo-)\ Wat 27-28
(*kei-); Buck 7.122]. Lat civis ‘citizen’ (i-stem on the analogy
of hostis ‘host 1 ), Osc ceus ‘(fellow) citizen 1 , ON hjon ~ hjun
‘one of the household; (pi.) married couple 1 , hyski ‘household,
family 1 , OE hiwen ~ hlwraeden ~ hlwisc ‘household 1 , hlwan
(pi.) ‘members of a household 1 , hlwcuja ‘domestic, familiar 1 ,
OHG hlun ‘married couple, parents; family members 1 , hl(w)o
‘husband 1 , hi(w)a ‘wife 1 , hiwiski ‘family 1 , Goth heiwa-frauja
‘master of the household; host 1 , Latv sieva ‘wife 1 , Olnd seva-
‘intimate, dear 1 , siva- ‘kind, friendly, auspicious, dear 1 (whence
Siva- ‘Shiva’). Lurking behind these words is either a root
noun *Rei- or a u-stem *keiu-/*kiu- ‘household, village as
social unit 1 from *kei- Tie 1 , either from *‘± those that sleep
together 1 or, since *kei- + *h jen may mean ‘depend on 1 , from
*‘± collective dependants’. These words are widespread and
old in PIE.
*R6imos ‘household, village 1 . [IEW 539-540; Wat 71
(*tkei-)\ GI 155; Buck 7.122], OIr caem ‘dear 1 , MWels cu ~
cuf ‘dear 1 , ON heimr ‘abode; world 1 , heima ‘home 1 , OE ham
‘home 1 (> NE home), hsman ‘have intercourse with, cohabit
with, marry 1 , OHG heim ‘home 1 , MHG heimen ‘take home,
marry 1 , Goth haims ‘village, country (i.e., not city) 1 , OPrus
(pi.) seimlns ‘household servants’, Lith siema ‘family 1 , Latv
saime ‘family 1 , OCS semija ‘household servants’, semlja
‘family 1 , Grk Kcopri (< *Rdimeh a -) ‘village’ (cf. Koifiaogou
‘sleep 1 ). The Baltic family represented by OPrus caymis
‘village 1 , Lith kiemas ‘(court)yard, village, farm(stead) 1 , kaimas
‘village, hamlet; country (i.e., not city) 1 , kaimymas ‘neighbor’
reflects a Proto-Baltic borrowing from Germanic (hence Proto-
Baltic *k- rather than *s-) or at least some phonological
influence of Germanic or some more western IE group). With
the suffix *-ro- we have Arm ser ‘devotion 1 , sirem ‘love’. A
word of the west and center of the IE world.
*tRltis (gen. *tkit6is) ‘settlement 1 . [IEW 626 {*Rpei-)\ Wat
71 ( *tkei-)\ Buck 19.16], Grk Kxioiq ‘settlement 1 , Av siti-
‘settlement 1 , Olnd ksiti- ‘settlement 1 . A word of the southeast
of the IE world from *tkei- ‘settle 1 . Other derivations of *tkei-
include Myc ko-to-na ‘parcel of land 1 and Arm sen ‘village 1 .
*]}iRs (gen. *\fiRds) ‘(social unit of) settlement, extended
family group 1 . [7EW1131 ( *ueik-)\ Wat 75 ( *weik-)\ GI 646
( *we/oik h -)', Buck 19.16], OCS wsf ‘village 1 , Grk xpiyd(p)TK£q
‘those divided into three tribes’, Av vis- ‘manorhouse, court;
village 1 , OPers viO- ‘house, residence; royal family 1 , Khot bisa-
‘house 1 , Olnd vis- ‘dwelling, tribe, clan 1 . Other derivatives
exist, thus from *ueikes~: Lat villa (< *ueik-s-leh- r ) ‘farm;
house in the country’, Umb uocu-com ‘building 1 , Goth weihs
‘village 1 , Olnd vesas- ‘house 1 , TochB ike ‘place, locality’; from
*poikos: Lat vicus ‘village, quarter (of a city) 1 , Grk (fhhcoq
‘household 1 , Olnd vesa- ‘house; bordello 1 . (Cf. Indo-lranian
*uoikos ‘dweller, inhabitant 1 in Av vaesa- ‘servant 1 , Khot hisa-
‘servant 1 , Olnd vesa- ‘dweller, tenant, inhabitant, neighbor 1 .)
This is the basic PIE word designating a settlement unit
composed of a number of extended families which was later
extended to the complex of buildings they occupied and, later
still, to the socio-political unit. Its use as a socio-political
designation is brought into sharp focus in the compounds of
this word with *potis ‘lord’ and *potnih a - ‘lady’: OPrus
waispattin (acc.) ‘woman of the house 1 , Lith viespatis ~
viespatis ‘lord, master, sovereign 1 , (dial.) viespatni wife 1 , Alb
zot (< *ulkeh a -pot-) ‘master, lord; god 1 , zonje ‘lady; married
woman, wife 1 , Av vT. spaiti- ‘lord, overlord of a clan’, Olnd
vispati- ‘lord of the house, chief of a settlement or of a tribe’,
vispatni ‘lady; wife 1 . The difference in formations suggests
that these words are independent creations in the stocks where
they are attested or that they have undergone more or less
radical rebuilding. The underlying verb probably appears in
Indo-lranian: Av vlsaite ‘stands ready’, Khot bis- ‘enter’, Olnd
visati ‘settles down, enters, arrives’, though some have seen
this verb as a denominative formation from Proto-lndo-lranian
vis-. Lith viesyti ‘be a guest 1 and Grk oikeo) dwell’ are definitely
denominative verbs. An alternative theory proposed by O.
Szemerenyi suggests that it derives from *ueik- ‘go, march 1
and, therefore, it designated a social unit on the move, as in
NE gang. The same lexical derivation, however, has led E.
Polome to suggest that the underlying semantics was enter 1
and that the word indicated the enclosure that separated the
clan’s living space from the outside world, i.e., the defensive
area controlled by the family or clan unit.
See also Family; Master, Mistress. [A.D.V.,D.Q.A ]
Further Readings
Benveniste, E. (1973) The four divisions oi society, in Indo-European
Language and Society. Coral Gables, Florida, University of Miami,
239-261.
Szernerenyi, O (1977) Studies in the Kinship Terminology of the
Indo-European Languages (= Acta Iranica 7). Teheran- Liege.
VILLANOVAN CULTURE
During the late Bronze Age (c 1100-900 BC) most of Italy
was spanned by the Villanovan culture. This culture is
documented primarily by cremation cemeteries with urns and
a wide variety of metallic goods such as razors, fibulae
(brooches), pins, swords, buckets, helmets and armor, all of
which can be related to the central European urnfields.
Traditionally, the advent of the Villanovan culture, the Pianello-
Timmari horizon, was ascribed to central European warriors
who crossed the Alpine passes and swept through Italy
— 622 —
VULTURE
Villanovan a. Distribution of the major Villanovan cemeteries.
Villanovan b. Villanovan urn burial in a pozzetto, a small pit
below a pit; c. Urn burial in a dolio , jar; d. House um.
spreading both their culture and IE languages. Such models
are now regarded as considerably overstated and the spread
of Urnfield characteristics are often derived from other
methods of diffusion. As a vehicle for the spread of the IE
languages in Italy, the Villanovan culture always faced one
serious obstacle in that it underlay not only the territories of
IE-speaking groups but also that of the Etruscans who are
generally recognized as non-IE speakers. On the other hand,
as an Italian expression of the general Urnfield phenomenon,
it does accommodate the hypothesis that the ancestors of the
Celts and Italic languages were the same and derived from
central Europe.
See also Golasecca Culture; Italic Languages;
Urnfield Culture; Venetic Language. [J.P.M.]
VINE see WINE
VISIBLE
*h^evis ‘obvious’. [1EW 78 (*auis-)]. OCS (j)av£ ‘obvious’,
Av avis ‘obviously’. From *h^eu- ‘perceive’. A late word of the
center of the PIE world.
?*derketos visible’. [7EW213 (*derk-); Wat 12 ( *derk-)\
BK 180 (*c’ar-/*cbr-)]. Grk -SepKerog ‘visible’, OInd darsata-
‘visible’. From *derk- ‘see’. Perhaps inherited, perhaps
independent creations in the two stocks.
See also Perceive; See. [D.Q.A.]
VOICE
*]}6k w s (gen. *y6k w os) ‘voice’. [IEW 1 135-1 136
(*y ok y -s); Wat 75 ( *w6k w -)\ GI 127 (*wek bo -)\. Lat vox
‘voice’, Grk (acc.) oita ‘voice’, Av vaxs ‘voice’, Olnd vak ‘voice’,
TochA wak ‘voice’, TochB wek ‘voice’. From *uek w - ‘speak’.
Widespread and old in IE.
See also Noise; Sound, Speak. [D.Q.A.]
VOMIT see SPEW
VULTURE
There is no standard IE term for the vulture in the IE
languages although the vulture was certainly well known to
the speakers of the proto-language no matter where they were
originally situated. Arm uses angl ‘vulture’, Grk yvy/ ‘vulture’,
and the Indian a rather wide range of terms, of which bhasa-
is the best known and possibly related to Grk (ppvri ‘lammer-
geir or bearded vulture’ [< *bhesneh a -\ IEW 1 1 1 ( *bhaso- ~
*bheso -)]. Another possible correspondence derives from
— 623 —
VULTURE
*g w ltur-. [IEW 482 (^^JturCos))]: Lat voltur ‘vulture’, Grk
fiXoovp- ‘shaggy’, as in Homer pXoavp-comg ‘vulture-eyed,
grim-looking’.
Though vulture terminology varies greatly from language
to language, both Greek and Old Indie share a common myth-
ology concerning their parenting habits. The five major Indian
vultures are said to be all derived from one father through
separate mothers while a Grk yvy/is said to have female species
only, that reproduce at will. Vultures, of which there are five
major species in Europe and western Asia, are largely
ubiquitous, distributed from Ireland to India, and beyond.
Iconographically, the vulture is dramatically represented
on the walls of the shrines at C^atal Hiiyuk. In the so-called
“Vulture Shrine”, six headless corpses are seen as various prey
to seven vultures which has seen a variety of interpretations,
including the concept of excarnation, i.e. , the exposure of
bodies so that they may be defleshed by birds, a practice later
reflected in the mortuary practices of the Zoroastrians (and
some North American Indians). Deposits of the bones of vul-
tures and other carrion birds are known from the Palaeolithic
onwards across Eurasia and in the absence of specific mythic
motifs not to say a reconstructible PIE word, it is impossible
to press the vulture any further into Indo-European studies.
See also Birds. (J.A.C.G.l
i
I
— 624 —
WADE
*y adh- ‘wade’. [ IEW 1109 (*yad/i-); Wat 73 ( *wadh-)\
Buck 10.47]. Lat vado (with new long grade) ‘ford (a river)’,
ON vada ‘go, push forward, wade (through)’, OE wadan ‘wade’
(> NE wade), OHG watan' wade’. Cf. the derivative: *y adhom
‘ford’: Lat vadum ‘ford’, ON vad ‘water’, OE waed ‘water’,
gewaed ‘ford’, OHG wat ‘ford’. A late western dialectal term
in IE.
*geh x gh-± enter water, wade’. Slov gaziti ‘wade’, SC gaziti
‘step, wade’, OInd gzihate ‘penetrate, enter (water), wade’.
Though only attested in South Slavic and Indie, perhaps a
late word of the eastern part of the IE world.
See also Dive; Float; Go; Swim. [D.Q.A.]
WAGON
*yeghnos ‘wagon’. [IEW 1 1 18-1 120 ( *y egh-no-)\ Wat 74
( *wegh-)\ GI 627 (*wogV); Buck 10.75; BK 301 {*wag-/
*wdg y -)\ . Olr fen ‘wagon’, Weis gwain ‘wagon’, TochA wkam
‘way, manner’, TochB yakne ‘way, manner’ (and similarly
*yoghnos in ON vagn ‘wagon’, OE waegn ‘wagon’ [> NE wain ] ,
MDutch waghen ‘wagon’ [borrowed > NE wagon > Weis
gwagen], OHG wagan ‘wagon’). This word is derived from
*yegh- ‘ride’ and the pattern of its distribution suggests PIE
status. Related constructions include *ijgghitlom ‘vehicle’: Lat
vehiculum ‘vehicle’, Olnd vahltram ‘vehicle’; and *yidghos
‘wagon’: OCS vozu ‘wagon’, Myc wo-ka ‘chariot’, Grk (f)oxoq
‘chariot’.
?*h 2 em-b a Es-ih a ‘wagon-chassis’. [Buck 10.75]. Grk
apa^a (Attic apa^a with secondary h-) ‘(framework or
chassis of) a four-wheeled wagon; Ursa Major’, TochB amaks-
pante ‘± wagon-master’ (where -pante reflects a *-ppth 2 ~o-
‘one pertaining to the way’, an exocentric thematic derivative
of *pontoh 2 S ‘way’). The evidence for this word rests on these
Wagons 1 a. Main distribution of the earliest archaeological evidence
for wheeled vehicles (fourth-early third millennia BC).
two stocks unless we include Khot mai- in maspa- ‘road’ (if <
*‘± wagon-place’). If this is a PIE word (and borrowing
between Greek and Tocharian seems ruled out), then we have
an old compound *h 2 em- ‘hold on to’ and *h a eks- ‘axle’, a
‘hold-axle’ if you will.
*kjsos ‘wagon’. [JEW 583-584 ( *kfso-s)\ Wat 30 (kers-);
Buck 10.75], Olr carr ‘wagon’, MWels can ‘wagon’ (< Celt
*Klsos), Lat currus ‘chariot, wagon’. Lat carrus ‘wagon for
freight’ is a loan from Celtic (a variant carrum provides the
origin of NE car). A word of the far west of the IE world
unless one also includes here Grk (Hesy chius) crdpoai
‘wagons’ which, if related, would have been borrowed from a
satam language. Derived from *Kers- ‘run’.
— 625 —
WAGON
Archaeological Evidence
Wheeled vehicles are clearly assigned PIE status not only
through the words for the vehicles themselves, but also
because of reconstructible words for ‘axle’, ‘(wagon) pole’,
‘nave’, and ‘wheel’. These vehicles are commonly ascribed to
the latest period of PIE “unity” before sharp divisions
developed among the different IE dialects, languages and
stocks. As the earliest wheeled vehicles in the world appear
in the fourth millennium BC, it is presumed that the major
divisions between the IE stocks did not occur until this period
or sometime after it.
The earliest evidence for wheeled vehicles consists of both
artistic representations of wagons or the actual remains of
vehicles, the latter of which are generally recovered from
graves. The place of origin for the wheeled vehicle is uncertain
and candidates range all the way from Mesopotamia in the
southeast, northwards through the Caucasus, then onto the
south Russian and Ukrainian steppe, and finally into central
Europe. In all these regions there is evidence for the early
development of wheeled vehicles by the fourth millennium
BC. It is generally presumed that vehicles may have been
invented in only one of these locations and diffused swiftly
across a broad region of Eurasia; however, some have argued
for multiple points of origin such as the Near East and west-
central Europe. The reasons for this latter argument is that
fixed axles are found from Mesopotamia to central Europe
but evidence of rotating axles, a different principle of
locomotion, is found in the western Alpine region during the
late Neolithic and Bronze Age and further west to the Atlantic.
Such distinctions do not, however, affect the dating of the
earliest wagons, irrespective of point of origin, to the fourth
millennium.
The form of the earliest vehicles is generally ascribed to
two basic types: the cart , a single-axle vehicle with two wheels,
and the wagon, a double-axle vehicle with four wheels. The
early Mesopotamian wheeled vehicles are known purely
through pictographs which are not particularly informative.
They reveal what appear to be covered sledges resting on either
rollers or, more likely, four disc wheels. These are dated to
the late fourth millennium BC. Actual finds of wheeled
vehicles from the Caucasus (Georgia and Armenia) are more
recent (third and mainly second millennium BC) and less
numerous than the over 250 wagon burials now known from
the Ukrainian and Russian steppe in the late fourth to early
second millennium BC. The social context of the burials has
been debated: some argue that they represent high-status
objects placed with emerging aristocracies (as would later be
the case in the burials of Scythian royalty in the Iron Age of
the same region) while others have pointed out that other
than the wagons themselves, there is nothing to distinguish
these graves from contemporary burials of the Yamna,
Catacomb and Novotitorovka cultures.
The association of vehicles with burials does suggests that
the ritual of conveying the dead to the cemetery by way of a
wheeled vehicle extends back to the fourth millennium BC.
Wagons I b. Vehicle depicted on TRB pot from Bronocice,
Poland; c. Wagon-cup model from Szigetszenmarton, 1 lungary;
d. Construction of tripartite disc wheels; e. Yanina burial with
wagon; f. Wagon from Armenia; g. Catacomb burial with wagon.
— 626 —
WAGON
J
f
It is well attested in the Iron Age burials of the steppe and
reported by Herodotus. The conveyance of the deceased to
the cemetery is a well known theme of early Greek art and is
also seen depicted in Etruscan art. Wheeled vehicle burials
are seen widety over Europe, from the Celts in the west to
presumably (lndo-?)lranians east of the Urals, e.g., at
Sintashta. This practice is also seen in clearly non-IE contexts
such as Mesopotamia (the royal tombs of Ur) and China (the
royal cemetery at Anyang).
The steppe burials offer good evidence for the appearance
of the wagons of the late fourth and early third millennium
BC. The wagons comprised a rectangular base of wood planks
and removable sides which might be covered with
wickerwork. The floor of the wagon might have a covering of
mats. The frame rested on two axles (all complete steppe
vehicle burials contain four-wheeled wagons) on which were
mounted tripartite disc wheels. Axles might measure about
two meters long. The draught-pole, which could measure
some two to three meters long, might be Y-shaped and where
there is evidence of the yoke, it indicates a paired team. Given
the weight of the wagons (a reconstructed wagon with disc
wheels comes to over 250 kg), the inefficient harnessing
techniques then available, and the evidence of paired animal
burials, the wagons were drawn by oxen rather than horses.
The earliest evidence for wheeled vehicles in central Europe
tends to be representational rather than actual. It consists of
pictographs inscribed on the sides of megalithic tombs which
have been interpreted as paired oxen, some of which appear
to be pulling a primitive two-wheeled wagon. Better evidence
derives from the TRB culture where a pot from the Polish site
of Bronocice depicts a series of four-wheeled wagons with a
Y-shaped pole which terminates in a V-shaped yoke. The ox-
team that would have pulled such a wagon is not shown. All
of this evidence can be comfortably set to the fourth
millennium BC. The clearest evidence from central Europe
derives from the Baden culture of Hungary where two
cemeteries have yielded each a clay vessel in the form of a
wagon. Clay discs, which are frequently interpreted as model
wheels, are also known from the Balkans from the late fifth
millennium BC onwards (and further afield); they have been
alternatively interpreted as spindle-whorls for weaving.
Regarding the wagon, the best that can be said is that there
is solid evidence for its existence from central Europe to
Mesopotamia by the fourth millennium BC and it may be
possible to push the dates for its invention back to the fifth
millennium although absolutely compelling evidence for such
a date has not yet been discovered. As for its point of origin,
there is no decisive location where it can be shown to have
developed earliest. In terms of solutions to the IE homeland
problem, the wheeled vehicle is a better chronological than
spatial marker. Wheeled vehicles, for example, occur in the
TRB culture which supporters of an IE origin on the steppe
(the “Kurgan solution”) would normally regard as an
indigenous culture of central and northern Europe which was
not obviously affected by expansions from the steppelands
although contacts between the two regions might well have
been possible. The context of the invention of the wagon has
been variously assigned to settled agriculturalists of central
Europe or to more mobile pastoralists of the steppe regions.
The Chariot and the Indo-Europeans
There has long been a close association between the light
horse-drawn chariot and the earliest Indo-Europeans and it
is the chariot that one encounters as the classic vehicle of
warfare among the early Indo-Aryans of Vedic India, the
Homeric and Mycenaean Greeks, and the Celts of western
Europe. In many of these languages the inherited wheeled
vehicle terminology is also found to be specifically assigned
to the chariot rather than the wagon. This evidence has led to
the long held presumption that the chariot was employed by
the earliest Indo-Europeans in their expansions (from
whatever homeland they might be assigned). Further support
for the ascription of the chariot to the PIE period is the
widespread motif of the sun being pulled across the sky by a
team of horses and such striking parallels as the selection of
the horse that excelled on the right side of the chariot for the
victims of the horse sacrifice in both ancient India and in
Rome. Two arguments, however, have strongly militated
against assigning ‘chariot’ to PIE antiquity.
The chariot is commonly described as a light two-wheeled
vehicle employed for the purposes of warfare or ceremony.
The implications of “light” are the most important since within
the context of the IE world, this implies a vehicle drawn by
the horse rather than oxen, and a spoked-wheel rather than a
disc wheel (battle-wagons have been drawn by other forms
of equines in the Near East but not within the contexts of IE
speakers). On lexical grounds, there is no convincing evidence
for the assignment of the spoked-wheel to PIE; the earliest
terms for ‘spoke’ in the various IE stocks are at best metaphoric
extensions of other words, e.g., Grk Kvijpri ‘lower leg’ but
Grk (Homeric) OKTocKvripoq ‘eight-spoked (wheel)’. In fact,
other than broadly related forms found in other IE languages
(Myc wo-ka ‘chariot’, Grk (f)oxoq ‘chariot’,. Olnd vahitram
‘vehicle’; Grk KVicXog ‘wheel; circle, cycle', Olnd cakra- ‘wheel;
sun disc’) there is no close connection between the Greek
and Old Indie chariot terms although both stocks attest
chariotry from the second millennium BC.
The second problem with ascribing chariotry to Proto-
Indo-European is the chronology of light-weight vehicles.
Generally, the archaeological presumption is that some form
of spoked wheel would be a prerequisite for the invention of
the chariot. Occasionally there is evidence proposed that the
chariot may have predated the spoked wheel. A two- wheeled
vehicle with wheels some 60 cm in diameter was recovered
from a Catacomb burial at Maryevka in the Ukraine,
presumably of the third but possibly second millennium BC.
Even if accepted as a horse-drawn cart, this would not
materially advance the age of the chariot which is well attested
in the Sintashta culture south-east of the lirals. Dating from c
2100 to 1700 BC, this culture provides abundant evidence
627
WAGON
Wagons II Earliest spoked-wheeled vehicles: a. Lion hunting
from a chariot from the Hittite site of Malatya; b. Cylinder seal
from Kultepe; c. Chariot scene from Mycenae; d. Chariot from
Lchashen, Armenia; e. Chariot from Sintashta.
for chariots. The vehicles were small, with a gauge of 1.1 to
1.2 m, about the size suitable for a single driver and similar
to those of the earlier steppe wagons. The wheels have eight
to twelve spokes. The vehicles, found in burials, are
unequivocally associated with horses and were drawn by a
paired team. Roughly contemporary are the earliest chariots
in Anatolia which are depicted on seals dating to about 2000-
1900 BC. The wheels shown have four spokes and the vehicles
are pulled by two equids, presumably horses, which appear
in the Near East by c 2500 BC. These vehicles replace the
earlier and much heavier “battle-cars” seen in Sumerian art
which were pulled by asses or onagers interbred with another
equid. The differences between the steppe chariots and those
found in Anatolia and elsewhere in the Near East have led
some to suggest independent origins for the two.
The spread of spoked-wheeled vehicles can be found
widely in the period c 2000-1 500 BC by which time they are
attested among the Hittites, Mycenaeans, and presumably
Indo-Aryans (at least we know that it was from Indo- Aryans
that the Mitanni of northern Syria gained their vocabulary
for horse-training which they in turn passed to the Hittites).
By 1500 BC there is also clear evidence for spoked-wheeled
vehicles in central and eastern Europe. They are depicted on
a vessel from the Srubna (Timber-grave) culture of the Volga
region and somewhat later, though still well within the second
millennium BC, from a similarly decorated pot from Hungary
Clay models of what are presumed to be spoked-wheels are
also encountered in the Carpathian basin c 1500 BC.
Wherever we find evidence it does not long antedate and
generally post-dates 2000 BC by which time one might have
expected the development of the independent IE stocks.
See also Axle; Hold; Shaft; Wheel; Yoke. [D.Q.A.,J.PM.|
Further Readings
Drews, R. (1988) The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European
Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East. Princeton, Princeton
University Press.
Hansel, B. and S. Zimmer (1994) Die Indogermanen und das Pfcrd.
Budapest, Archaeolingua.
Piggott, S. (1983) The Earliest Wheeled Transport. London and New
York, Thames and Hudson.
WALL
*dfghs (gen. *dighds ) ‘wall, fortification’. \IEW 244-245
( *dheigh-)\ Wat 13 ( *dheigh-)\ G1 612 {*d h eig h -)\ Buck
10.45]. Phryg di^og ~ <5ifa (< *digh(i)eh a ) ‘fortification',
OPers dida- (< *diza) ‘wall, townwall, fortification’, NPers
diz ‘fortification’, OInd sam-dlh- ‘mound, heap, wall’. A word
of the eastern IE world. Other formations with a similar mean-
ing from *deigh- ‘work with clay, smear, build up’ include:
Osc feiho-{< *deigho-) ‘wall’, Grk vetxog(< *deighes- ) ‘wall’,
Grk wixog(< *doigho-) ‘wall’, Av uz-daeza- ‘pile, wall’, pain-
daeza- ‘enclosure’ (borrowed > Grk napccdewog ‘garden,
paradise’ borrowed > NE paradise ), Olnd debt ‘wall, bank’,
TochA tseke (< *doighelr r h ien-) ‘figurine’. In northwestern
628 —
WARFARE
IE derivatives of *deigh- refer to ‘dough’, thus ON deigr
‘dough’, OE dag ‘dough’ (> NE dough), OHG teig ‘dough’,
Goth daigs ‘dough’ (Gmc < *doighos l what is kneaded’), OCS
deza ‘baker’s trough’, Rus deza ‘baker’s trough’ (< *dhoigheh a -
‘instrument for kneading’).
Thesubstance from which the walls were made, *dhoigh-o-
(cf. perhaps Alb dhe ‘earth’), came to be applied both to the
finished product, e.g., Grk t oiyog ‘wall’, Av uz-daeza- ‘wall’,
and clay-like substances, e.g., Germanic ‘dough’. The semantic
context of most of the cognates cited suggests that *dfghs
indicated the enclosing wall of a settlement or fortification,
i.e., an earthen or clay bank, rather than the wall of a house.
In Homer, for example, TEiyog is applied to walls of defense
such as the city- walls of Troy and only the o- grade Toiyog is
applied to the walls of a house but as they also indicate the
side of a ship, it is clear that this term is already distant from
any etymological association with clay.
*serk- ‘to construct or repair a wall’. [LEW 912 { *serk-)\
Wat 58 (*serk-)\. Lat sarcid ‘repair, amend, make amends’,
Umb sarsite (< *sarcite) ‘?repair’, Alb gjarkez ‘peritoneum’
(< *‘that which surrounds’), Grk epKoq ‘enclosure, hedge,
fence, (courtyard) wall; courtyard; net, snare; defense,
bulwark’, opKavri ~ epKavri ‘enclosure, fence; trap, pitfall’,
Hit sar-nin-k- ‘compensate’, TochB serke ‘cycle, circle’ (< *‘that
which encloses’). The underlying concept here may well
involve that of a ‘circle’, i.e., enclosure, rather than any specific
reference to repairing an enclosure.
The concept of repairing through the use of wickerwork is
evidenced by the Lat derivative sarcina ‘bundle’ and by the
Latin idiom sar(c)tus tectus" in good repair’ (< *‘(well) enclosed
and covered’). The geographic spread of the etymon suggests
PIE antiquity.
See also Circle; Fence; Fort; House; Village. [A.D.V.]
WANDER
*h a el- ‘wander’. [IE W 27-28 (*il -); Wat 2 (*a/-)]. Lat
ambuld ‘take a walk’, Latv aluot(ies) ‘go astray’, Grk dXiopai
~ aXaivco ‘wander about’, r\XdoK(o ~ pXaivco ‘go astray’,
dXevopai ‘avoid, shun’, dXvoK(o ‘escape’, aXvco ‘be beside
oneself’, TochAB al- ‘keep off’. It may be that we have two
verbs here: (1) ‘wander’ which appears in Latin, Latvian, and
Greek, and (2) ‘avoid’ that appears in Greek and Tocharian. If
all these words belong together we have evidence for at least
a late PIE verb. If there are two separate verbs the evidence
suggests at best two dialectally restricted IE verbs.
See also Go; Come. [D.Q.A.]
WANT
*ye£-‘wish, want’ (pres. *ye£t/). [IEW 1135 (*uek-)[. Grk
ekcqv ‘willingly’, Hit wekmi ‘wish’, Av vasomi ‘wish’, Olnd
vasmi ‘wish’. Though only sparsely attested, the presence of
an Anatolian cognate seems to assure PIE status.
*yei- ‘wish, want’. [/£W 1 137 (*uel-); Wat 75 ( *wel-)\ .
MWels gwell (< *uel-no-) ‘better’, Lat void ‘want’, ON vilja
‘choose’, OHG wellen ‘want’, Goth wiljan ‘want’, Lith pa-velmi
‘wish’, OCS veljQ ‘wish’, Arm gel (< *uel-no-) ‘beauty’, Av
var- ‘choose, wish’, Olnd Vfnite ‘chooses’, a vjrta- ‘chosen’.
Widespread and clearly old in IE.
*h a eis - L wish for, seek out’. [IEW 16 (*ms-); Wat l (Aits-);
cf. GI 96-97 (e/s-)] . Lat aeruscare ‘ask’, OE £sce ‘examination’,
acsian ~ ascian ‘ask’ (> NE ask), OHG eisca ‘furtherance’,
eiscon ‘ask’, Lith l'eskau ‘seek’, Latv ieskat ‘search for lice’,
Arm ayc‘ (< *h a eis-skeh a -) ‘visit’, Av isaili (< *h a is-ske/o~)
‘seeks, wishes’, isaiti ‘wishes’, Olnd esati ‘seeks’, icchati (<
*h a is-ske/o-) ‘seeks, wishes’, iccha ‘wish’. Without the *-s -
we have Palaic ila- ‘± passion’, ilaliya- ‘desire’, Hit da- '±
passion’. Widespread and old in IE.
*g w hel- ‘wish, want’. [IEW 489 ( *g lJ el-)\ Gl 151
(*g^°e/-)]. OCS zeleti ‘wish', Grk OeXco ‘wish’. A word
restricted to the center of the IE world.
See also Desire ; Pray. [D.Q.A. 1 .
WARFARE
Unless one can specify the earliest location of the Indo-
Europeans it is impossible to discuss specifically the nature
of their warfare. Nevertheless, certain general observations
may be made which may be taken in conjunction with other
discussions pertaining to the social organization of war-bands,
leadership, warriors in IE literature, IE deities concerned with
war, and terms for weaponry.
Warfare of some sort would appear to be a universal in
human society although the frequency of its occurrence might
vary considerably over region, people or time. It most certainly
existed in pre-IE times such as the Mesolithic when hunter-
gatherers were distributed across Eurasia after the end ofthe
Ice Age. Presumably organized violence would seem to have
appeared particularly where there existed stable subsistence
resources. The control of such territories would stimulate
competition and require maintenance and protection. Hence,
evidence for trauma associated with violent death through
warfare can be found in Mesolithic cemeteries both in the
Baltic region and along the middle course of the Dnieper River
in the Ukraine. In both cases there were very rich but localized
marine or riverine resources that may have stimulated
competition that led to violent engagements. The weapons
producing the trauma are generally arrows and spears.
During the Neolithic period, the earliest period to which
we might attribute the economy of Proto-Indo-European,
there is intermittent evidence of warfare, trauma, and defensive
architecture across much of Eurasia. Analysis of a mass burial
of men, women and children in a pit ofthe Linear Ware culture
indicates that the polished stone axes employed in that society
were not only used for cutting down trees. Neolithic
enclosures in southern Britain show clear evidence for attacks
and burning by opponents armed with bows and arrows. The
presence of enclosures is widespread over much of Europe
and although one of their functions may have been to mark
out sacred precincts or areas of a settlement, it would be
difficult, especially given the evidence from Britain, to presume
that they did not also have a defensive function and that
— 629 —
WARFARE
warfare was a common enough occurrence in Neolithic
Europe. In general, one of the features that accompanies the
adoption of a settled way of life through agriculture is a sense
of territoriality and fixed defensible resources, and hence a
correlation between agriculture and warfare has long been
observed. It should be emphasized that land is not the only
reason for raids and warfare and there is abundant evidence
for other causes, e.g., security, prestige, obtaining women.
The growing social complexity of Eurasia through the
Neolithic suggests that both material wealth and competition
were probably becoming increasingly important and could
have stimulated armed aggression. For this reason the stark
contrast between an essentially “peaceful” European Neolithic,
the “Old Europe” of Marija Gimbutas, and the intrinsically
aggressive populations from the Pontic steppe is not only
difficult to sustain but inherently unlikely. Warfare did not
begin in Europe because of the introduction of the speakers
of IE languages; it had preceded it no matter where one locates
the IE homeland.
The reconstructed vocabulary of PIE suggests that at least
by late IE there were warriors grouped in some sort of
operational unit, e.g., *korios ‘army, war-band’, *leh2UOs
‘people under arms’, *teuteh a - ‘people (under arms?)’, with
(military) leaders, e.g., *h a egos ‘leader’, *kononos ‘leader’,
*unatks ‘leader, lord’, *h3rtgs ‘king’. The frequent application
of ‘wolf to warrior behavior and evidence for berserker-like
activity, sometimes induced by a stimulant, is also widespread
in IE. From the lexicon of material culture we find that early
Indo-Europeans had at their disposal certain implements that
may have served in war as well as the hunt, e.g., knife
( *ueben -), dagger ( *h2/3#sis ), spear, ( *g w eru , *h a eiksmo/
eh a -, *kuh x los y *ghai-so-s- ), ax (*h^edhes) y bow and arrow
( *g w (i)i£h a , *hiisus, *h a eiyos). Further evidence for warfare
is suggested by the presence of a fortified enclosure which
may be found in either widespread or regionally confined
sets of cognates ( *pe/h A -, *bhergh-, *dhunos, *uri~). Finally,
there are verbal reconstructions such as *segh- ‘hold fast,
conquer’ and *seru ‘booty, spoils of a raid’ whose semantic
sphere is primarily related to military activities or at least the
exploitation of physical force.
The picture gained from lexical-cultural reconstruction
pertaining to the technology of warfare is vague enough to
permit one to situate the earliest Indo-Europeans in most areas
of Eurasia during the Neolithic. Every weapon indicated in
the PIE vocabulary, although manufactured from metal
(bronze or iron) by the time of its earliest attested lexical
occurrence, could be ascribed a Neolithic predecessor made
from flint, chert, obsidian or some other stone. Moreover,
the age sets and/or war-bands postulated by some for the
Proto-Indo-Europeans find close ethnographic parallels
among tribes in Africa and North America whose own social
organization need not be much more complex than that which
we would expect for many later Neolithic populations. It is
also in the later Neolithic and early Bronze Age that we find
the regular ascription of weapons in male graves which may
suggest either the existence of specialized warrior associations
or, at least, the recognition of warfare as one of the appropnate
social roles of males in society.
As to the nature of IE warfare, other than the relatively
banal conclusions that one can draw from the IE vocabulary,
e.g., raids for booty, livestock, very little else can be deter-
mined. What is known from many peoples of the world on a
social level similar to that which we ascribe to the earliest
Indo-Europeans is that anned hostility may be both ritualized
and graded according to increasing levels of violence and
destruction (cf. early Irish literature which distinguishes
between ‘raids’ and ‘routs’). This may involve unarmed
defiance through display (chest-pounding, insults, etc ),
duelling with long-distance weapons which minimize the
opportunities to inflict serious injury, to hand-to-hand combat
between individuals, and then full massed battles. All of these
variations of the rules of engagement, however, seem so far
to be unrecoverable from PIE antiquity.
See also Age Set; Army; Social Organization;
War God; Warriors. [J.PM.]
Further Reading
Keegan, J. (1993) A History of Warfare. London, Hutchinson.
WAR GOD
??*m2uort-‘ god of war’. [Wat 39 (. Mawort -); Del 74], OLat
Mavors (god of war), Lat Mars (god of war), OInd (pi.) Marutas
‘wind gods’.
The concept of a PIE War god results from the projection
of the Latin Mars into Indo-European where his name is
compared with that of Indra’s companions, the Maruts, of
Old Indie mythology. To make the etymological link more
plausible, one must consider OLat Mavors , but the name of
the Italic god is Mamers in Oscan, which implies dissimilation
(*m - m > m - v) in Mavors. Further difficulties arise when
one considers the reduplicative form Marmar in the Carmen
Arvale and the Etruscan Marmarce. Recent research tends to
give the priority to OLat Mavors (claiming assimilation in
Osc Mamers and contraction in Lat Mars). The name looks
like a compound of which the second element would be *uert-
‘turn’ (Lat vertere ) and the first perhaps *magh(e)s- (cf. Grk
gdxo/iai ‘fight’ < PIE *mh a egh-), with an original meaning
‘he who turns the combat’. Still, the equation Mars:Maruts ,
attractive as it may be if the basic function of Mars is war, is
usually rejected where Mars’s agrarian connotations rather
suggest a rural deity of the peasant-soldier. To be sure, the
Maruts are the companions of the Vedic War god and are
associated with the storm wind (Vayu, the storm-wind, is
also a major War god), but they rather appear as the celestial
equivalents of the marya- ‘youth, young warrior’ which has
rightly been compared with the ancient Middle Eastern ma-
ri-ia-an-nu , a group of young charioteers in Mitanni, and with
members of the military Mannerbund (OPers marika [< Proto-
Indo-Iran *mariyaka-\ ‘member of a retinue’). The term would
be semantically comparable to other youths terms applied to
630 —
WARRIORS
a military context, e.g., OHG kneht , NE knight , NHG knabe
versus knappe ‘page, esquire’, and may be related to Grk
peipa £ ‘girl, boy’, Lat maritus ‘married’, Weis morwyn ‘girl’,
etc. < IE *merios ‘youth’. In view of all this, the reconstruction
of an IE War god *mauort- is hardly justified on linguistic
grounds.
See also Warriors. (E.C.P]
WARM see HEAT
WAR OF THE FOUNDATION
Within the mythological system reconstructed for PIE, the
“War of the Foundation”, also known as the “War of the
Functions” or “War of the Divine Classes”, refers to a battle
fought between the representatives of the first two functions
(the judicial-religious and military) and the third (procreative,
fertility) in which the third function is (forcibly) incorporated
into the whole of society. Its primary reflection is held to occur
in Norse mythology and Roman pseudo-history but traces of
it are found in a number of other IE traditions.
In Norse mythology, primarily in the Prose Edda , there is
related the conflict between the HEsir and the Vanir. The HEsir
gods are led by Odinn and Torr (the representatives of the
first and second functions respectively) while the Vanir are
led by Freyr, a patron of fecundity, and other gods associated
with fertility (Freyja, the sister of Freyr, and Njordr). Before
the war the Vanir attempt to corrupt the HEsir by sending to
them Gullveig ‘gold-frenzy’ but the /Esir bum her. The ./Esir
attack the Vanir initiating the first war in the world which
promised to be inconclusive as each side ravaged the lands of
the other to no ultimate advantage. The participants decide
to end the conflict themselves and hostages are exchanged
with the three principal Vanir (Njordr, Freyr and Freyja)
coming to live with the HEsir. The Vanir are thus properly
incorporated into the rest of divine society. In one version,
the pact of peace is cemented by both parties spitting into a
crock which was subsequently used to mix the mead of poetry.
The Roman version of the tale is the familiar story of the
Sabine War. Here Romulus, who combines both the qualities
of the priest in establishing the city of Rome and that of a
warrior (he is the son of Mars) leading his warbands, finds
that the city of Rome still lacks the aspect of “fecundity” which
is possessed in abundance by Titus Tatius and his Sabines.
During the war, Titus attempts to bribe Tarpeia, the daughter
of the Roman charged with guarding the Capitoline hill, and
this theme of golden bribes has been compared by some with
the role of Gullveig in the Norse account. As the war pitches
back and forth to no apparent end, the Sabine women place
themselves between the two forces and, in marrying the
Romans, forge the communities together into a whole which
now embraces all three functions.
Parallels from other IE traditions are not so precise.
Elements of the “Second Battle of Mag Tuired” in Irish myth,
which may be interpreted as the eschatological confrontation
has also been taken to possess traces of the “War of the
Functions” where the conflict pits the Tuatha De Danann (the
first two functions) against the Formonans who have a tenuous
association with fertility. But unlike the Norse and Roman
myths, there is no “incorporation” of the enemy into the social
whole. The Trojan War has also been analyzed in terms of the
functional war with the Greeks representing the first two
functions and the Trojans the third. A better parallel is seen
in ancient India. Here it is the representative of the Second
Function, Indra, who refuses the admission of the Asvins into
the divine circle of power. The latter are the “Divine Twins”
and as such, representatives of the Third Function. They are
assisted in the incorporation by Mada, the demon of
‘drunkenness’, who has been compared with the Norse motif
of the mixing of the poetic mead at the conclusion of the war
between the HEsir and Vanir. Indra is coerced into admitting
the Asvins to the central power of the other deities.
See also Comparative Mythology; Cosmology;
Eschatology; Warriors . U . R M . ]
Further Readings
Dumezil, G. (1979) Archaic Roman Religion. Chicago, University
of Chicago, 65-73.
Littleton, C. S. (1970) Some possible Indo-European themes in the
‘Iliad’, in Myth and Law among the Indo-Europeans , ed. J Puhvel,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California, 229-246
WARRIORS
Whatever the theories that have been propounded con-
cerning a Proto-Indo-European social organization, the group
or segment operating in what Georges Dumezil identified as
the fonction guerriere , his Warrior or Second Function, that
is, the function dedicated to the forcible defence or armed
expansion of any given society, is one that evidently appears
early and occupies an important social and possibly a political
role. This conclusion is suggested by the fact that the early IE
word for ‘people,’ as in OIr tuath (from PIE *teuteh a - ), or
Greek Xot(p)6c n may in fact signify ‘the people in arms’, that
is, the warriors. Distinct warrior groupings with their own
codes of conduct also appear in early codes marked by an
independent ‘wilfulness’ (Olnd svadhd ‘inherent power,
habitual state, custom’ which is cognate with Grk e'Oog
‘custom, usage, habit’ and OLat (pi.) suodales ‘members of
an association’). A later meaning is ‘group of comrades'. The
most archaic IE sources also display two other dimensions of
the warrior: as a fighting elite, organized in high-status clans,
and defined politically as an aristocracy, and as an imaginative
projection of superior, even superhuman warrior virtues
collected into the form of the hero. In terms of PIE myth, the
origin of the warrior elite (or, the hero who exemplifies its
excellences) is almost always cast back into a trackless and
shadowy Past Time; it may be conjectured that the perfect
origin-tale referring to the warrior has him spnnging directly
from the earth, without parents or any human intervention,
as in the case of the Greek (maproi the sown men’ (i e , those
who claimed descent from the dragon’s teeth sown by
— 631 —
WARRIORS
Kadmos) of the ancient Kadmean myth. This Second or
Warrior Function, whatever its origins, continues as a potent
socio-political force, projecting what one scholar (Joel
Grisward) has called its “totalitarianism”, its thrust toward
weakening and co-opting the powers of the First (Sovereign)
Function, while either ignoring or denigrating the powers of
the Third Function, powers of supportive increase, wealth,
and sexual force. In historical terms, we can note that both of
the classical Mediterranean civilizations, the Greek and the
Roman, experienced this totalitarianism in the advance of
aristocracies to political dominance and the retreat and even
the obliteration of monarchic sovereignty: in Greece aristo-
cratic dominance is seen from about the eighth to the fourth
centuries BC, and in Rome for the period of the Republic,
that is from about the late sixth to the late first centuries BC.
Organization
Research into the subject of the IE warrior usually begins
with a focus on the collective, the war-band, mainly because
we have good evidence of these warrior organizations from
Germanic, Irish Celtic, Indie and other IE-speaking traditions.
Admittedly, this evidence is rather late, that is, dated to the
late Bronze or Iron Age, but the evidence is supported by
more archaic linguistic data bearing on war-band terminology.
At base, our information on the war-band seems to identify
two modes: the initiation-cohort of young, adolescent males
with their older trainers or models, and the true Mannerbund
or comitatus, the warrior group connected to or following a
particular war-leader or chieftain. The two modes may be
combined, as when the Irish flanna, defined as ‘war and
hunting bands’ who live and fight on the edges of ordinary
society, are also said to be involved in initiating the young
men of the tribe into adult warriorhood. The first mode may
be composed of bands of adolescent youth, separated from
society and in transition to full warrior status, as seen, for
example, in the Irish Tain Bo Cualgne “Cattle Raid of Cooley”,
where in maccrad, ‘the youths,’ often translated as the ‘boy
troop’ of the king (and being kings’ sons themselves) were
associated with the magnificent hero-champion Cu Chulainn
who was their leader. Another, historical example of an
initiation cohort is made visible in the Athenian social
institution of the ephebeia, in which adolescent males were
trained and readied for full societal membership and warrior
status; this ephebate has been shown (by Pierre Vidal-Naquet)
to have emphasized, in its training, the “dark” side of
warfare — night attacks, trickery, disguise, ambush and secrecy.
Both of these instances show a focus on an essential adolescent
difference, perhaps on different aspects of the confrontations
and contests, involved in game and play.
The comitatus was the Latin word given by Tacitus to
describe a Germanic warrior-band bound to its war-leader
by mutually sworn oaths; the leader sworn to deal faithfully
with his followers so far as loot — and, presumably, glory —
was concerned; the warriors in turn were oath-bound to obey
and, especially, were sworn not to survive a war-leader slain
in battle. An example of this ethos of terminal loyalty is found
in the Anglo-Saxon poem “The Battle of Maldon". In such an
IE warrior organization as this the particular emphasis is
always on the personal tie between the leader and his “man”,
and also on the fact that the leader was never simply a
commander or tactical expert , but was expected to show at
all times a personal example of courage and fighting skills.
Our evidence, both historical and literary-legendary, seems
to show the paramount importance of the exceptional IE
warrior. The historians Polybius and Dionysius of Halicar-
nassus describe the Gaulish warrior-elite who advanced to
fight naked “before the host”; the Welsh Celtic Triads, which
refer in a series of triplets to information that was important
to remember about the ancient affairs of the “Island of Britain”
in Arthurian times, speak of the three “diademed men” or
“gorgeted men” who were always expected to be at the fore-
front of the host in battle. The image of the Champion is very
strong in this IE evidence; the fighter showing his individual
prowess is always given precedence over any display of mili-
tary mass, discipline, or war-group solidarity. An 1 E-speaking
people like the Romans made a special point of emphasizing
strict military discipline and mass maneuver, yet they found
themselves facing the older IE mode in the form of Gallic and
Germanic fighting tactics and their emphasis on the single
champion. In Virgil’s Aeneid strict Roman discipline is
anachronistically inserted into the wars between the Rutulians
and Aeneas’ forces, and the poem criticizes, while it praises,
those warriors who broke formation to show off their personal
bravery or virtus. Still, the well-known Roman institution of
the Triumph, though evidently cast in an Etruscan (non-IE)
guise, was based on the celebration of a victory won by a
Roman commander, the triumphator , in personal combat with
an enemy chief. In general outline, then, the IE evidence
elevates and even idolizes the single and singular warrior in
combat: he is the cynosure, more admired than any command-
er, unless the commander is himself a war-skilled and
courageous individual, one who leads by example.
In fact, the IE warrior who is the center of a great deal of
attention is the warrior who has entirely escaped social control
of any kind; the warrior seized by the psychic spasm called
furor or wuto r, in the Norse-lcelandic sagas, the fighter called
berserksgangr ‘gone berserk’. In this phenomenon — widely
apparent in the IE evidence bearing on the fighting- man
though not only there — the individual warrior, battle-mad,
passes out of any human control. The best etymology of
berserk ( < * ‘bear-shirt’) stresses its animalized element; the
fighter stricken by this crazed situation abandons any human
personality and turns feral, becoming like a bear or a wolf.
The Old Irish equivalent is the riastrad , ‘the act of contorting',
exemplified in the behavior of the hero Cu Chulainn when
pressed in battle or angered, which emerged as a total
distortion of his features (the warp-spasm) and his assumption
of a single-minded aggressive stance. Some theories have
suggested that the Norse berserkir , at least, may have used
hallucinogenic mushrooms to achieve this maddened stale
632 —
WARRIORS
in which they became, among other things, more or less
impervious to wounds; there is no final proof on this score,
and it is most likely that the warrior’s furor-filled state was
induced by auto-suggestion and triggered by frustration or
some other intense emotional situation or crisis. In fact the
berserk -warrior carries to an extreme a marked sense of the
isolation and separation of the IE warrior as a type, that is,
showing what Dumezil has called the “dysfunctional” warrior
ethos, completely turned against society, and not amenable
to any direction, rule or command. However, we ought to
note that warrior-heroes can be “shamed” into regaining
control of themselves, as Cu Chulainn, enraged, was first
calmed and quietened by women flaunting their sexuality at
him, and then literally cooled or quenched in cauldrons of
cold water. Magical or quasi-magical satire can also affect and
de-energize an enraged warrior.
Weapons and Tactics
Archaeological findings, at least those dated from the
Bronze Age on, give us a certain cross-check against the epical
and other accounts of the IE warriors weapons and war-tactics.
These discoveries confirm, for example, that the horse-drawn
war-chariot was used by Celtic and, earlier, Mycenaean
warriors, though eventually it would be replaced by the true
war-horse. The war-chariot pulled by two horses is featured
in Indie epic, in the Greek Iliad, and in Irish Celtic hero-
tales, though there is a strong suspicion that the sole use of
the chariot by the elite hero-warrior may have been an
imaginary construct — there is no good evidence, for example,
for chariotry as early as the Profo-Indo-Europeans. In all three
of these epic traditions the chariot carried one warrior of rank
along with his charioteer; the charioteer was in theory a non-
combatant (at least in the Irish tales, though he could be
directly involved in and at risk at the action of battle, as in
the Iliad). Ordinarily the war-chariot was not deployed as a
shock- weapon: in the Indie epic Mahabharata it is used as a
platform from which the warriors shoot their great bows;
elsewhere it delivered the elite fighter to the battle and then
withdrew. Caesar describes the Gallic chariot ( essedum ) he
saw used in this manner, and he also describes the “play” the
Gallic chariot-warrior made, running and balancing on the
chariot’s draught-pole at speed; such displays were also part
of the repertoire of the Old Irish epic heroes.
The riding horse was known to early lE-speakers, yet the
three IE contexts named ignore the ridden horse in favor of
the heroic chariot, as we have noted. In fact, the appearance
of what we would call a true cavalry was not very significant
in military terms in, for example, the two classical civilizations,
where horsemen (Grk iKKeig, Lat equites ) were important in
a socio-economic sense, since only a noble or aristocrat could
afford the animal as a mount. The horseman would reveal his
true value as a fighter, in fact and in imagination, only after
the development (in the second-fourth centuries AD, reaching
Persia and Byzantium by the sixth century and western Europe
by the eighth century) of an effective means to control the
horse, and the appearance of the true saddle-and-slirrup to
steady the rider. After this advance we will fairly soon see the
ritter, cavalier or cabellero or the knight, that is, the heavy-
cavalry horseman, and eventually, in the medieval period of
western European history, we can also see a return to a
recognizable IE social pattern, as this society is again described
as a readably trifunctional structure, the horsed, armed and
armored knights shown as Second Function, war-making
bellatores protecting the First Function oratores , those who
pray, and the Third Function laboratores, those who work.
Technology, history, and the works of the imagination are
also combined in our reconstruction of the weaponry' used
by the IE warrior. The Iliad knew of the ‘well-honed bronze’,
a slashing-sword, but the primary weapon in this epic is the
warrior’s heavy spear, used either to throw or to thrust. The
spear and the sword together mark off the warrior, to some
degree, as he appears in most IE traditions, and this pattern
continues into the early medieval period (also the time of the
great Eurasian folk-migrations and invasions) when the earliest
heavy horsemen made their appearance, and sword-and-lance
certainly identify the medieval knight of a later period. Other
weapons of war are known; the war-bow is seen either as a
primary heroic weapon, as in the Indie epic evidence, or more
often as a vaguely suspect missile-weapon, as it is in the Iliad
and elsewhere; it is altogether absent from any early Irish
text — although the sling is known — and whenever it does
occur later it is clearly a borrowed motif. Sometimes the
warrior-hero is overarmed: in the Old Irish tales, supreme
warrior-heroes like Cu Chulainn are provided with an
elaborate personal armory, including any number of different
spears, javelins, swords and even shields with sharpened
edges, to say nothing of mysterious and nearly unidentifiable
weapons like this hero’s gae bolga.
In literature the sword remains the IE warriors weapon
par excellence. Both heavy slashing-swords and shorter
stabbing-swords have frequently been found in Celtic and
other burials; it has also been suggested that from about the
seventh century AD that technical advance in iron-smithing
called damascening or faggot- forging began to produce very'
superior steel swords, swords that increasingly make their
appearance in the epic and saga literature as “named” weapons,
possessing a kind of power and personality of their own, and
inherited or otherwise passed on from warrior user to user.
There are also hints that the (western) IE warrior may carry'
not one but two swords: the first an heirloom or family”
blade, the second a personal weapon. Evidence for these two
swords, and what they might signify, comes mainly from the
Norse-Icelandic sagas, but also from Welsh, Insh, and Spanish
epic contexts.
War Gods and the Second Function.
The identification of specific and unmistakable war gods,
gods strictly associated with the IE Second or Warrior
Function and only concerned with that function, is not as
simple or easy as it might seem. Problems of identification
— 633 —
WARRIORS
and interpretation, of obscure sources difficult to use, lost
data, names without descriptions — all this conspires to
confuse our conclusions. To begin with a clear image and
usage, the Indie god Indra, with his following of ‘wild’ Maruts,
obviously belongs in the warrior’s function and acts as a
warriors’ emblematic god, yet Indra must have replaced
another Indie god, Vayu, who is closer to the wind-and-
weather god type, while in the related Indo-Iranian pantheon,
after the Zoroastrian reforms, Indra’s (Av Indara’s) furious
divinity is replaced by Mi0ra, a god with wide cosmic
responsibilities including the military. The Roman War god
Mars would seem to follow the pattern of uncomplicated
predictability, yet Mars had a significant association with the
wilderness, with the dark unknown, not only with licit
combat, and on the other side he patronized husbandry and
good order on the cultivated land. By the evidence of myth
the Greek War god Ares probably belongs in a pre-Hellenic,
pre-IE stratum, though Enyalios, with an IE root and meaning
‘war-fury’ and later taken as an adjective-substitution for Ares,
shows up in the earliest Greek (Mycenaean) Linear B texts.
When we bring in the Gallic, associated Celtic, and Germanic
areas, where war and the warrior obviously had a huge and
dramatic place, the IE Second Function divinity, his meaning
and his cult, becomes very hard to identify and track.
Rome was aware of the warlike Gauls from the fourth
century BC onward, and eventually Caesar, commanding in
Gaul, gave Roman names to the Gallic gods; Mars, as a War
god, is one of these names. The Gallic Mars may be equated
with one or more than one of a number of Gallo-Celtic gods
whose names and images, at least, we know. Iconography
and analogy draw our attention to Sucellos, a god who seems
to have some connection to the wilderness (as Mars does to
the Roman forest-god Sylvanus), Sucellos may be a forest-
deity who is also shown wielding a hammer, like the Norse
korr. Yet the true Gallic ‘thunderer’ is the god Taranis
(< *taranu-), whose name means the same as the Germanic
War god Donar, and to this Taranis humans were supposed
to be sacrificed by fire , which we think of as a Second Function
sacrificial mode. Then there is Ogmios, whom the Celts,
according to one Roman observer, equated with Herakles,
and Ogmios clearly is parallel to the Irish god Ogma in the
Irish myth-epic, ‘the strong one’ who leads men in arms. Yet
again we know of the Gallic Teutates, sometimes depicted
with helmet and lance, and whose name perhaps shows that
he leads ‘the people in arms’. There is also some important
evidence describing chief- gods, gods we would identify as
divinities of the IE Sovereign Function, but whose power
extends and operates through all functions; a Gallic Jupiter is
widely known who, like the Roman Jupiter in his War god
guise, was called on for assistance in war; the Irish parallel to
him would be Lugus or Lug, whose powers are not constricted
into or by any one function. Finally, there is Celtic (especially
Irish) evidence for a feminine war-deity, called Bodb, Macha
or the Morrlgan, an embodiment of the quasi-sexual seizures
of “fiery combat”, who may be both friend and foe to heroes.
The other IE people well known to the Romans, the Ger-
manic tribes, throw up some confusions of their own so far
as the War god or the Warrior god is concerned. The Teutonic
‘thunderer’ Donar, has already been mentioned; we would
see him transformed into the god korr of the Scandinavians,
as Wotan became ON Odinn. Yet so far as the “religion” of
the Germanic-Scandinavian warrior is concerned, their War
god might be taken either as Odinn in the First Function or
as korr in the Second: Odinn represents the uncontrollable,
the uncertain, chaotic, dark, fatal energy of combat; a god
who is similar but not identical to him would be the Elbe
Slav Svantovit, bringer of victory, oracle, and also associated
with the revelation contained in alcoholic drink, korr seems
to show the sacral energy released in war as it is controlled
and socialized, so korr’s hammer is his special weapon against
inhuman forces, personified as giants and monsters; other IE
‘striking’ gods, like the Russo-Slav Perun and the Lithuanian
Perkunas, are more in the mode of korr. The feminized side
of war-making is seen here as well: Odinn accepts the battle-
dead as sacrifices, but only half of them; Freyja, goddess of
love (and, in this case, of death) takes the rest.
The warrior’s god clearly assumes a great number of
postures and stands for any number of potencies, from the
general guardianship of society, to the symbolizing of war as
a primal, extrahuman force, to the representation of utterly
individual berserkr energies. His ambiguity, like the warrior’s
ambiguity, is paramount. So far as cult is concerned, it seems
that the IE warrior usually “worshipped” his god by offering
blood; the sacrifice of his enemies and finally the sacrifice of
himself. Such an offering continues on into the post-pagan
period, when the IE warrior is more or less Christianized.
We can tentatively conclude that there was no unitary, PIE
‘War god’. Perhaps we can also say that the club-armed
thunder-gods (korr, Indra, Sucellos) represent the intuition
that war, that most important warrior activity, like thunder,
was natural but also frightening and dramatic, an awful but
natural event for the warrior and for his IE society.
Aspects of Indo-European Ideology
The IE warrior, operating in Dumezil’s definition of a
Second Function, is also tied to other aspects and operations
of that functional system, and to the rest of the tnpartative
system as well. There are four themes or scenarios that need
to be laid out and briefly examined here: (a) the “War of the
Foundation”, (b) the cattle-raiding myth, (c) the theme of
the “Sins of the Warrior”, and (d) the Odinn warrior/korr
warrior bifurcation.
(a) The “War of the Foundation” or “Interfunctional War”. In
this mythic confrontation the IE First and Second
Functions are allied, and face off against, master, and finally
incorporate into one triplex whole the different but signifi-
cant potencies of the Third Function. The victory of
sovereign and war-like forces is for a time held off by the
powers of this Third Function, but the latter is eventually
defeated by the over-mastering magical potency of some
— 634 —
WARRIORS
dominant First Function figure. The paradigmatic Inter-
functional War is often identified as the one that takes
place between the Norse divine divisions of the zEsir and
the Vanir; Indie epico-myth (in the Mahabharata ) and
Roman myth-history (the confrontation succinctly called
the Rape of the Sabine women) lays out the same situation,
while other examples have been suggested, taken from
the Greek Iliad and from certain Norse sagas. Of the
various reflexes of Inter-functional War, the Scandinavian
and Roman show the most complete scenario: the oppo-
sition between First and Second Functions on one side
and the Third Function on the other GEsir against Vanir,
Romans against Sabines); the attempt by the Third
Function to win by means of a Golden Bribe (Gullveig
[power of gold] tempts the vEsir, Titus Tatius tempts
Tarpeia); the act of grande magie that ends the battle
(Odinn hurls his magic spear across the battle-line,
Romulus successfully calls on Jupiter); and, finally, the
peaceful juncture of the two sides. In other reflexes of
this war, for example, the Mahabharata and the Iliad , no
joining of the two opponents occurs. An important point
here is that Second Function war-like force is not seen to
be enough to overcome the mythical enemy’s complex
power-field.
(b) The IE or PIE cattle-raiding myth. This scenario is based
on a situation in which the key element, the herds of cattle
which are both the secular and the sacred capital of an IE
nomadic collectivity, are stolen by a non-IE enemy people,
retaken by force by an IE warrior elite, and then are
returned by the victors to a First Function priestly class
for the appropriate sacrifice to the upper powers. The
cattle-raid as a warrior activity is widely known and
deployed throughout our IE sources; here it is sacralized
and even cosmicized. A sacralized aspect is seen in the
Indie royal consecration, the rajastiya , which includes a
mock cattle-raid. In epic terms, cattle-raids are featured
in the Iliad and the Odyssey, they, of course, make up a
separate category of Old Irish heroic tales, where eleven
tana bo or ‘Cattle-Raids’ have survived to us, the best
known being the Tain Bo Cualgne. Returning to the mythic
level, it has been suggested (by Bruce Lincoln) that the
cattle-raid is part of the same mythic context as the
“Combat with the Tricephalic Monster".
(c) The “Sins of the Warrior” is an important IE theme that
was examined by Dumezil in two successive treatments,
the later differing slightly in emphasis and conclusions
from the earlier. In this theme a warrior-hero figure
commits three sins or delicts against each of the three
functions, that is, he serially violates one or more of the
bundle of rules that define and govern these functions.
The clearest example of these three sins is contained in
the legend of Starkadr or Starcatherus, the “old hero” who
appears in Saxo Grammaticus and briefly in Gautrekssaga.
Starkadr’s three sins are regicide, a cowardly flight from
battle, and another regicide committed for money; his first
sin also involves the IE theme of the royal Threefold Death.
The career of Herakles, whose heroic biography puts him
close in type to Starkadr, shows his three sins as, first,
ignoring the will of the sovereign god, Zeus; second, killing
a foe by treachery; third, committing adultery. In the Indie
Mahabharata the warrior-king Sisupala (whom Dumezil
substituted for the god Indra in his second treatment of
the Sinning Warrior theme) sins against the Second
Function by attacking his enemies in a cowardly fashion,
attacks the First Function by preventing the great horse
sacrifice necessary to Indie kingship, and commits a sexual
delict by secretly lying with a married woman. In all of
these examples the sin brings a fitting punishment, and
after the last sin the warrior-hero dies. It appears that the
IE warrior-hero should be a great sinner, a frequent and
unashamed defier of functional rules, and a close examina-
tion of the careers of these warrior-heroes will usually
reveal incidents more or less closely resembling the
paradigmatic three sins of the warrior.
(d) As a last example of an ideological theme, the IE theme
displaying the bifurcation and opposition between a
warrior of Forr and a warrior of Odinn was first extracted
from the North German legend of Starkadr, over whom
the two gods named had a debate, the one granting him
certain boons while the other attached matching ills to
the benefits. Despite the fact that the god Forr was inimical
to Starkadr because of the latter’s Giant ancestry, this hero
appears to be a Forr-warrior, for the two types are
differentiated according to whether the warrior is drawn
toward social service, especially service to kings, or places
himself in opposition to kings and to the Sovereign
Function. The king’s Champion, the standard-bearer or,
in the sagas, the royal ‘forecastle-man’ would be defined
as Forr-warriors. The bifurcation is clear in a saga such as
Egils saga Skallagnmssonar but it is not at all limited to
the Scandinavian North. Another characteristic division
between the two types has the Odinn-warrior show
tricksterish features, while the Forr-warrior plays a straight
but vulnerable hand, often falling victim to the very king
he serves. Finally, a pairing of warrior-heroes that has a
close familial resemblance to the Fo rr- warrior/O d inn -
warrior theme contrasts a more feral or dangerous warrior-
type to his “straight” partner: examples would be Arjuna
and Bhisma in the Indie epic, and Cei and Bedwyr in the
old Welsh sources.
See also Age Set; Comparative Mythology; Cow; Horse,
Threefold Death, Three-headed Monster, Wagon;
Warfare; War God; War of the Foundation. [D.A.M.]
Further Readings:
Duby, G. (1980). The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined
Chicago, University of Chicago.
Dumezil, G. (1970). The Destiny of the Warrior. Chicago, University
of Chicago.
Dumezil, G. (1983). The Stakes of the Warrior. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, University of California.
635 —
WARRIORS
GriswardJ. (1981). L’archeologie de lepopee medievale. Paris, Payot.
Lincoln, B. (1981). Priests, Warriors and Cattle. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, University of California.
Miller, D. (1986). The Three Kings at Colonos: A Provocation.
Arethusa 19-1, 49-77.
Polome, E. (1990) Starka<3:OcHnn- or Lorr-hero, in Helden und
Heldensage, eds. H. Reichert and G. Zimmermann, Vienna,
Fassbaender, 267-285.
PuhvelJ. (1987). Comparative Mythology. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
University, 241-255.
WASH see CLEAN
WASP
*h. 2 / 3 Vopsih a - ‘wasp’. \IEW 1179 ( *uobhsa)\ Wat 78
( *wopsa-)\ G1 453 ( *wob tl sa -)] . MWels gw(y)chi (pi.) ‘drones’,
Lat vespa ‘wasp’, OE waefs ~ waeps ‘wasp’ (> NE wasp), OHG
wafsa ~ wefsa ‘wasp’ OPrus wobse ‘wasp’, Lith vaps(v)a ‘wasp’,
Latv vapsene ‘wasp’, OCS osa ‘wasp’, Rus osa ‘wasp’, (dial.)
osva ‘wasp’, MPers vafiz ‘wasp’, Baluchi gwabz ‘bee, wasp,
hornet’ (Iranian < rebuilt *uobhseh a -). From *h 2 / 3 uebh-
‘weave’ as one which builds (= weaves) a (wasp-)nest.
*h 2 / 3 Vop-s-eh a - is clearly of PIE age itself but it is morpho-
logically a derivative of *h 2 / 3 \}obhes- which may be preserved
in a different form in NHG (Bavarian dial.) webes (< *ijobhes-
eh a -n-) ‘wasp’.
See also Bee, Hornet; Insects; Textile Preparation. [D.Q.A.]
WATCH
*bheudh- ‘pay attention, be observant’. \IEW 150-151
( *bheudh -); Wat, 8 ( *bheudh-)\ GI 150 (*b h eud h -)\ BK 1
{*baw-/*bow-)\ . Pres. *bheudhetor. ON bjoda ‘ask, offer’, OE
beodan ‘ask, offer’, OHG biotan ‘ask, offer’, Goth ana-biudan
‘order’, OCS bljudp ‘observe’, Rus bljudu ‘observe, pay
attention to’, Grk KevOopai ‘examine, experience’, Av baodaiti
‘notices, observes’, OInd bodhati ‘is awake, wakes up,
observes, understands’; pres. *bhu-n-dh Olr as-boind
‘refuse’, Lith bundit ‘awake’, Grk nwOocvopai ‘examine,
experience’. Cf. alsoTochA pot- ‘flatter’, TochB pa ut- ‘flatter’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*suerh x K- ‘watch over, be concerned about’ (pres.
*su&h x ghti) . [IEW 1051 ( *suergh-)\ Wat 68 ( *swergh-)\ Gl
105], ON sorg ‘sorrow, pain’, syrgja ‘be concerned about’,
OE sorg ‘sorrow, pain, grief’ (> NE sorrow), sorgian ‘grieve,
be sorry for; be anxious about’, OHG s(w)org ‘sorrow, pain’,
s(w)orgen ‘be worried about, care for, be sorry for’, Goth
saurga ‘sorrow, care’, saurgan ‘take care for, look after’ (Gmc
nouns < *sufh x Keh a -, except for ON syrgja, all the Germanic
verbs reflect denominative *suph x K-ehi-), OPrus but-sargs
‘householder’, absergisna- ‘protection’, Lith sergti ‘keeps watch
over’, sargas ‘guard’, Latv sargs ‘guard’, OInd stirksati ‘takes
care of. The geographical distribution virtually assures PIE
age for this word. The nature of the final consonant is ambi-
guous. A *-gh- would work for all languages or, since Lithua-
nian suggests an original athematic present an alternation of
*-g- (from ^syerh^mi and generalized in Baltic) and *-k-
(from e.g., *suerh x kti and generalized in Germanic) would
also be possible.
See also Perceive; See; Show. [D.Q.A.]
WATER
*u6df water’. [ IEW 78-80 ( *aued-)\ Wat 73 {*wed-)\ Gl
579 (*wet’-)\ Buck 1.31; BK 483 (*wal’-/*wot'-)\. Olr msec
(< *ud-p-s-kio~) ‘water’, Lat unda ‘wave’, Umb utur (abl.)
une(< *udni) ‘wave’, ON vain - vatr‘ water’, OE vv^ter ‘water’
(> NE water), OHG wazzar ‘water’, Goth wato ‘water’, OPrus
(masc.) unds (neut.) \wandan ‘water’, Lith vanduo' water’, Latv
udens‘ water’, OCS voda (with -ndn-) ‘water’, Alb uje (< *udr-
jo-7) ‘water’, Grk vScop (gen. vdaroq) ‘water’, Phryg fieSv
‘water’, Arm get ‘river’, Hit watar (gen. witenas, pi. witar)
‘water’, Av vaiSi- (< *ued-1) ‘watercourse’, OInd udan- (gen.
udnas) ‘water’, TochA war ‘water’, TochB war (Toch < *udrom)
‘water’. The Hittite paradigm points to an original (nom.)
*uod-f, (gen.) *ued-n-s, (loc.) *ud-en(i), with a collective
*ued-or (acc. *ud-en-m , gen. *ud-n-6s). The PIE word for
‘water’.
*h 2 ep - ~ *h 2 ep - ‘living water, river’. [IEW 51-52 ( *ap-)\
Wat 3 ( *ap-)\ GI 578 ( *Ha^-)\ Buck 1.31], OPrus ape ‘river’,
Lith iipe ‘river’, Av afs (gen. apd) ‘water’, OInd tip- (nom. pi.
dpas\ acc. pi. apas) ‘water’, TochAB ap- ‘river’. Hit hapa- ‘river’,
sometimes connected with this word, probably belongs rather
to *h 2 eb(h)- ‘river’. Uncertain are river names in -apa, OHG
-affa (river name suffix), Thracian ''Anoq (river name). Grk
’ArciScov (river name) is undoubtedly non-IE.
*haek w eh a - water’. [IEW 23 (*ak y a-); Wat 1-2 (*ak w a-),
GI 579 ( *ek ho -); Buck 1.31]. Lat aqua ‘water’, ON 6 - p ~ a
‘river, water’, OE ea ‘river, water’, OHG aha ‘river, water’, Goth
aha ‘river, water’. Limited to Latin and Germanic. ON oegir
‘sea, seagods’ is supposed to have *h a ek w ids. The verb to
drink’ (e.g., Hit ekuzzi , TochAB yok-), which points to a long
*e, need not belong here for semantic reasons.
*iuhx-r- ‘ water?’ [Del 183], OPrus iurin ‘sea’, Lith jQres
(pi.) ‘sea’, jaura ‘swamp’, Latv jufa ‘sea’, Thracian iuras (name
of a river). If Lith jaura derives from *ieuh x r- ( Nehytir-?), we
have an ablauting r-stem with a root *ieuh x -/*iuh x -\ but the
Lithuanian ablaut may be secondary. Although sometimes
cited here, Arm jur ‘water’ cannot come from *iur-.
*u6/6h x r ‘water’. [/EW80 ( *auer-)\ Wat 77 ( ^Ver-ll Eat
urtnari ‘plunge into the water’ ( urina ‘urine’ is a secondary-
development), ON ur(< *uhjr-) ‘fine rain’, OE urig ‘moist’,
OPrus wurs (if from *uras) ‘pool’, Arm gayr (< ?*upo-\ the
-ris problematic) ‘marsh’, Luv war(sa) ‘water’, Av var ‘rain’,
OInd var(i) ‘water, rain’ (disyllabic: /vaar/). The Old Indie
disyllabic forms point to *ueh x -f{ or *udh x -f). Olr /fr if ‘milk’
has been claimed as cognate (< *uehi-r-o-). The existence of
ON aurr ‘moistness’ is doubtful. Neither do Lith \irti boil’
nor OCS vireti ‘boil, seethe’ belong here. Nevertheless,
distribution still assures PIE status.
?*yop- ?watef, [IEW 1149 ( *yeo-)]. OPrus wupyan
‘cloud’, Lith upe ‘river’, OCS vapa ‘lake, marsh, pond’, Hit
636 —
WEALTH
wappu- ‘river bank’, Olnd vapf ‘pond’. All the connections
here have been challenged and any reconstruction is very
uncertain.
See also Lake; River; Sea; Wet. [R.S.P.B.]
Further Reading
Watkins, C. (1987) Two Anatolian forms: Palaic askumauwa -,
Cuneiform Luwian wa-a-ar-sa, in Festschrift for FI. Hoenigswald,
ed. G. Cardona, Tubingen, 399-404.
WAVE
?*y/h*mi-‘wave’. \IEW 1140-1 142 (*uei-); Buck 1.35; BK
505 (*wal-/*wdl-)\. OE wielm ~ wylm ‘boiling, heat’, OHG
walm ‘wave’, Av varami- ‘wave’, Olnd urmt - ‘wave’, perhaps
TochB yolme (< *uelh x mo-l ) ‘pond’. As the primary meaning
of the Germanic words refers to agitation through heat, these
are not really comparable to the lndo-Iranian forms and do
not permit the reconstruction of a PIE word for ‘wave’.
See also Boil. [R.S.PB.]
WAX
*kdh a -f (oblique *kfy a -n- and *kh a -en~) ‘wax’. \IEW 532
( *kar-) 1 . Lith korys ‘honey-comb’, La tv kare(s) ‘honey-comb’,
Grk K77piov‘honey-comb’ (these three < *keh a rfiom ), icripog
‘wax’ (> Lat cera ‘wax’ > OIr ceir‘ wax’, Weis cwyr ‘wax’, etc.),
Alb huall , hq/'e (< *xdl-(ja) with irregular development of
*-l- from *-n- < pre-Alb *xon- < PIE *s-keh a -n- ) ‘honey-
comb’. Cf. also ON hunang ‘honey’, OE hunig ‘honey’ (> NE
honey), OHG honag (< *koh a -on-ko- ‘that which is derived
from beeswax’) ‘honey’, OPrus cucan (< *koh a -n-ko-) ‘brown’,
Grk KvrjKoq (Doric KvGKoq) (< *kph a -ko- metathesized from
*kh a n-ko-) ‘golden’, Olnd karicana- (< *koh a -n-ke-no- )
‘golden’. An archaic term for ‘wax’, a neuter noun, is concealed
in Grk tcrjpog which was loaned into Latin as a feminine and
thence into Celtic. A neuter derivative noun for ‘honey-comb’
is, but for gender, an exact match with the Baltic terms, point-
ing to a common stem also found dissimilated in Albanian.
Derivatives referring to ‘honey’ are also found in Germanic
and as color-terms in Baltic, Greek and Indie.
*\}Os(hx)-ko- ‘wax; flowable, oozy’. [1EW 1 180 ( *uokso-)\
Wat 78 ( *wokso-)\ GI 5231. ON vax" wax’, OE weax" wax’ (>
NE wax), OHG wahs ‘wax’ (< Proto-Gmc *waksa-
metathesized from Proto-Gmc *waskan ), Lith vaskas ‘wax’,
Latv vasks ‘wax’, OCS vosku ‘wax’, Rus vosk ‘wax’. A north-
western term which is semantically matched by Alb dylle
(< *ghud-lom) ‘wax’ from the root ‘to pour’. This may refer to
the low melting temperature of wax, a property of paramount
importance for the development of bronze casting using the
technique that still goes by the name of cire perdue ‘lost wax’.
This technique begins to appear widely in Europe from at
least c 1200 BC onwards.
See also Bee; Honey. [M.E.H.]
WAY
*sentos ‘way, passage’. [JEW 908 ( *sent-)\ Wat 58
( *sent-)l. Olr set ‘way’, Weis hynt ‘way’, ON sinn ‘time’, sinni
‘way, company’, sinna ‘travel’, OE sip ‘way, side’, sidian ‘go,
depart, travel, wander’, OHG sind ‘way, side’, sindon ‘go,
depart, travel, wander’, Goth sinps ‘time’, Arm ant'ac' ‘way,
passage’, TochA sont (< *sentu-) ‘street’. From *sent- ‘go’.
See also Find One’s Way; Road. [D Q.A. ]
WEAK
*/osiy os ‘weak’. [1EW 680 ( *bs -); Buck4.82], Goth lasiws
‘weak’, TochB leswi (pi.) ‘attacks of weakness’. Cf. with a
different formation: ON lasinn ‘weak’, NE lazy. The exact
formal and semantic equation argues for late PIE status for
this word.
*h a epus weak’. [IEW 52 (ap-)l. Lith opus ‘tender, delicate,
sensitive’, Grk fjnedavog ‘fragile, weak; maimed, halting’,
Olnd apvi ‘a certain illness’, apuvayate ‘become ill, spoil’. Cf.
also Av afsa- ‘damage, injury’. Perhaps a derivative of the
locative adverb *h^epo/h^epu ‘back(wards)’. Cf. ON pfugr
‘turned the wrong way’, OHG abuh ‘turned the wrong way’
(< *h4epuko-).
See also Sick; Small; Tired. [D.Q.A., J.C.S.l
WEALTH
*h 2 d/ 6 p(e)n- ‘goods, wealth’. \1EW 780 (*op-); Wat 46
( *op-)\ Gl 649-650 ( *Hop h -r/n-)\ Buck 11.42; BK 391
(*hapl h ]-/*h 9 p[ h ]~) }. Lat opulentus (< *opunentus) ‘rich,
wealthy; opulent’, Grk dtpevog ‘wealth’, dtpveiog ‘well-off,
wealthy’ (< early Greek *apnehios with transfer of the
aspiration to the preceding *-p- and thence to *apenos),
perhaps opTtvri ‘nourishment; grain; rich cake’, Hit
happina(nt)- ‘rich’, Av afnah-vant- ‘wealthy’, Olnd apnas-
‘wealth’. A root noun *h2ops is attested in Lat Ops (deity of
abundance), opes (pi.) ‘possessions, abundance, wealth’, inops
‘without resources, poor’, copia ‘abundance, plenty’. Cf. also
Olr sommae ‘rich’, and doimm ‘poor’ from *su-op-s-miio-
and *dus-op-s-miio- respectively. Widespread and old in IE.
Because of the initial a- (rather than *o-) the Greek word is
often taken to be a borrowing from some Anatolian source.
However, the fact that the Greek word is an s-stem, unparallel-
ed in Anatolian and in Greek a largely unproductive category
which would not normally attract a borrowing (and is, more-
over, the exact equivalent of Av afnah- and Olnd apnas-)
speaks strongly against the borrowing hypothesis. Thus the
initial laryngeal must be *h2- and the common association of
this word with the semantically divergent Anatolian set with
suffixal *-r- that includes Hit happar ~ happir ‘business,
trade; compensation, payment, price’, happirtye- ‘town’
(< ’'“market’), Lycian epirijeti (< *hj(e)periie/o-) ‘sells’, which
must begin with *h3-, must not be correct. Perhaps, instead
it should be connected with *hjop- ‘work’.
*r 6 h\is (gen. *rehijds) ‘possessions’. [/EVV860 ( *rei-)\ Wat
53 ( *re-)\ Gl 650 ( *reH(i)-)\ Buck 11.41; BK 596 ( *riy -/
*rey-)\ . Lat res ‘thing, affair, circumstance; possessions, wealth;
business matter; law-suit’, Umb ri esune ‘sacred things’, Av
raevant - 1 rich, splendid, ostentatious’, Olnd rayi- (nom. rayih ,
gen. rayas) ‘possession, wealth’, Rayi- (deity personifying
637 —
WEALTH
wealth), a-ray-a-(< *#-reh}i-o- ) ‘scant, poor, meager’. Distri-
bution strongly suggests PIE status. From *rehi- ‘give, bestow’
which occurs only in Indo-Iranian: Av ra- ‘grant, concede,
vouchsafe’, Olnd rati ‘gives, bestows’.
*ldik w nes- ‘(inherited) possessions’. [IEW 669
(*loik u o-s)\ Wat 36 ( *leik w -); Buck 11.611. ON fan ‘loan;
leased land’ (borrowed > NE loan), OE laen ‘loan, lease, grant,
leased land’, OHG lehan ‘leased land’ (<Proto-Gmc *laihna-\
cf. the verb in ON lja ‘lend’, OE onleon ‘lend’, OHG llhan
‘lend’, Goth leihan ‘lend’), Av raexnah- ‘inheritance, goods’,
Olnd reknas- ‘inherited possessions’. Distribution confirms
PIE status. From *leik w - ‘leave over’ (e.g., Lat linquo ‘leave’,
Grk Xeikco ‘leave’). The semantic development from ‘leave’ to
‘loan’ has been problematic and is usually resolved by
assuming that the underlying verbal meaning originally
embraced the concept of ‘to be left wanting, to be deficient’,
e.g., Grk (Homeric perf.) XeXovzoc ‘1 am left wanting’, Av
raecaya- ‘to make to evacuate’, Olnd rikti icp- ‘make empty,
leave’. This hypothesis then explains the Indo-lranian forms
that denote ‘inheritance’ not as ‘something that one leaves’
but rather as ‘what has been left vacant by the loss of its owner’.
The development in Germanic appears to have involved the
notion of ‘leaving the use of something to another’ which was
specialized to mean ‘lend’; in early Germanic this lending was
limited to property but did not include the lending of money
which was culturally foreign to the early Germanic tribes.
?*ydsu ‘goods’. [IEW 1174-1175 (*uesu-)]. Luv wasu-
‘goods’, Olnd vasu ‘wealth, goods, riches, property’. Perhaps
independent creations in the two stocks in which they appear
(cf. Olr fd [< *uosu ] ‘goodness, kindness’ with the same
morphological formation but a different semantic derivation).
However, the derivation of a word for ‘goods, wealth’ from
the adjective meaning ‘good’ is widespread in IE.
See also Rich. [E.C.R, D.Q.A.]
WEASEL
*Kormon- ‘weasel, ermine/stoat ( Mustela erminea)’. [1 EW
573-574 ( *Ror-men-)\ G1 4411 . Rheto-Romance carmun
‘weasel’ (a borrowing from Venetic or Illyrian), OHG harmo
‘ermine’, Lith sarmuo ‘wild cat; ermine, weasel’, sermuo
‘weasel, ermine’, Latv sarmulis ‘ermine’, sprmulis ‘ermine’. A
word at least of the northwest of the IE world.
Mustela erminea is found across Eurasia from Ireland to
Japan but is absent from the Mediterranean area, i.e., most of
Iberia, Italy and Greece. It is known in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz-
stan, Tadzhikistan, and south into Afghanistan and northwest
India.
?*(ha)uiselo- ‘weasel ( Mustela nivalis)’. [ IEW 1134
( *ueis -); cf. Wat 75 ( Ve/s-); G I 441-442 (Ve/s-)]. NIr fial
‘ferret’, Nice visla ‘weasel’, OE we(o)sule ~ wesle ‘weasel’ (>
NE weasel), OHG wisula. Probably from *ueis- ‘give off an
unpleasant odor’, though such a designation might better fit
the polecat than the weasel, e.g., foumart- foulemart ‘polecat’
(< * ‘foul/stinking marten’) as opposed to the pine marten
(sweetmart). It may be that Grk aieXovpog 1 cat’, also ‘weasel’,
belongs here as well if it is from *h a uiselo- + ouro- ‘tail’. (The
usual derivation of aiolo + ouro- as being ‘with waving tail'
may be folk-etymological.) Bulg vlasica ‘weasel’, Rus laska
‘weasel’, if < Proto-Slavic V/asuka- with metathesis from
*vlsaluka-, perhaps should be put here as well (but see next
entry). If the word is restricted to Germanic and Celtic then
we have evidence only for a late dialect word of the far west
of the IE world. If the Greek and Slavic evidence is admitted,
then a word at least of the west and center.
?*loh x l c- ‘weasel’. Latv luoss ‘weasel’, Rus laska ‘weasel’,
Pol lasica ~ laska ‘weasel’, Bulg (v)lasica ‘weasel’, NPers rasu
‘weasel’. If all these words belong together and are related by
inheritance rather than borrowing, then there is evidence for
a word of the center and east of the IE world. The Slavic
evidence may show crossing of two originally independent
words, *loh x k - and *(h a )uisolo-.
The weasel is ubiquitous across Eurasia, absent only from
Ireland, and is also known in Anatolia, Afghanistan and
Chinese Turkistan. Other varieties of weasel, e.g., the Siberian
weasel ( Mustela sibirica), are found in northwest India. The
original semantics here are confused. That the Irish term does
not yield a meaning ‘weasel’ is hardly surprising as the animal
was not found in Ireland but rather the stoat, which is
recognizably large. As the Irish word, however, indicates
‘ferret’, which is in effect a domesticated polecat, it is probably
a late introduction to Ireland. (Ferrets appear to have been
deliberately bred to combat rabbits for the past 2000 years
and the earliest certain references date to the first century
AD.) But the meaning ‘(domestic) polecat’ is perhaps closer
to the underlying meaning of *ueis- which does accord much
more closely with the polecat, which emits a foul-smelling
musk when frightened.
See also Mammals; Marten; Polecat. 1D.Q.A., J.PM]
WEDGE
*dhubhos ‘wedge, peg’. [IEW 268 ( *dheubb-)\ Wat 14
(dbeubh-)]. NE dowel, OHG (dim.) tubila ‘peg’ (Gmc <
*dhubh-i-lo-), Grk (Hesychius) rv(pog ‘wedge’. The difference
in formation suggests that these words may be independent
creations from a common root but, if so, that root is nowhere
else attested.
See also Tool. lA.D.V.]
WEEVIL see INSECTS
WET
*hires- ~ *hiers- ‘liquid, moisture’. [IEW 336 ( *rosa-)\
Wat 17 ( *ers-)\ Buck 15.83], Lat ros ‘dew’, Lith rasa ‘dewy,
dew covered’, OCS rosa ‘dew’, Alb resh ‘it rains’, Av Ranha
(nvemame, Volga), Olnd rasa- ‘liquid, moisture’. An old root
noun and solidly reconstructed to PIE.
*m(e)h a d- ‘become wet, moist, fat’. [IEW 694-695
( *mad-)\ Wat 38 ( *mad-)\ Buck 15.83; BK 537 ( *mat '-/
*m?t’-)}. Olr maidid ‘breaks, bursts forth, gushes’, Lat madeo
‘to be moist, drip’, ON matr ‘food’, OE mete ‘food’ (> NE
— 638 —
WHEAT
meat), OHG maz ‘food’, Goth mats ‘food’ (Germanic forms
are all zero-grade *m^t a d-i- and would reflect a connection to
‘food’ via the notion of ‘to be satisfied, nourished’ but other
sources place these forms with *mad- ‘meal’), Alb maj (dial.
manj) (< *mfa a dnie/o-y to feed, fatten (of animals)’, majme
‘fat, fatty’, Grk paddco ‘to be damaged by wetness or humidity,
to drip’, Av maSa- ‘alcoholic drink’, Olnd mada- ‘alcoholic
drink’, madati ‘boils, bubbles, is glad, gets drunk’. PIE status
assured.
*leh a t- ‘wet, moist’. [IEW 654-655 ( *lat-)\ Wat 35
(*Iat-)]. Mir laith ‘beer, moisture’, lathach ‘mud’, OWels Hat
‘slime’, ON ledja ‘loam, dirt’, OHG letto ‘clay’, Lith Lat-upe
(river name), Latv Late (river name). Grk Xceroc^ ‘drops’, of
which Lat latex ‘a liquid, fluid’ is often presumed to be a
loan, is obscure and has been supposed to be of substratal
origin. Distribution suggests a northwestern IE term.
*reg- ~ *reknos ‘moist, make wet’. [IEW 857 ( *reg-)\ Wat
54 ( *reg-)\ GI 587 (*rek’-)\ BK 604 (*rak’-/*r3k’-)]. (1) with
g Lat (ir)rigare ‘to water, irrigate’, ON raki ‘wetness, moisture’,
perhaps Alb rrjedh ‘flow, pour’ although this has been
challenged; (2) with -no-. ON regn ‘rain’, OE reg(e)n ‘rain’,
regnian ‘rain’ (> NE rain), OHG regan ‘rain’, Goth rign ‘rain’,
Lith rokia ‘drizzle’. Distribution suggests at best a northwest
dialectal term.
*teng- ‘to moisten, soak’. [ IEW 1067 ( *teng-)\ Wat 70
( *teng -)]. Lat tmgd ‘moisten’, OHG thunkon ‘dunk’, Grk
t eyyoa ‘moisten’. Sparsely attested, possibly late IE.
*ye ( g w - ~ *ug w - ‘wet’. [IEW 1118 (*ueg v -)\ Wat 74
( *weg w -)\ Gl 47; Buck 15.83]. ON vpkr ‘wet, moist’, Grk
vypog ‘liquid, fluid’. Lat uvidus ‘wet’, although sometimes
cited here, is not very plausible; connections have also been
proposed with umere ‘to be humid’ from a zero-grade *ug w -
sm-. Indo-Iranian forms such as Av uxsyeiti ‘spray’, Olnd
uksati ‘moisten’ are more likely to represent a distinct root
associated with the word for ‘ox’. Weak case for PIE status.
*yelk-~ *velg-‘ wet’. [IEW 1145-1 146 (*yelk-~ *uelg-)\
Wat 76 ( *welg-)\ Buck 15.83; BK 504 (*wal-/*wal-) 1 . (1) with
*-k-\ OIr folc ‘heavy rain, wet weather’, Weis golchi ‘to cleanse’,
OCS vlaga ‘moisture, juice of plants’; (2) with *-g-: ME welken
‘wilt’, OHG welk ‘wet, moist, mild’, OPrus welgen ‘catarrh’,
Lith vilgau ‘moisten’, Latv valgs ‘damp’, vilgt ‘become moist’,
valgnms ‘wetness’, OCS vulguku ‘wet’, Rus volgkyj ‘wet’. Aside
from the Illyrian river name Volcos (in Pannonia), this pair of
variants is confined to the northwestern stocks.
*hjyes- ‘moist, especially of the ground or plants’. [IEW
1171-1172 (*ues-)- Wat 78(*wes-)]. Umb vestikatu' to offer
libation’, OE wos ‘juice, broth’, NDutch waas ‘layer of mist of
fine drops’, OHG wasal ‘moist ground’, Latv vasa ‘forest with
wet ground and blue clay’, 7e vasa ‘moisture, tree sap’. ON vas
‘trouble, difficulty’ (< caused by bad weather) is problematic
and unlikely here but modern Scandinavian forms like Danish
and Norwegian os (< Gmc *wosa-l *wesa) ‘stale air, smoke’
might fit. Distribution suggests a northwestern term.
?*senhxdhr - ‘congealed moisture, slag’. [IEW 906
( *sendhro -)]. ON sindr ‘metallic slag’, OE sinder ‘metallic
slag’ (> NE cinder whose spelling has been influenced by
French cendre), OHG sintar ~ sinter ‘slag, stalactite’, RusCS
sjadry ‘clotted (blood)’, SC sedra ‘lime, slag', Czech sadra
‘gypsum’. The underlying meaning would seem to be ‘harden-
ed or coagulated moisture’. The Slavic forms must derive from
*sendra (with *d and not *dh) or *senh x dhreh a - The latter
form might also underlie Germanic. The limited distribution
suggests at best a dialectal term and perhaps a loanword.
??*meh a nos ' wet’. [IEW 699-700 ( *ma-no-)\ Wat 38
( *ma -)]. Olr moin ‘turf’, Weis mawn ‘turf’, Lat mano ‘Row,
drip’. The distribution is both limited and semantically
unconvincing.
See also Dew; Metal; Rain; River. [J.C.S.l
Further Reading
Burrow, T. (1981) Ski ma ‘to approach, meet, join; (trans.) to bring
to’. BSOAS 44, 85-104.
WHEAT
*puh x rds wheat ( Triticum sp.)’. (/EW850 ( *pu-ro-)\ Wat
53 ( *puro-)\ GI 566 ( *p h ur-)\ Buck 8.43] . OPrus pure
‘bromegrass ( Bromus secalinus)', Lith purai ‘winter-wheat’,
Latv pup ‘winter- wheat’, OCS pyro ‘wheat, millet’, Rus pyrej
‘couch grass ( Agropyrum [= Triticum ] repens)’, Czech pyr
‘couch grass’, Slov pir' spelt’, Grk nvpoq 'wheat’, nvpf\v ‘(stone
of a) fruit’. OE fyrs ‘furze’ (> NE furze) is rejected both on
account of its meaning ‘furze’ rather than ‘couch grass' and
its short rather than long vowel, i.e., < *pfsi-. A word limited
to the center of the IE world; probably late. It may be that we
have a derivative of *pieh x u- ‘strike (down)’, but only in Baltic
does the latter come to have any agricultural meaning, namely
‘mow (grass)’. Another possibility is that we have here a
derivative of *peuhx- ‘purify’ as ‘± that which is winnowed'
or the like. One might compare Lat triticum ‘wheat’ from
tero ‘rub, thresh’, OIr cruithnecht ‘wheat’ (< *‘red stuff for
winnowing’), or OCS plsenica ‘wheal’ (< [grain) for
grinding’).
*sepit ‘wheat’. Hit seppit ‘wheat’. Perhaps a PIE word
though no known cognates exist outside of Hittite. The suffix
-it is an unproductive one of PIE age, existing otherwise only
in *melit ‘honey’ and *h 2 elbhit ‘barley’. It is hard to see how
such a word was formed any later than PIE times.
*ga/ondh- ‘wheat’. Hit kant- ‘(einkorn-?)wheat‘, Av
gantuma- ‘wheat’, NPers gandum ‘wheat', Baluchi gandim
(< *ganduma-) ‘wheat’, Khot ganama- (< *gandama-) ‘wheat’,
Olnd godhoma- ‘wheat’, TochB kanti (< *gpdhiionE) ‘± bread’.
Certainly the Old Indie form is the result of folk-etymological
re-analysis into go - + dhuma- ‘cow-smoke’ but the differing
forms this word takes in Iranian suggests, perhaps, borrowing
rather than inheritance. On the other hand, arguing for inheri-
tance might be the apparent derivative seen in the Tocharian
B word for ‘± bread’. Thus it is possible we have a PIE word
for ‘wheat’ attested on the southern and eastern peripheries
of the IE world or, as is more usually assumed, a Near Eastern
cultural borrowing from some unknown source.
— 639
WHEAT
The Archaeological Evidence
The native distribution of wild wheats generally comprised
the territory from southeast Europe across Turkey and as far
east as Iran (or, in the case of bread wheats, into Central Asia
and Afghanistan). Wild wheats occur on Near Eastern sites
by the tenth millennium BC and domestic wheat is claimed
in Syria by c 9000 BC. It also occurs on early Neolithic sites
in Turkey and across Europe where it is found in Ireland and
Scandinavia by c 4000-3500 BC. It is known in Neolithic
and Eneolithic cultures along the Dnieper, e.g., the Dnieper-
Donets and Sredny Stog cultures, as well as the Bronze Age
steppe cultures and it is known in the Caucasus since the
Neolithic. From the beginnings of the Neolithic it is also found
on sites both in and adjacent to India. Consequently, it is
inconceivable that the earliest Indo-Europeans did not possess
a word for ‘wheat’.
The absence of a clear, widespread cognate term for ‘wheat’
in IE is remarkable in that, like barley, it represents the earliest
and most important of domestic cereals (today it is the primary
domestic cereal and accounts for 20% of the world’s caloric
intake). As the most valuable cereal in terms of nutrition and
one that could be prepared in a variety of different ways, it
was also generally the preferred food of consumption. The
genus Triticum is now generally divided into a number of
different species, all of which saw early domestication. Like
barley, cultivated wheats can be divided into hulled and free-
threshing varieties. The hulled varieties retain the pales on
the kernel after threshing and required pounding in order to
separate the pales from the grain itself. The free-threshing or
naked wheats can simply be winnowed after threshing in order
to recover the kernels as the pales and glumes will have fallen
away. Such distinctions were marked enough that different
names were employed for the different classes of wheat in
antiquity. Moreover, the cultivated wheats most widely found
in the archaeological record included a number of different
species. Triticum monococcum (einkorn wheat) commonly
produced one grain per spikelet and is the earliest of the
domesticated wheats. Triticum turgidum comprises a number
of different wheats, formerly divided into different species.
These include emmer and durum wheat. Emmer wheat was
generally the principal crop on most wheat assemblages in
both southwest Asia and Europe during the Neolithic but it
did exist alongside einkorn. A crossing of the domesticated
Triticum turgidum with the wild cereal Aegilops squarrosa
produced the primary wheat of today, the bread wheat
( Triticum aestivum). The two would have encountered each
other as domestic wheats moved into the Caspian area and
the domesticated bread wheats are found from the fifth
millennium BC in the Caucasus and north of the Black Sea
and then through the later Neolithic through central and
northern Europe. Early IE communities would, therefore, have
known a wide variety of wheats (today there are over 17,000
different varieties) and one might presume that they had
several names for the various types of early wheats. It is
possible that names for some of these varieties are presently
concealed under some of our reconstructed terms for ‘grain’.
See also Agriculture; Barley; Grain; Plants. ID.Q.A. , J.PM.]
WHEEL
*k w ek w ldm (pi. *k w 6k w leh a ) ~ *k w 6k w los ‘wheel’. \1EW
640 (^eic y /o-); Wat 33 (*k w (e)-k w l-o-)\ Gl 622
( *k h °(e/o)k b olo-)\ Buck 10.76; BK 317 ( *k w [ h ]ul -/
*k w [ h ]oT)]. From *k w ek w lom: ON hvel ‘wheel’, OE hweohl
~ hweol ‘wheel’ (> NE wheel), hweogol ‘wheel’, MHG wel
‘wheel’, MDutch wiel ‘wheel’ (Gmc shows evidence of both
*k w ek w ldm and *k w ek w lom , the latter with the stress on the
first syllable on the analogy of the original plural), Phryg
KiKXrjv' Ursa Major’ (i.e., ‘the chariot’), Av caxra- ‘wheel’, OInd
cakra- ‘wheel; sun disc’; from *k w ok w los : Grk kvkXo<; (pi.
kvkXoc) ‘wheel; circle, cycle’ (< *k w 6k w los) , TochA kukal
‘wagon’, TochB kokale ‘wagon’ (Toch < *k w ok w lds ) , kokal-
panta ‘± wagon-master’ ( kokale + panta- ‘± he of the way’
from a putative PIE *p$th 2 -eh a - (cf. *pontoh 2 S ‘way, path’).
Both *k w ek w lom (pi. *k w ek w leh l} — less likely is the paradigm
*k w ek w lom, pi. *k w ek w leh a ) and *k w ok w los appear by their
distribution to be early in PIE; the latter is perhaps originally
a derivative of the former. From *k w el- ‘turn’, i.e., ‘the turner’.
Formally very similar are Baltic words meaning ‘neck’ (also <
*‘the turner’): Lith kaklas (< *k w ok w lom ) ‘neck’, Latv kakls
‘neck’, and the Lat poples ‘back of the knee’. However, the
semantic disparities suggest that these latter forms are in-
dependent creations. Also semantically closely related, though
morphologically different, are (1 ) *k w olos in Olr cul ‘wagon’
(< *k w old dual), Grk noAoq axis of the celestial sphere’, TochB
kele ‘navel; center’ (< *‘hub’); (2) *k w oles- in OCS kolo (gen.
kolese ) ‘wagon’ (< *k w oles-)\ and (3) *k w elom in ON hvel
‘wheel’, OPrus kelan ‘wheel’. The original dual in Old Irish
suggests that the primary referent was a two-wheeled cart.
*h2&Wgis ‘wheel’. [GI 623 ( *Elwerg h -)\ Puhvel 3: 339-
400], Hit hurki- ‘wheel’ (cf. [acc. pi.] 4 hurkius ‘the Four
Wheels’ [i.e., part of ‘Ursa Major’]), TochA warkant wheel’,
TochB yerkwanto ‘wheel’ (Toch < * h 2 , 0 U fgi - u pto-on- or
* l h 2 / 3 uergi-vQto-on- ‘having a wheel-shape’, TochA shows
dissimilatory loss of the second *-w- while TochB shows an
inner- Tocharian lengthened grade in the first syllable or
Tocharian A shows sporadic but paralleled shortening of the
first syllable). Compare also TochB yerter ‘wheelrim, felloe’
< *h 2 / 3 uerg-tor- , an agent noun from the same *h 2 /suerg-
‘turn’. The agreement of Tocharian and 1 littite suggests great
antiquity for this word.
*dhroghds ‘wheel’. [1EW 273 ( *dhregh-)\ Buck 10.46,
10.76; BK 84 ( *dar-/*dar-)\ . Olr droch wheel’, Grk r poydq
‘wheel’, Arm durgn (< *dhroghon-, with metathesis in the
first syllable) ‘potter’s wheel’. From *dhregh- run’ Perhaps
independent derivatives in Celtic and Greek. However, the
apparent secondary derivative in Armenian may be evidence
for a greater antiquity of this whole group in PIE.
*rddi 2 o/eh a - ‘wheel’. \1EW 866 (*roto-); Wat 54 ( *ret - );
GI 622 ( *rot h o -); Buck 10.76], Olr roth ‘wheel; circle’, Weis
rhod ‘wheel’, Lat rota ‘wheel; wagon', OHG rad wheel’, Lith
— 640 —
WHITE
ratas ‘wheel’, ratai (pi.) ‘wagon’, Latv rats ‘wheel’, rati (pi.)
‘wagon’, Alb rreth (< *rret(i)0e < *roth 2 ikoml) ‘ring, hoop,
tire (for a carriage)’, Av raOa - ‘chariot, wagon’, OInd ratha-
‘chariot, wagon, two-wheeled war-chariot’, ratharyati ‘rides
in a wagon’ (and also Late Lat blrotis ‘two-wheeled’, Lith
dviratis ‘two-wheeled’). Gaul petor-ritum ‘four-wheeled
wagon’ apparently reflects a *-rth 20 -. It is possible that TochA
ratak ‘army’ and TochB retke ‘army’ also belong here, reflecting
a PIE *roth 2 ikos, thus the army would have been the
‘chariotry’ (in contrast to the ‘cavalry’). (The Tocharian words
are usually taken to be from an Iranian *rataka- , cf. NPers
rade ‘series, order’, though it should be noted that nowhere
in Iranian does this word mean ‘army’.) From *reth 2 - ‘run’.
An old PIE word for ‘wheel’ which, by a natural metaphor,
has come to mean ‘wagon’ or more particularly ‘war-chariot’
in a number of eastern stocks.
The earliest wheels employed in locomotion (there are also
clay discs which have been variously interpreted as models
of wheels or spindle-whorls) are tripartite disc wheels. These
would be massive block wheels formed usually from three
large planks which would be fastened together by mortise
and tenon. The exterior shape would be cut into a circle while
a nave would be cut out of the middle. Generally, the round
nave indicates that it is the wheel rather than the axle that
rotates, i.e., a fixed axle; in some areas of Europe the
archaeological record shows rectangular naves, suggesting that
the axle rotated as well. The earliest wheels in the steppe-
land regions measured from 45 to 80 cm in diameter.
See also Axle; Run; Tool; Turn; Wagon 1D.Q.A., J.PM.l
Further Reading
Piggott, S. (1983) The Earliest Wheeled Transport. London and New
York, Thames and Hudson.
WHETSTONE
*Eoh x nos ~ *Koh x inis ‘whetstone, hone’. [IEW 541-542
( *ko-no-)\ Wat 32 (.*ko) 1. From *koh x nos : NPers san ‘hone’,
Olnd sana- (with Middle Indie -n- for expected *-n-)
‘whetstone, hone’, TochB kantsa- ‘sharpen’ (if < *koh x n-es-
eh a ~) (Grk Kcovoq ‘pine-cone, cone’, usually put here is rather
from *kosnos and a derivative of *icos-‘pine’); from *koh x inis :
ON hein ‘hone’, OE han ‘hone’ (> NE hone ), Av saeni- ‘point’;
yet another formation is to be seen in Lat cos (gen. cotis)
‘whetstone’. These formations are all dialectally limited but
they attest the existence of a secure PIE *keh x (i)- ‘sharpen,
hone’ (preserved as a verb only in Olnd si sail ~ syati ‘sharpens,
whets’).
The use of a stone for sharpening would extend well back
into the Palaeolithic where stones might be employed in
sharpening wood, bone or antler points. Stones might also
be employed for polishing surfaces by grinding them down,
a practice which is attested at least as early as the Mesolithic
and was in massive use in the Neolithic with the appearance
of the polished stone ax. With the arrival of metals we find
our earliest whetstones or hones (some make the distinction
as to whether the object being sharpened is large, such as an
ax, or small, such as a razor) from at least the third millennium
BC onwards.
See also Knife; Sharp; Tool. [D.Q.A., J.PM.l
WHITE
*h 2 fg-u- ~ *h 2 lg-es- ‘white’; *h 2 erg-Qt-om silver [ IEW
64-65 ( *ar(e)-g-)\ Wat 3 ( *arg-)\ GI 61 7 ( *hlarR-)\ Buck 9.65,
15.64; BK 403 ( *har-ak' y -/*har-ak’ y -) 1. Olr argat ‘silver’, Weis
ariant ‘silver’ (< Proto-Celt *h 2 erg-pt-om), Lat argentum (<
*h 2 erg-tjt-om ) ‘silver’, Grk apyvpoq ‘silver’, apyr\q ‘white’.
Arm arcat “silver’, Hit harkis ‘white’, Av arazatam ‘silver’, OPers
ardata- ‘silver’ (< *h 2 fg-rit-om\ zero-grade based on the
adjective), Olnd arju-na- (full-grade based on ‘silver’) ‘light,
white’, TochA arki ‘white’, TochB arkwi ‘white’ (< *hjergu-
hjen-). This is the clearest root for ‘white’ which possessed a
zero-grade u-stem and s-stem adjectives and a full-grade
derivative noun for ‘silver’. These forms have mutually
influenced each other. The root is widely attested and
attributable to PIE.
*h^elbhds white’. [/£W30 ( *albho-)\ Wat 2 ( *albho-), Gl
685 ( *alb h o-)\ BK 457 ( *hal-/*hal-)] . Lat albus(< *h^el-bho~)
‘white’, Umb alfo- ‘white’, OHG albiz ‘swan’, OCS lehedl
‘swan’, Grk aXtpoq (< *h x al-bho -) ‘white leprosy’, Hit alpa-
‘cloud’. Cf. also OPrus alwis 1 lead’, Lith alvas ‘tin’, Rus olovo
‘tin’ (< ‘white metal’). Widespread and old in IE.
*bhelh j- ‘white’. [IEW 118-120 ( *bhel-), 160
( *bhle-uo-s)\ Wat 6 ( *bhel-)\ BK 15 (*baF-/*baP’-)[. From
*bholhios: Weis bal ‘white-faced’, NE ball ‘horse with white
blaze’, Goth bala(n)- ‘± shining, gray of body’ (said of horses
and only attested in Latin writers), Lith bal as ‘white’, Latv
bals ‘pale’, Alb balle ‘forehead’; from *bhlhios. Grk (Hesy-
chius) (paXoq ‘white’, Arm bal ‘pallor’; from *bheIhios : OF
bi£l ‘fire’, OCS belu ‘white’, Rus belyj ‘white’, Olnd bhalani
‘gleam; forehead’. The pair *bholhjos and *bh}hios may
suggest an older paradigm *bholhjs , gen. *bhlhids. Other
formations are seen in Lith baltas ‘white’, Latv baits ‘white’
(< *bholhj-to-), OPrus ballo ‘forehead’, Alb hajash ‘a horse
with a white spot on its forehead’, bale ‘having a white spot
on the forehead (said of horse and sheep)’ (< *bholhj-no-l
1+ -ash}), Lat flaws (< *bhjhiuos) ‘blond’, florus(< *bhhhi -
so-) ‘bright, gleaming (of flowers)’ (if this is not simply a
thematic derivative of fids ‘flower’), ON b/ar‘ blue’, OHG blao
‘blue’ (Gmc < *bhlehi-uo-). The underlying verb is apparently
preserved in Lith balti ‘grow white, pale’. Widespread and
old in IE.
*Rueitos~ *Kijitros white . [IEW 628-629 ( *kuei-)\ Wat
33 ( *kweit-)\ Buck 15.64]. ON hvitr 1 white’, OE hwit ‘white’
(> NE white), OHG (h)wiz ‘white’, Goth h’eits ‘white’, Lith
svitrus ‘bright’, OCS svetu ‘light’, Av spaeta- ‘white’, Olnd
sveta- ‘white, bright’. Widespread and old in IE.
*p]h 3 - ‘dull white, pale’. [IEW 804-805 ( *pel-\ Wat 48
(*pe/-)J. Mir hath ‘gray’, Weis llwyd ‘gray’, Lat pallidus (<
*plh 3 -no-do-) ‘pale’, ON fplr ‘fallow, dun’, OE fealu ‘fallow,
dun’ (> NE fallow), OHG falo ‘fallow, dun’ (Gmc < Proto-
— 641 —
WHITE
Gmc *falwa- ), Lith pilkas ‘gray’, palvas ‘pale yellow’, OCS
plavu ‘white’, Alb plak 1 old man’, Grk neXixvoq ‘gray’, noXioq
‘gray’, Arm alik‘ ‘white’, Av pourusa- ‘gray’, Olnd palita- ‘gray’.
Distribution indicates PIE status for this word that denotes a
paler shade of white.
*bhrodhnds ± pale’, [cf. /JEW 136 (*bher-)]. OCS bronfl
‘white, variegated’, Rus bronyj 'white, variegated’, Olnd
bradhna- ‘pale red, yellowish, bay’. A word of the center and
east of the IE world.
See also Color; Light; Shine; Silver. [M.E.H., D.Q.A.]
WHOLE see HEALTHY
WIDOW
*Vidheveh a - ‘widow’. [ 1EW 1127-1 128 ( *uidheua)\ Wat
74 ( *widh-ewo -); GI 661-662 ( *wid h eu-)\ Buck 2.76; Szem
23]. OIr fedb widow’, Weis gweddw ‘widowed’, Lat vidua
‘widow’, OE widuwe ‘widow’ (> NE widow), OHG wituwa
‘widow’, Goth widuwd ‘widow’, OPrus widdewu ‘widow’,
OCS vldova ~ vudova ‘widow’, Rus vdova ‘widow’, Alb ve
(dial, ve) ‘widow’ (or perhaps a loan from Late Latin), Hit
SAL u(i)dati~ ‘widow’, Av vidava ‘widow’, Olnd vidhava
‘widow’. Derivative: Grk f\(p)i9e(p)oq ‘bachelor.’ The wide
distribution of this word insures its PIE status.
The widow’s paramount status is assured by the wealth of
cognates from Celtic to Indo-lranian. It is commonly derived
from a root *uidh- ‘to be separated’ (the same source as found
in NE woods from their function as boundaries and perhaps
extrapolated from a compound *ui-dh(e)hj- ‘put apart’) as
seen in Lat dlvido ‘l divide’ (< *dis-ui-dhhie/o-), TochAB watk-
‘separate, distinguish, decide’ (< *ui-dhbi-ske/o-), Olnd V2-
dha- ‘distribute, apportion, bestow’.
Although we can reconstruct a word for ‘widow’ to PIE,
there is no corresponding word for ‘widower’, which is
normally derived from the feminine form, e.g., NE widower.
It has been argued that as a man might have had more than
one wife or was free to marry again, he would not likely remain
in an unmarried state long nor did a male having been
widowed describe any particular legal position. The existence
of a word for ‘widow’, on the other hand, suggests that after
the death of her husband, a woman did occupy a particular
status (and contrary to popular belief, she often survived her
husband and was not required to commit suttee). There is no
reason also to presume that she did not have the option to
marry again. As the plight of Penelope in the Odyssey
indicates, she might be inundated by suitors; similarly, the
early Indians recognized bridal self-choice ( svayamvara ) where
a widowed woman might invite suitors and, perhaps after a
contest (cf. again the contest of the bow in the Odyssey),
announce her own choice.
See also Kinship; Marriage; Wife; Woman. IM.E.H.]
WIFE
*p6tnih a - ‘wife’. [JEW 842 ( *potni)\ cf. Wat 52-53
( *poti-)\ GI 661 (*p h ofini)-, Buck 2.32; Szem 22.3; Wordick
197]. OPrus wais-pattin ‘wife, mistress’, Lith viespalni ‘wife’,
Alb zonje (< *dzo-ptnia < *wlts3-patnia) ‘mistress of the
house’, Grk noxvm ‘mistress’, Myc po-ti-ni-ja ‘lady, wife’, Av
pate- ‘mistress’, Olnd patnl- ‘mistress, wife’. At least a word
of the center and east of the IE world.
*prihx6h a - 1 wife’. [/EW844 ( *priia-)\ Wat 53 ( *pn-)\ Szem
31.2]. ON Frigg (wife of Odinn), OE frige ‘wife’, OHG Frija
(wife of Wuotan), Av frya- ‘dear, own’, Olnd priya- ‘spouse’.
From *prihx- ‘be pleasing, one’s own’ which, some argue, is
derived from *per- ‘house(-hold)’ seen in Hit per ‘house’, Luv
pama- ‘house’. While the derivatives are of PIE status, the
specific semantic correspondences could well have developed
independently in the various stocks.
*srp-loghos ‘bed-fellow’ = ‘wife’. \IEW 658-659; Buck
2.32]. SerbCS sulogu ‘wife’, Grk dXoyoq ‘bed- fellow, spouse’.
A word at least of the center of the IE world.
Terms for ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ often rellect the general Indo-
European terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’, but the terms *potis and
*potnih a - ‘lord’ and ‘lady’ seem to have functioned in this
sense more than any other forms, although when combined
with the feminine noun *uik- ‘settlement, homestead’ the
terms come to assume a quasi-political sense. It is perhaps
significant that *potis does have a persistent feminine
counterpart in the form of *pdtnih a - with a non-productive
feminine suffix *-nih a -. An Albanian derivative of this word,
zonje, often mistakenly related to the word for woman,
*g w enh a , signifies the mistress of the extended family and
usually refers not to the wife of the lord but to his mother'. If
this situation obtained in IE times, a term for married woman’
distinct from either the bride or the matriarch would have
occurred. By far the commonest term to signify ‘wife’ is
*g w enh a ‘woman’, expressing a conception that remains
common to this day. Other terms for wife are based on the
common roots *prih x - ‘love, desire’ and the root *b 2 uedh(h x )-
‘lead (in marriage)’ which also reflect the status of females in
a society practicing virilocal post-marital residence. However,
the oft-repeated assertions that IE society was “patriarchal”
need to be qualified in light of the evidence that some
provisions were made for female roles in the family that did
not derive from their marital status alone.
See also Concubine; Kinship, Love; Master, Mistress;
Woman. IM.E.H.]
WILD (GOD)
?*rudlos ‘the Tenderer, one who tears apart’. [1FW 869
( *rud-lo -)]. Lat rullus (< *rudlo-) ‘rustic, boorish’, Rullus
(personal name), Olnd Rudra- (name of a god). Prom *reud-
‘rend’. This equation is open to challenge in that the name of
the Old Indie deity has been also variously explained as the
‘howler’, e.g., Lat rudere ‘howl’, Rus ry'dat! ‘cry’, Olnd roditi
‘cry’; or ‘heaven’ or ‘earth’ as suggested in the dual compound
Olnd rodasi ‘heaven and earth’. In Vedic mythology, Rudra is
represented as the wild one, associated with chaos, and as an
archer firing plague, cf. the Greek Apollo who ‘shoots’ plague
into the Greek forces who have offended his priest. The Vedic
642 —
WIND
god has been identified with Siva; alternatively he has been
claimed to be the deity of the storm, of the mountains and
forests (i.e. , the wild lands), the hot season, the leader of dead
souls, the divine shepherd, the lord of procreation, vegetation,
and fertility Essentially he seems to be the divinity of wild
nature, dangerous, unpredictable, unbound and frightening.
Although he has structural similarities with other deities in
other IE stocks, there are no grounds for postulating a PIE
deity here on purely lexical grounds. Recently, K. Witczak
has also proposed that ORus (Novgorod) Ruglu (< Proto-Slavic
*rudlu ) (a particular god) be put here which would provide
a phonological match but, unfortunately, all we have is the
name and no attributes by which it might be associated with
Rudra.
See also Medical God. [E.C.R]
Further Readings
Gr6goire, H, R. Goossens, and M. Mathieu (1949) Asklepios,
Appolon Smintheus et Rudra. Etudes sur le dieu a la taupe et le
dieu au rat dans la Grece et dans Vlnde. (Memoires de 1‘Academie
de Belgique, classe des Lettres, vol. 45). Brussels.
Witczak, K. T. (1993) Ze studiow nad religi^i Praslowian, I:
Nowogrodzki Regl a wedyjski Rudra. Onomastica 38, 95-105.
WILLOW
*sal(i)k- l ( tree) willow (Salix spp.)’. [IEW 879 ( *sal(i)k-)\
Wat 56 ( *sal(i)k-)\ GI 539-540 ( *s°(e)lik h -)\ Fried 53-57],
Olr sail (gen. sailech ) ‘willow’, Weis helyg(en) ‘willow’, Lat
I salix (gen. salicis) ‘willow’, ON selja (< *salkion-) ‘willow’,
; OE sealh ‘willow’, OHG salaha ‘willow’ (OE/OHG < *salko/
' eh a -). A word of west of the IE world but it may be associated
| with the next entry
*ueliko/eh a - ‘willow (Salix spp.)’. [IEW 1 140-1 141 ( *ueli-
\ ka)\ cf. Wat 75 (*wel-)\ GI 540; Fried 53-57]. OE welig
‘willow’ (> NE willow ), Myc e-ri-ka ‘willow’, Grk eXitcq
: ‘willow’. A word of the west and center of the IE world which
may have crossed with *sal(i)k-, e.g., **salk- > *sal(i)k- after
\ *uelik-.
| *yeif- ‘willow (Salix spp.)’. [IEW 1122 (*yet-); Wat 74
I (*wei-)\ GI 540 (*wei-)\ Fried 53-57]. Olr feith ‘some kind
1 of twining plant’ , Weis gwden ‘withe’ , Lat vitis ‘vine’ , ON vldir
| ‘willow’, OE wldig ‘willow’, OHG wida ‘willow’, OPrus wit wan
| ‘willow’, Lith vytis ‘willow switch’, Latv vituols ‘willow’, Rus
| vitina ‘branch’, Grk Iren ‘willow’, Av vaein-‘willow’, Olnd veta-
I ‘reed’. PIE status.
| The first name *salik- was presumably used for the tree
I willows and is attested in three western stocks, in all cases
I denoting ‘willow’ . These are probably cognate with the second
| set of forms built on *ueliko/eh a -, e.g., OE welig ‘willow’; the
j alternation of sw- (reflected in Greek aspiration), s-, and w-
| occurs irregularly elsewhere. The PIE salik- may be supported
I by Anatolian, that is, Hittite words for ‘meadow’ ( wella) and
J ‘grass’ ( welku ), and one might note the willow’s preference
| for moist meadows and similarities between bush willows,
some willow leaves, and tall steppe grasses, but all this remains
| speculative.
I
I
L
The third ‘willow’ name, *ueit- , probably used for the bush
or osier willows, is one of the most widely attested in the PIE
lexicon as it is found in nine stocks. In seven of these, the
reference is not only to the tree but, by metonymic extension,
to withies and diverse objects made from them, notably the
felloe (the rim around the wheel beneath the tire). For
example, Olnd vetasa- and Av vaeiti- both refer to ‘willow'
and ‘switch’ and in two other stocks, Latin and Greek,
obviously related words serve tor ‘willow’ and ‘felloe’ (Lat vitis
and Late Lat vitus). The willow thus represents an intersection
between the arboreal semantics and the semantics of techno-
logy, particularly one of its best attested parts — the wagon or
chariot. Both the main willow names seem to be related to
basic verbal roots for ‘bend, twist, wind’ (*selk- and *uei-).
Moreover, an additional weakly attested willow name, *ufb-
(Lat Ipl.] verbera ‘lash’, Rus verba ‘osier’), may be derived
from yet another verbal root for ‘bend’ and ‘twist’, *uer-
The willow is a moisture-loving tree found all over Eurasia,
particularly along the banks of rivers and streams. In quantity,
it was one of the first trees to occupy northern Europe after
the retreat of the ice sheets but with the rise of forests, the
willow retreated through time from southern Europe although
it was still present as a very small part of the overall pollen
rain. Botanically, the willows dichotomize into bush willows
(e.g., the golden, purple and pussy willows) and the tree
willows, which range from six to well over thirty meters in
height. Technologically, willow shoots, wood and bark lend
themselves excellently to making baskets, fences, felloes and
many other artifacts. Taxonomically, one finds a strong
tendency for speakers to subdivide the willows; in Russian
folk speech, for example, about seven kinds of willows are
designated by at least twenty-one names. In light of this, it is
hardly surprising that the willow, like many other kinds of
trees, has two strongly attested names that variously com-
plement each other, e.g., the contrast in the Germanic and
Greek areas.
See also Bend; Textile Preparation, Trees, Wind 2 . IP.F]
WIND 1
*h 2 yehjius‘wind'. [IEW 83 (*ue-)\. Lith vejas' wind’, Av
vayu-' wind’, Olnd vayu- ‘wind’. Whether the Lithuanian form
replaced an older *veju- is quite uncertain, the form could
well be recent, cf. OCS vejp ‘blow (of the wind)'. The Indo-
Iranian form, however, could well date from PIE times as it is
also the name of a god, i.e., the Vedic Vayu.
*h 2 ]}ehi-nt- ‘wind’. [IEW 82-83 ( *ue-nto-s ); Wat 73
(*we-); GI 584 (*Hwent h -)\. Weis gwynt ‘wind’, Lat ventus
‘wind’, OE wind ‘wind’ (> NE wind), OHG wint ‘wind’, Goth
winds ‘wind’. Hit huwant- ‘wind’, Av vata- (Gath lvaata-1)
‘wind’, Olnd vata- (sometimes lvaata-1) ‘wind’, TochA want
‘wind’, TochB yente ‘wind’. Most forms represent *h?uentos
from *h 2 ueh}ntos( with shortening of *e) except Indo-lranian,
where the phoneme Ini showed the vocalic allophone [n\
which became a before the loss of the laryngeal. Hittite pro-
bably continues *h 2 uhi-nt-. Distribution assures PIE status.
643 -
WIND
?*h 2 eu-ei-‘ wind’. \1EW 82 (*ay(e»; GI 584 Weis
aweV wind, breath’, Grk aeAAa(< *afeX-ya) ‘storm’. If the
two forms are cognate, they cannot be derived from *h 2 U-el-
(beside *h 2 U-ehj-‘to blow’). Welsh requires a full grade *h 2 eu-
but *h 2 euhi - is not known from *h 2 uehi-. The forms may
thus be unrelated.
*(s)Kehiy(e)r- ~ *(s)khiu(e)r- ‘north wind’. [IEW 597
( *k euero-)\ Wat 3 1 ( *kewero-)\ . Lat caurus ‘north wind’, ON
skur ‘storm’, OE scur ‘shower’ (> NE shower ), OHG scur
‘storm’, Goth skura (wmdis) ‘whirl(wind)’, Lith siaure ‘north
wind’, siQras ‘cold, northern’, OCS severu ‘north’, SC sjever
‘north’, Arm c‘urt ‘cold; shower’. Although sometimes taken
here, OIr cua ‘bad weather’ does not exist. Accentuation in
Lithuanian and Serbo-Croatian indicate a laryngeal
(< *keh}U-). The Latin form must therefore derive from
*Rfaluero-. The different formations and ablaut point to an
old r-stem. We find *Reh\uer (Slavic), *keh jur- (Lith siaure),
*khiuer-{ Lat), and *Rhiur-(> *Ruh\r-\ Lith siQras, for *suras\
Germanic, Armenian). Hence the underlying paradigm is
(nom.) *kehj-ur (?*kehi-uer), (acc.) *Rhi-uer-ip, (gen.)
*R}}l-ur-dsl . Germanic and Armenian have *s- Distribution
suggests at least a word of the west and center of the IE world.
See also Blow. [R. S . P. B . ]
WIND 2
*sper- ‘wrap around’. [7EW 991-992 (*sper-); Wat 63
( *sper-)]. Lith spartas ‘band, ribbon’, Grk oneipov ‘(linen)
cloth, wrapper, garment; sail cloth, canvass’, onelpa ‘coils;
(pi.) twists and coils of net’, rmdpxov ‘rope, cable’, onaprog
‘a kind of broom plant used for making ropes and cords’,
Arm p‘arem ‘enclose, surround’. Not widely attested but well
enough so that we probably have a (late) PIE word, perhaps
geographically limited to certain “central” dialects.
*(s)pre(n)g- (Gmc *brenk- ) ‘wrap up, constrict’. [IEW 992
( *spereg -)1. Lith springstii ‘choke, become choked or
obstructed’, Latv sprangat ‘cord, constrict’, perhaps Grk
cmdpYCQ ‘swathe in swaddling clothes’, cmapyava (pi.)
‘swaddling clothes’; without the *s- we have MHG phrengen
‘oppress’, TochAB prank- ‘restrain oneself, hold back’. These
words would all appear to belong together, despite the lack
of an exact phonological match. Perhaps a “popular” word
subject to a certain amount of phonological deformation.
Probably of late PIE status.
*yeis- ‘twist, wind around’. [ IEW 1 1 33-1 1 34 ( *ueis-)-, Wat
74 (*wei-)}. OE war ‘seaweed’ (> NE ware), Lith vlesulas
‘whirlwind, heavy gale’, vystas ‘corset’, vystyti ‘swaddle,
swathe’, Latv vises ‘bundle’, Rus vikh(o)ri ‘whirlwind’, Arm gi
‘juniper’, OInd vesa- ‘dress, garb’, vestayati ‘twines about’.
Largely, but not exclusively, eastern in distribution, related to
*uei(hx) ‘plait, wattle’. Certainly (late) PIE in date.
See also Turn; Willow; Wine. [D.Q.A.l
WINE
*y dinom (< *y6ihinom ) ~ *uihinom ?wine’. [ IEW 1121
( *uei-)\ cf. Wat 7.3 ( *vinum)\ GI 557-564 ( *w(e/o)ino-)\ Buck
5.92], Lat vinum (< *uihinom? ) ‘wine’, Alb (Tosk) vere (<
*uoineh a -) (Gheg vene ) ‘wine’, Myc wo-no ‘wine’, Grk oivog
‘wine’, Arm gini (< *uoin(i)io- or *uein(i)io~) ‘wine’, Hit
wiyana- ‘wine’, Luv wini(ya)- ‘pertaining to wine’, HierLuv
wi(y)ana- ‘wine’ (Proto-Anat *uiyana-). Similar forms in
Germanic (e.g., OE win (> NE wine), OHG win, Goth wein
‘wine’) and Slavic (OCS vino, Rus vino ‘wine’) are generally
taken as loans from Latin vinum although Gamkrelidze and
Ivanov have suggested that these are actually cognate with
the forms of the other stocks. The presence in Old Church
Slavonic of a derived word vinjaga ‘grape’ (whose second part
-jaga ‘fruit’ is found in this shape only here) would strengthen
the case for inheritance rather than borrowing. The Latin form
is also generally regarded as the source of the Celtic words
for ‘wine’, i.e., OIr fin , Weis gwin although here too GI suggests
that a lengthened zero-grade *uino- might explain the Celtic
forms (and also the Baltic, Lith vynas wine’, Latv vins ‘wine’,
though these may also be loanwords from Slavic and/or
Germanic). In any event, this word is thoroughly IE in
appearance and plausibly connected with *uei(h x )- ‘twast,
wind’ (cf. Lat vltis ‘vine’). The two forms, *uoih jnom and
*uih\nom , would be regular neuter derivatives (whose gender
is expected in Proto-Indo-European for fruits and berries and
similar edible plant products) of *uihjen ‘grapevine’, pre-
served in Grk (Hesy chius) tuyv ‘grapevine’ (where Hesychius’
spelling is usually taken to represent *pif\v). The fact that
the shape of this word bears such a close resemblance to that
of Near Eastern words for ‘wine’, e g., Hattie windu- ‘wine’,
Arabic wain , Hebrew yayin and that this region is likely to
have originated wine production has traditionally thrown the
IE correspondences into some doubt although it has also been
maintained that the Semitic designations could be derived
from an IE source.
*tris- ‘± vine’. l/£W 1096 ( *tris-)\ . SC trs {< *triso -)
‘grapevine, reed’, Alb tnshe (< *trisieh a -) ‘offshoot, seedling,
sapling’, Grk (Hesychius) Opivia (< *tnsniieh c} -) ‘vineyard
(in Crete). SC trs ‘reed’ is a different word; the fact that Proto-
Slavic shows *triso- rather than the expected *triso- (with
backing of original *-s- after *-r-, *-u-, *-k-, and *-/-) may
suggest a borrowing from some more western IE stock. Known
only in the center of the IE world.
The Archaeological Evidence
The domestic grape vine ( Vitis vmifera ) is derived from
Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvesins w'hich, although it possesses
smaller and acidic berries, is still capable of being fermented
into wine. The distribution of the wild vine would seem to
extend across the Mediterranean from Iberia, south France,
Italy and Greece, across both the northern and southern shores
of Turkey, the Caucasus and beyond the Caspian Sea.
Northwards the wild grape can also be found in the southern
Ukraine (especially the Crimea) and up the Danube. Finds of
sylvestris in European Neolithic sites are by no means rare
and they have been uncovered in late Neolithic/early Bronze
Age Iberia, in the Mesolithic and later in southern France,
Italy and Greece, Neolithic Yugoslavia, and Neolithic Turkey.
644 —
During the Neolithic period further north they have been en-
countered in the Swiss lake-side dwellings, Neolithic Germany,
late Neolithic/early Bronze Age Romania, late Neolithic
Moldova (middle and late Tripolye culture). The furthest north
grape pips have been discovered in the Neolithic is southern
Britain and more surprisingly, a number of impressions of
grape pips have been found on Neolithic potsherds from
Sweden which would date to c 4000 BC. It might be noted
that at this time the average summer temperature in Sweden
was 2.5C higher than today.
The identification of the domestic vine can be difficult and
the date of its earliest attestation is disputed. There does seem
to be a consensus that domestic grapes had already appeared
as early as the early Bronze Age in the east Mediterranean,
i.e., by c 3500-3000 BC. On the basis of length to breadth
ratios of recovered grape pips, it has been suggested that the
domestic vine appeared in Greece as early as the late Neolithic,
i.e., c 4300-2800 BC, and the discovery of grape pips outside
of their natural range in the Levant has suggested
domestication as early as c 4500-4000 BC. The domestic
grape was certainly present in Turkey (Troy), Crete and Greece
in the range c 3000-2000 BC, including Macedonia where
domestic grapes are identified before 2000 BC. The spread of
the domestic grape from the east Mediterranean westwards
would appear to have been slow and the earliest appearance
of domestic grapes (pips) in Italy is c 900 BC and they are
generally thought to have reached the west Mediterranean
through the Greek and Phoenician colonies (although an
independent origin in the west Mediterranean has also been
suggested) from whence they passed northwards to the Celts
who especially prized both wine and the special serving sets
and vessels employed in the consumption of wine during the
Iron Age. The vine also appears in domesticated form quite
early in Baluchistan where there is evidence by the third
millennium BC and at the same time in India.
As wine can be manufactured from the wild grape, the
reconstructed lexeme need not presuppose that the early Indo-
Europeans who possessed this word knew the domestic grape
although the latter is possible. The earliest evidence for wine,
identified through the presence of tartaric acid as a residue in
a ceramic vessel, has been recovered from a Neolithic site in
the northern Zagros (Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran) and dated to c
5400-5000 BC. The earliest traces of tartaric acid prior to
this discovery were from a vessel at Godin Tepe, Iran, that
dated c 3500-2900 BC. From the known distribution of the
wild grape and the domesticated grape, it would seem that if
the lexeme reconstructed to PIE indicated the wild variety, it
has neither chronological nor diacritically useful geographical
implications for the location of the earliest Indo-Europeans
other than relegating a north European origin less likely. If
the original sememe is to be reconstructed ‘wine (< * domestic
grape)’ then there is no solid evidence for the referent of the
underlying meaning earlier than the fifth millennium BC when
the domestic grape first appears in the eastern Mediterranean,
— 645 —
WINE
anywhere between Greece and the Levant. Since wine both
could and was made from the wild grape, there is an almost
endless number of ways that a word for it might have been
inherited or borrowed between different IE languages
depending on their prehistoric distribution.
See also Ferment; Sacred Drink. ID.Q.A. J.PM]
Further Readings
Beekes, R. S. P (1987) On Indo-European ‘wine’. MSS 48, 21-26.
McGovern, P, S. Fleming and S. Katz (1995) The Origins and Ancient
History of Wine. Amsterdam, Gordon and Breach.
McGovern, P E. etal. (1996) Neolithic resinated wine. Nature 381,
480-481.
Pennacini, A. and G. Savio (1991) Storie del Vino. Milan, Diapress,
WING
*pet(e)r-~ *pet(e)n-wing, feather’. [IEW 826 (*pet-)\ GI
455 ( *p tl et h -')-, BK 45 ( *p[ h ]at[ h ]-/*p[ h ] 9 t[ h ]-)] . Olr en ‘bird’,
OWels eterin ‘bird’, Weis edn ‘bird’, Lat penna (< *pet-n-)
‘feather’, ON fjpdr ‘feather’ , OE feder ‘feather’ (> NE feather),
OHG fedara ‘feather’, Grk nxepov ‘wing’, Arm Liras in Etanim
.‘fly’, Hit pittar ~ pattar ‘wing’. With the Anatolian cognate,
PIE status is assured. From *pet- ‘fly’.
*pom6m ‘wing, feather’. [7EW850 (*por-no-)]. OE feam
‘fem’ (> NE fern), OHG fam ‘fern’, Lith sparnas ‘wing’, Latv
spams ‘wing’, Av parana- ‘feather’, OInd parna- ‘feather’. Cf.
OCS pern ‘feather’, TochB (pi.) parwa ‘feathers’.
See also Bird; Feather. [J.A.C.G.]
WINNOW
*neik- ‘winnow’ [IEW 761 (*neik-)]. Weis nithiaf
‘winnow’, Lith niekoti ‘winnow’, Latv niekat ‘winnow’, Grk
XiKfi&G) ‘winnow’, A bcvov ‘sieve’, (Hesychius) viVAov ‘sieve’
(the Greek forms show various kinds of dissimilation involving
the initial *n~). A technical agricultural term known only in
the west and center of the IE world. At least late PIE in date.
See also Agriculture; Sieve; Thresh. [D.Q.A.J
WINTER see SEASONS
WIPE
•hjmerg- ‘wipe off’ (pres. *h 3 mpn 6 gti) . [JEW 738
( *merg-)\ cf. GI 94-95 ( *m(e)lk’-)\ . Grk opopyvvpai ‘wipe
off’, Av manzaiti ~ rnsrazaiti ‘strokes’, OInd mpiakti ~ marjati
‘wipes off, purifies’. Though attested only in Indo-Iranian and
Greek the exactness of the morphological match, and the
archaic present formation that is recoverable, would seem to
assure its (late) PIE status.
See also Milk. [D.Q.A.]
WITH
*ko(m) ‘with, side by side’. [7£W 612-613 ( *kom)\ Wat
32 (*kom)\ BK 256 (*k[ h lam-/*kf h ]dm-)]. Olr com- ‘with’,
Weis cyf- ‘with’, Lat cum ‘with’, ON g- (verbal prefix), OE ge-
(verbal prefix), OHG ga- ~ gi- (verbal prefix), Goth ga- (verbal
prefix) (Gmc < *ko- where PIE *k- has given g- in this
unstressed syllable), OCS ku ‘toward’, Grk Koivog ‘together,
in common’ (if < *kom-io-), OInd kam ‘toward’. Old in IE.
*sek w o- ‘following’. [7£W 896-897 ( *sek v o-s. ); Wat 57
( *sek w -)\ . Olr sech ‘past, beyond’, Weis heb ‘without’, Lat
secus ‘after, beside, otherwise’, Latv secen ‘by, along’, Av haca
‘from, out of; in accordance with’, OInd saca ‘together with’,
sakam ‘with’. A derivative of *sek w - ‘follow’. Old in IE.
*som- ‘(together) with’. [IEW 903 ( *som-)\ Wat 57
( *sem-)\ BK 184 ( *sam-/*sdm-)[ . OPrus san- ‘with’, Lith sam-
‘with’, OCS so- ‘with’, Av ha(m)- ‘together, OInd sam- ‘with’.
A word of the center and east of the IE world. Derivatives in
Olr samain ‘festival of November 1, Halloween/All Saints’,
OE -samne ‘together’, OHG samn ‘together’, Goth samana
‘together, in common’, OInd samana ‘together’; *s/p- by
Grassmann’s Law: Grk ctdeXcpog ‘brother (of the same womb)’,
akoxog ‘partner of one’s bed, bedfellow’. From *sem- ‘one’.
*ksun ‘with’. [IEW 90S ( *ksu(n ))\ Wat 33 (*ksun)[. Lith
su ‘with’, OCS su ‘with’, Rus s(o) ‘with’, Grk <^vv ~ cruv ‘with,
by aid of. Both Baltic and Slavic appear to have lost the initial
*k- in this (unstressed) form very early; the same loss is seen
within the history of Greek. A word of the center of the IE
world.
See a7so Adpreps. [D.Q.A., C.F.J1
WITHOUT
*hi6nhiu ‘without’. [7FW318 ( *eneu)\ . ON on ‘without’,
OHG ano (both < *hienhiu) ‘without’, Goth mu (< *h \enh\u )
‘without’, Grk avev (< *h\n.hieu) ‘without, except, apart
from’, Oss aenae ‘without’.
*b(h)egh ‘without’. I7EW112-113 ( *b(h)egh)\ . OPrus bhe
‘without’, Lith be ‘without; but’, Latv bez ‘without’, OCS bez
‘without’, OInd bahi- ‘outside’. A word of the center and east
of the IE world.
See a Iso Adpreps; Apart. [D.Q.A.]
WOLF
*ulk w os ‘wolf (Canis lupus)'. [IEW\ 178-1 179 (*u//c y os);
Wat 78 ( *wlk w o-)\ GI 413 ( *wlk ho -)\ Buck 3.71 J Lat lupus
‘wolf’ (the form of this word obviously influenced by the word
for ‘fox’), ON u7/r‘wolf’, OE wu77' l wolf’ (> NE wolf), OHG
wolEwoW, Goth wu7/s‘wolf’, OPrus wilkis ‘wolf’, Lith vilkas
‘wolf’, Latv vilks ‘wolf’, OCS vllku ‘wolf’, Rus volk ‘wolf’, SC
vuk ‘wolf’, Alb u/7c‘wolf’, Grk Xvicog' wolf’, Luv walwa/i- ‘lion’,
Lydian walw-el(i)- ‘pertaining to a lion’ (!), Av vahrka- ‘wolf’,
NPers gurg ‘wolf’, OInd vfka- ‘wolf’, TochB walkwe ‘wolf’. A.
Lehrman has suggested that PIE *y / k w os ‘wolf’ is a
nominalization, with retraction of accent, to an adjective
*u]k w ds ‘± dangerous’ seen possibly in Hit walkuwa- ‘±
dangerous’ and OInd avjka- ‘safe’ (i.e., a-vfka- ‘not wild’).
The formation would be similar to that seen in OInd kfsna-
‘black antelope’ from kfsna- ‘black’ and is paralleled within
Indo-European itself by *h x ftRos ‘bear’. The discrepancy of
meaning between Anatolian (‘lion’) on the one hand and the
rest of Indo-European (‘wolf’) on the other may suggest that
the attested meanings are independent semantic narrowings
— 646 —
WOLF
of an earlier ‘± dangerous one’ that took place after Anatolian
had separated from the rest of Indo-European. Alternatively,
GI suggest that this word for ‘wolf should be divided *u(e)l-
k w o-, a derivative of *uel- ‘tear, lacerate 1 .
*ulk w fh a - ‘she-wolf. [ 1 EW 1 1 78-1 1 79 ( *u/k y t)] . ON ylgr
‘she-wolf’, OHG wulpa ‘she-wolf’, Lith vilke ‘she-wolf’, Rus
volcica ‘she-wolf’, OInd vfkf- ‘she-wolf’. Cf. the similarly
derived Grk Xvgocc ‘martial rage, madness, rabies’. A normal
feminine derivative, itself of PIE date, of the previous word.
*\jiailos ‘wolf’. OIr fael ‘wolf’, Arm gayl ‘wolf’. Perhaps from
*yat ‘woe’ as ‘the woeful one’ (either from the mournful cry
or because the animal induces woe in the human). Though
not widely attested, the geographical distribution of those
attestations strongly suggests PIE status.
*h 2 / 3 V^df (gen. *h 2 / 3 U&dnos) ‘creatures, (wild) animals,
wolves’, [cf. GI 413 ( weit’-n-)\ Puhvel 3:355]. ON vitnir(<
*h2/3uedniios) ‘animal; wolf’, Hit huetar (gen. huetnas , pi.
huitar ) ‘creatures, (wild) animals, wolfpack’. Though only
certainly attested in these two stocks, the archaic heteroclitic
stem argues strongly for PIE antiquity. Probably from *h2\}ed-
‘be alive’, otherwise seen only in Luvian. Possibly belonging
here too are certain Slavic words for werewolf: Slov vedanec
(~ vedomec ~ vedavec ) ‘werewolf’, Ukr viscun ‘werewolf’,
OCzech vedi (pi.) ‘she-werewolves’, though particularly in
Ukrainian this word has been subject to phonological
deformation. The agreement of Germanic and Hittite would
seem to assure a reconstructed meaning ‘(wild) animal’ but
the association with ‘wolf’ is obviously very old (as the hvild
animal par excellence’?).
?*dhdh a us (gen. *dhfy a ijds) ‘± wolf’. Phryg Saoq ‘wolf’,
Grk 6 cog ‘jackal; wild dog; panther’. Latin and Greek show a
derivative with a new full-grade, *dheh a u-nos : Lat faunus
‘deity of forests and herdsmen’ (whose feast was part of the
Lupercalia), Grk (Hesychius) Oavvov ‘± wild animal, beast;
the constellation Lupus’ (compare the neo-Latin derivative
in NE fauna). In both Latin and Greek there is at least the
possibility that *dheh a unos had some reference to wolves.
Perhaps a late dialect word in PIE — originally an epithet for
wolves or other large carnivores. Often, though not
compellingly, related to OCS daviti ‘strangle’. The latter may
better be related to NE die, etc.
The wolf ( Canis lupus) was common throughout Eurasia,
including India, and was the ancestor of the domestic dog. It
tends to occur on Neolithic sites in small numbers, sometimes
in moderate numbers on Baltic sites. Considerable linguistic
discussion has revolved around the fact that the name for
such a common wild animal shows an o-stem, regarded by
many as a recent formation (while the feminine form with an
f-stem has been regarded as the typical marking of a wild
rather than domestic animal). The archaeological evidence
makes it clear that no matter where the earliest lE-speakers
lived, they were acquainted with the wolf.
The Wolf in Indo-European Belief
The wolf, together with the bear, would be the primary
dangerous wild carnivores with whom the Eurasian Indo-
European-speaking peoples had to deal, and this beast will
be important as an animal enemy, partner, and also image or
symbol. IE divinities with lupine associations are not
uncommon: the wolfish ( Xviceiog ) aspect of the Greek god
Apollo seems to connect him both to death and to fertilizing
and life-giving powers, in consonance with the other doubled
or contradictory aspects of this god, who surely resembles
another god with wolf names and companions, the Norse
Odinn. Following the line of lupine ambiguity, mythic
representations of the wolf make the animal both a monstrous,
ravening enemy of humankind (the Norse wolf Fenrir,
offspring of Loki; Vpluspa str. 36, 39) and a nurturing “natural”
mother-beast, such as the wolf-bitch Lupa who suckled the
twins Romulus and Remus (Lactantius, Inst. 1.20.2; Plutarch,
Romulus 4).
The sign of the wolf (or the wolf-pack) is clear enough in
Greek age set confraternities such as the Athenian eyppeia
and the Spartan KpvKreia. the adolescents in these peer-
groups prepared for full warriorhood by behavior that was
exactly reversed from the norm: they prowled at night, were
hidden and covert in their actions, used trick, trap, stratagem
and ambush and all the techniques forbidden to the true adult
warrior-hoplite, in his daylight discipline. However, these
young warriors-in-training eventually would be reintegrated
into their societies, while a “wolfish” activity or character,
from Hittite times on (but especially well illustrated in the
Germanic sources) defined an outlaw, one whose crimes had
put him outside society, and who can be hunted like the wolf,
i.e., be both “killer” and “to be killed”; cf. Germanic warg.
Werewolf or man-wolf activity may not be simply solitary, as
shown by a widely-recurring belief in destructive, night-
roaming bands or confraternities of lycanthropes who had
abjured the laws of society. These “secret bands” have also
been connected to the German Wilde Jagd or Wutende Heer ,
legendary affiliates of Death and the Devil, and instances of
bloodthirsty and destructive werewolf bands are also known
in the Iranian sources and in Baltic and Slavic folklore.
The wolf-image ordinarily would be attached to the
aggressive second function warrior but what might be called
wolf-kings are also seen. Lykos or ‘wolf’ was a king-name in
ancient Thebes; Sigmund and his son (in Vplsunga saga) took
their lycanthropic posture and powers from wolves’ skins once
worn by two shape-changing princes ( konungasynir ; Vols. c
8) while the violent war-king of Norway, Harald lufa , himself
showing a near-berserk image, had his own berserker band
of Wolfskins, Ulfhednar (Heimskringla 19).
In the heroic-epic literature the isolated individual returns,
and the wolf may often be imitated by the hero, no more so
than in that saga just mentioned where Sigmund and Sinfjptli
roam (and kill) as wolf-men and lurk in an underground den.
In an “historical” saga such as that of Egil Skallagrlmson, the
wolf not only seems to be a family totem (the family’s patriarch
named Kveld-Ulfr or Evening Wolf; Egil himself as ulfgrar
‘wolf-gray’), is also associated with the god Odinn, to whose
— 647 —
WOLF
grim service at least some of Egil’s family is devoted. Odinn’s
wolves, according to the verses of Egil and other warrior-
skalds, are fed with those who are slain by the victorious
fighter, but Odinn is also named the ‘wolf-killer’: he finally
claims the warrior, who also is the wolf, and who will be
killed in his turn.
See also Age Set; Crime; Dog; Hell-hound; Mammals;
Warrior. [D.Q.A., J.RM., D.A.M.l
Further Readings
Gerstein, M. R. (1974) Germanic warg. the outlaw as werewolf, in
Myth in Indo-European Antiquity, eds. G. J. Larson, C. Scott
Littleton and J. Puhvel, Berkely and Los Angeles, 131-156.
Gershenson, D. E. (1991) Apollo the Wolf-god. [= Journal of Indo-
European Studies Monograph 8]. McLean, Virginia.
Lehrman, A. (1987) Anatolian cognates of the PIE word for ‘wolf.
Die Sprache 33, 13-18.
McCone, K. (1987) Hund, Wolf und Krieger bei den Indogermanen,
in Studien zum indogermanischen Wortschatz , ed. W Meid,
Innsbruck, 101-154.
Weitenberg, J. (1991) To become a wolf, in Perspectives on Indo-
- European Language, Culture and Religion, vol. II, ed. R. Pearson,
McLean, Va.; Journal of Indo-European Studies, 189-198.
WOMAN
*g w 6nh a (gen. *g w nih a s ) ‘woman’. [1EW 473-474;
( *gU£na) ; Wat 25 ( *g w en-)\ GI 660-661 ( *k’°en-), Buck 2.22;
Szem 22.1; Wordick 194-195; BK 347 ( *k’ w an-/*k’ w an -)].
OIr ben (gen. mna) ‘woman, wife’, OE cwene ‘woman, female
serf, prostitute’ (> NE quean), OHG quena ‘wife’, Goth qind
‘wife’ (Gmc < *g w eneh a -n- ), OPrus genna ‘wife’, OCS zena
‘wife’, Rus zena ‘wife’ (Balto-Slavic < *g w eneh a - ), Grk yvvri
‘wife’, Arm kin ‘wife’, Hit SAI -ni ‘women’, Luv wanatti- ~ unatti-
‘women’, Av gna- ‘wife of a god’, gana- ~ jna- ‘woman, wife’,
jaini- ‘woman’, NPers zan ‘woman’, Olnd gna- ‘goddess, divine
female’, jam- ‘woman, wife’, TochA sam ‘woman’, TochB sana
‘woman’ (Toch < *g w en-eh a -) ‘woman’. With lengthened grade
*g w eni- we have ON kvsen ‘wife’, OE cwen ‘woman; wife,
consort’ (> NE queen), Goth qens ‘wife’, Av jani- ‘wife’, Olnd
jani- 1 wife’. Another derivative is seen in TochA k u li ‘woman’,
TochB kliye ‘woman’ (< *g w ph a -hien- with dissimilation of
l...n < n...n). Archaic in morphology, widespread and old in
IE.
In many primitive societies an adult’s marital status is taken
for granted and distinctions between man and woman on the
one hand and husband and wife on the other are rarely made.
The most common Indo-European term for an adult
marriageable female is *g w enh a whose ablauting stem vowels
suggest an original athematic noun. Szemerenyi has attempted
to derive this noun from *g w ou- ‘cow’ (> *g?-en-) and has
produced many examples from both modern languages, e.g.,
Rus korova ‘cow’ can also mean ‘bride’ in some dialects, and
many ancient examples, e.g., Olnd vasa ‘cow; wife’, MWels
anneir ‘young cow’ but OIr ainder ‘young girl’, to illustrate
that such a derivation would probably not have been seen as
gratuitously insulting in a pastoral economy (rural Texas
ranchers even today can refer to wives and sweethearts as
‘heifers’ and remain unslapped; cf. also ‘filly’). Nevertheless,
the phonology of such a derivation is questionable and the
morphology of such an ad hoc suffixation is unscientifically
opaque. It is far better to take *g w enh a as an unanalyzable
root in PIE.
See also Widow; Wife. (M E. H i
WOOD see TREE
WOODPECKER
?*(s)p(e)iko/eh a - ‘(some kind of) bird, (Italic, Germanic)
wood-pecker’. [IEW 999 ( *(s)piko-)\ Gl 459 ( *(s)p h ik h o-)\ .
Lat picus ‘woodpecker’, pica ‘jay; magpie’, ON spretr
‘woodpecker’, OHG speh ‘woodpecker’, OPrus picle ‘fieldfare’,
Olnd pika- ‘Oriental ( Cuculus saturatus) or Indie cuckoo
( Cuculus canorus)'. In spite of the uniqueness of this bird
and its dramatic behavior, there seems to be no common IE
word for the woodpecker although this is the meaning in the
two west IE stocks that preserve this root. It might be noted
that the Picenes, one of the ancient peoples of Italy, derive
their name from this root, allegedly because of some totemic
association.
See also Birds. [J.A.C.G.l
WOOL
*ulh 2 neh a - ‘wool’. [IEW 1 139 ( *ul-na)\ Wat 76 ( *weh-)\
GI 498-499 ( *Hwl-n-)\ Buck 6.22]. Weis gwlan ‘wool’
(whence OIr olann), Lat lana ‘wool’, lanugo ‘down’, OE wull(e)
‘wool’ (> NE woof), OHG wolla ‘wool’, Goth wulla ‘wool’,
OPrus wilna ‘shirt’, Lith vilna ‘wool’, Latv vilna ‘wool’, OCS
vluna ‘wool’, Rus volna ‘wool’, Grk A rjvoq ‘wool’. Hit hulana-
(by metathesis < *ulhna) ‘wool’, Av varana ‘wool’, Olnd Qma-
‘wooL. Widespread and old in IE.
Although wool is the commonest secondary product of
sheep raising in historical times, it would not have been a
property of wild sheep nor the earliest domestic sheep. These
were characterized by fleeces which consisted of a short fine
undercoat that was covered by a hairy outer coat of coarse
kemps, all of which moulted each spring. Consequently, the
utility of wool as a fabric for textiles would have been
exceedingly limited and all evidence for Neolithic wool has
been disputed (Neolithic textiles are almost invariably made
of plant fibre). Woolly sheep appear to have been bred in the
Near East by the fourth millennium BC, possibly earlier. It is
about this time that a larger variety of sheep begins to appear
in Europe which some suggest may have borne a much
woollier coat, and wool begins to be recovered from European
sites at about 3000 BC. That wool was important in Bronze
Age Europe is well attested, particularly in the Linear B tablets
where the raising of sheep for wool appears to have been a
major industry. Moreover, from about 4000-3000 BC, there
is a rise in the relative quantity of sheep on European sites
While it is possible that “wool” was produced and exploited
648 —
WORM
earlier in the Neolithic period, i.e., from the seventh
millennium BC onwards, the archaeological evidence, the
existing evidence of words for ‘wool’, and the technology
employed in its exploitation all suggest a rather late, i.e., fourth
millennium BC, date for PIE ‘wool 1 .
See also Hair; Sheep; Textile; Textile Preparation.
[D.Q.A., J.RM]
Further Readings
Ryder, M. L. (1983) Sheep and Man. London, Duckworth.
Sherratt, A. (1981) Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary
products revolution, in Patterns of the Past: Studies m Honour
of David Clarke , eds. 1. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. Hammond,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 261-305.
WORK
*yerg-‘ work’ (pres. *Vfgie/o-). \IEW 1168 ( *uerg-)\ Wat
77 ( *werg-)\ Buck 9.12, 9.13], ON yrkja ‘work, do’, orka
(< *y fgeh a -) ‘be able to do’, OE wyrcan ‘work, do’ (> NE work),
OHG wurchen ‘work, do’, Goth waurkjan ‘work’, Grk pe^co
~ epSco ‘do’ (in both cases the -e- is the result of contamination
with the vowel of the derived noun), Av varazyeiti ‘works’,
TochA warksal ‘power, strength, energy’, TochB warksal
‘power, strength, energy’. Cf. the widespread derivative
*ijergom in Gaul vergo-bretus the highest official among the
Haedui, OBret guerg ‘effective’, ON verk ‘work’, OE weorc
‘work’ (> NE work), OHG werk ‘work’, Grk epyov ‘work’,
Arm gore (with secondary -o-) ‘work’, Av varaza- ‘activity’.
Widespread and old in IE.
*hx6pes- (noun) ‘work’. [IEW 780 (*op-); Wat 46 (*op-);
GI 137 ( *H 3 op h -)\ Buck 9.12], Lat opus ‘work’ (whence the
denominative verb operor ‘work’), Av -apah- ‘work’, Olnd
apas - ‘work’, TochA opsaly ‘(fit) season, time of action’, TochB
eksalye ‘(fit) season, time of action’ (Toch < *hxops-el-i-). Cf.
ON efna ‘work, make’, efni ‘stuff, tool’, OE efnan ~ aefnan
‘work, make’, OHG uobo ‘peasant’, uoben ‘set to work’.
Widespread and old in IE. Perhaps related to *h 2 op- ‘wealth’.
*derh a - ‘work’ (pres. *d[h a je/o-) [IEW 212 ( *dera-)\ BK
122 {*t’ar-ah-/*t’ar-ah-)\. Lith dar(i)au ‘do, make’, Latv darit
‘do, make’, Grk dpaco ‘make, do’, dppcrvfip ‘worker, servant’,
(Hesy chius) Spdvoq ‘work’. A word at least of the center of
the IE world.
*dheigh - ‘work clay, smear; build up’ (pres. *dh6ighti ~
*dhineghti). [IEW 244-245 ( *dheigh-)\ Wat 13 ( *dheigh-)\
GI 43, 95 (*de(g^-); Buck 5.53]. OIr con-utainc {*com-uss-
ding-) ‘builds’, Lat lingo ‘fashion’, ON deigr ‘dough’, OE dag
‘dough’ (> NE dough), OHG teig'dough’, Goth daigs ‘dough’,
digan ‘knead, form out of clay’, Lith diezti ‘whip, beat’, Latv
diezet ‘talk into buying’, Rus deza ~ deza ‘kneading trough’,
Thracian -8iC,og ‘fort’, Grk xetyog ‘wall’, Arm dizanem ‘heap
up’, Av pairi-daezayeiti ‘build a wall around’ (whence NE
paradise), Olnd dehmi ‘smear, anoint’, dehf ‘wall’, deha-
‘body’, TochAB tsik- ‘fashion’, TochA tseke ‘figurine’.
?*mag- ‘work with the hands, form, shape’. [ IEW 696-
697 ( *mag -); Wat 38 ( *mag - ~ *mak-)\ Buck 9.11; BK 548
( *mak-/*mak’-)\ . Mir maistred (< *magistr-) ‘act of churning’,
Weis maeddu (< *mag-ed-) ‘beat, strike’, OE macian ‘make’
(> NE make), OHG mahhon ‘make’, OCS mazati ‘anoint,
smear’, Grk (aor. pass, inf.) gayfjvai ‘knead’, Arm macani-
‘stick to, adhere to’. Numerous uncertainties concern this
form. Since, in Irish, all other words for butter-making are
borrowed from Latin, it is possible that maistred is borrowed
as well; the term itself may be a Gallo-Roman lorm produced
by the contamination of mastra < Grk potKxpa ‘kneading
trough’ with magis < Grk protyig ‘kneaded dough’. The
Germanic forms seem to be fairly far removed semantically.
The Armenian form may come from this root but may also
derive from *mad- ‘curdle’.
See also Make; Press; Smear; Wall. (D.Q.A.]
WORLD
?*bheuh x tlom ‘?world’. [IEW 147 ( *bhutlo -); Wat 8
( *bheu9 -); BK 8 ( *buw-/*bow -)]. OE bold, botl ‘house’, Lith
bukla ‘habitation’, Olnd bhavftram ‘?world’. From the root
*bhuhx-(*bhh x u-) ‘to be, exist, become’ there are many words
for ‘habitation, dwelling, house’ which, in a wider sense, may
indicate the meaning ‘world’ (the place where we dwell, cf.
Alb bote ‘earth, bottom, world’). But even for the Old Indie
word this meaning is uncertain. In the sense of ‘(all) living
things’ we find expressions like Umb dupursus peturpursus,
Grk dmovg xexpdc7tovg, Olnd dvi-pad-catus-pad- ‘two- and
four- footers’, a type which is of PIE date.
See also Be; Earth [R.S.PB.l
WORM
*k w pnis ‘worm, insect’. [ IEW 649 (*k u pmi-)\ Wat 34
( *k w pmi-)\ GI 445 ( *k ho pmi-)\ Buck 3.84; BK 332
( *k w [ h ]ur-/*k w [ h ]or-)) . OIr cruim ‘worm’, Weis pryf 1 worm’,
OPrusgirm/'s‘maggot, mite’, Lith kirmis ~ kirmuo- kirminas
‘worm; snake, dragon’, kirmele ‘worm, maggot’, Latv cirmis
~ cirmen(i)s ‘worm, mite, maggot, caterpillar’, OCS crlvt
‘worm’ (< *cirmi, cf. crumlnu ‘red’ Icolor made from certain
insects]), Rus cervi ‘worm’, Slov cm ‘carbuncle’. Alb krimb
‘worm’, NPers kirm ‘worm’, Oss kalm ‘snake, worm’, Olnd
kpni- ‘worm, insect; lac (red dye created from certain insects)’.
Given the range of meanings of the various reflexes of this
word, it is likely that PIE speakers had the category of what
semanticists interested in lexical universals call ‘wug’ (i.e.,
‘worms’ + ‘bugs’) rather than the more restricted categories of
‘worm’ and ‘bug’ (or ‘insect’) that are more familiar to
contemporary English speakers. In any case, widespread and
old in IE.
•ypnis ‘worm, insect’. [IEW 1152 ( *upni-s)\ Wat 76-77
( *wpmi-)-, GI 445 ( *wpm- ~ *wpmo-)\ Buck 3.84] . Lat vermis
‘worm’, ON ormr ‘worm’, OE wyrm ‘worm, snake’ (> NE
worm), OHG wurm ‘worm’, Goth waurms ‘worm’, Lith varmas
‘mosquito’, (dial.) varmai (pi.) ‘flying ants’, OCS vermije
‘grasshoppers, insects’, Grk (Hesychius) popo £ ‘woodworm’.
Cf. OPrus wormyan ~ urminan 1 red’, Ukr vermjanyj‘ red’ (color
derived from certain insects or ‘worm-colored’). A phono-
— 649 —
WORM
logically similar form also appears in a number of IE groups
meaning ‘ant’. *Ufmis and these other related forms appear
to be a rime-word variant of the previous entry found in the
center and west of the IE world.
*demells ‘worm’. [IEW201 ( *demel-)\ BK 127 ( *t’umV
*t’om -)]. Alb dhemje ~ dhemize larva, caterpillar, maggot’,
Grk de/ieXeag (acc. pi.) leeches’, (Hesychius) degfikeiq (pi.)
leeches’. A word of the IE center.
*mat- ‘± worm, maggot, insect’. [/EW700 ( *math-)\ Wat
39 ( *math-)\ Gl 774 ( *mat h -/mot h -)\ Buck 3.84]. ON madkr
‘maggot, worm’, OE mada ‘maggot, worm, grub’, OHG mado
‘maggot, worm’, Goth mapa ‘worm’ (Gmc *mapdn -), Arm
ma07 ‘louse’, Av madaxa- ‘grasshopper’, OInd matkuna- ‘bug’.
Cf. ON motti ‘moth, mite’, OE moppe ~ mohpe ‘moth’ (> NE
moth), MHG matte ‘moth’. The range of meaning and
phonological shape for this word is at least as great as for the
previous two entries. Nonetheless, it seem tolerably clear that
we have a word of PIE antiquity.
See also Animal; Dragon, Insects. [D.Q.A.]
WORSHIP
* 1 lag- ‘honor, worship’. \IEW 501-502 ( *iag-)\ Wat 79
(*yag-); GI 704 ( *yak’-)\ Buck 22.15]. Grk oc^opai ‘stand in
awe of, dread; shrink from doing something’, Av yazaite
‘honors’, yasna- ‘reverence for the gods’, OPers yad- ‘revere
the gods’, OInd yajati ‘worship (through sacrifice)’, yajas-
‘veneration’. A Greek- Indo-Iranian isogloss of late IE antiquity.
The semantic difference between the Greek and Old Indie is
noticeable in that the Greek indicates a negative response to
the deities, i.e., something to be avoided, while the Old Indie
verb stresses the active sacrifice made by the priest to the
deities on behalf of the people. The underlying meaning seems
to have been ‘worship, honor’ and the object of worship (Av
yazata-, OInd yajata-) ‘he who is worthy of worship’ with the
Old Indie stressing the active participation sense of ‘worship’
as ‘sacrifice’.
*tieg w - ‘give way, pull oneself back (in awe)’ (pres.
*t}6g w e/o~) [ IEW 1086 ( *tiegu-)\ Buck 22. 16] . Grk eeftoficu
‘worship, honor’, aofieo) ‘frighten off, drive away’, Av iOyejah-
‘abandonment’, OInd tyajati ‘stands back from something’,
tanu-tyaj - ‘renouncing life’, tyajas- ‘abandonment, difficulty,
danger’, tyajas- ‘offspring’, tyaga- ‘renunciation of life’, titiks-
‘endure, forbear’. Cf. Grk deooeTtrcop ‘worshipper’, OInd
tyaktar- ‘renounced. A Greek-Indo-Iranian isogloss of late IE
antiquity.
*d(hj)eu- ‘be favorable to, give honor to’. [IEW 218-219
( *deu-/*dou-)\ Wat 12 (*deu-): BK 121 (*t’uw-/*t , ow-)]. OIr
de(i)n (< *dueno -) ‘strong’, OLat duenos ~ duonos ‘good’,
Lat bonus ‘good’, bed ‘make happy, gladden; bless’, beatus
‘happy, without want, blessed’, bellus (< *duenoIos) 'pretty,
handsome, charming’, OInd duvas- ‘worship, reverence,
oblation, favor, friendship’, duvasyati ‘honors, recognizes’. Old
in IE. This word is usually taken to be an enlargement of
*deh 3 - ‘give’. Somewhat more distant are OSax twlthon ‘grant’,
MHG zwiden ‘grant’, presupposing a further enlarged pre-
Gmc *c/yeit-.
See also Fear; Honor; Pray; Sacrifice. [D.Q.A.]
WOUND
*\}olno/eh a - (~ *]fomo/eh a -) ‘(bloody) wound’, [cf. IEW
1144 ( *uel -), 1 163 (*uer-)\ Wat 76 ( *wela-)\ Gl 414 (*wel-)\
Buck 4.85; BK 507 ( *wal-/*wal -)] . Lat volnus ‘wound, injury;
blow’, Alb varre (< *uomeh a -) ‘wound, injury, sore’, Grk ouAr)
(< *uolneh a -) ‘scar’. With different vowel-grades: OCS rana
‘wound’, Rus rana ‘wound’ (< *urdneh a -), OInd vrana- (<
*urend-) ‘wound’; with different suffixes: OIr fuil ‘blood’, fuili
‘bloody wounds’, Weis gweli ‘wound; blood’. There seems to
be sufficient overlap of form and meaning to group all of
these words together as a single etymon. If so, it is clearly of
PIE date. The interchange of in the west, and *-r-, in the
east, is difficult. If the *-r- is older, the *-l- might result from
a cross with *uelh 2 - ‘strike, kill, die’, but, on the whole, the
*-l- looks more original.
*sgeros (suppurating) wound’. [IEW 1050 ( *syer-); Buck
4.85] . Weis chwarren ‘ulcer’, OHG swero ‘body pain’, sweren
‘fester’, Rus khvoryj ‘sick’, Avx v ara- ‘wound’. The initial khv-,
rather than the expected sv-, of Slavic may mean this word
was borrowed, or at least influenced, by some Iranian cognate.
Sparsely attested but its geographical distribution certainly
suggests at least a late PIE date.
?*Ueh a t- ‘(suppurating) wound’. [IEW 1108 (*ua-); Buck
4.85; BK497 ( *wah-/*woh-)] . Lith votis ‘ulcer, abscess, boil’,
Latv vats ‘suppurating wound’, Grk (breiArj (< *uoh a t-)
‘wound’. It is probable, but by no means certain, that the
Greek and Baltic words belong together. If so, perhaps a
“centralism” in late PIE.
*h a 6ru(s)~ ‘wound’. [IEW 338 ( *ereu-)\ . ON orr
(< *arwi-) ‘scar’, OInd arus- ‘wound’. Though not well attested,
the close morphological and semantic relationship of the
Germanic and Old Indie words guarantee PIE status, more
particularly as there is no underlying verb attested from which
these words might be independently derived.
*peles- ‘wound’. [7EW803 {*pel-)\ VW 356]. Grk aneXoq
‘(unhealed) wound’, TochA pal ‘wound’, TochB pile ‘wound’.
Again a word with sparse attestation, and no underlying verb,
that is likely to be of late PIE age.
See also Die; Medicine; Sick. [D.Q.A.]
— 650 —
■■HH
YAMNA CULTURE
The Yamna or Pit-grave culture or “cultural-historical
region” spanned the territory from the Danube to the Ural in
the Copper/early Bronze Age, i.e. c 3600-2200 BC. Evidence
for settlement is scarce, often meager remains from camp sites
of pastoral nomads, but it does include a number of stone-
built fortresses such as Mikhaylovka where a stone wall some
two meters high defended a settlement of stone-built
rectangular structures.
The economy of the culture, attested both by faunal remains
from settlements and burials as well as site locations, suggests
a high dependency on stockbreeding, either cattle or sheep/
goat, in many of the regional variants. The horse was also
well-known from the Yamna culture and its remains occur
not only on settlements but also in rituals associated with
burials. Although the emphasis appears to have been on
stockbreeding, agriculture was also practiced in the more
forested regions or major river valleys and a plow has been
recovered from a Yamna grave. It has been argued that the
Yamna culture reflects one of the earliest developments of
semi-nomadic pastoralism. The evidence for this rests on the
Yamna culture’s possession of the domestic horse (for riding),
wheeled vehicles (for transporting families), the composition
of its livestock which was suited to the open steppe, the
occasional discovery on Yamna sites of deep steppe animals
such as the camel and saiga antelope, and the burials of men,
women and children, i.e., whole family units, that have been
encountered far out on the steppe. Wild fauna from the Yamna
culture include aurochs, red deer, saiga, onager (Equus
hemionus ), wild boar, badger, otter, wolf, fox, corsac fox, hare,
beaver; traces of fish and tortoise are also recovered.
The overwhelming evidence for the Yamna culture derives
from its tens of thousands of burials. These were made in
shaft-like pits that might be roofed with a timber or stone
slab covering. In certain regions, the stone slabs might include
anthropomorphic stelae. The deceased were buried either on
their backs with their legs flexed (the “Yamna position”) or
flexed on their sides, with their heads generally oriented east
or north-east, at least among the earliest phases. They were
frequently covered, in many instances “saturated”, with ocher
and the Yamna culture has alternatively been known as the
Ocher-grave culture. Primary burials were covered with a
kurgan (tumulus) although many secondary burials might
have been later inserted into the fill of an earlier kurgan or
the kurgan itself might have been enlarged to accommodate
more burials. Grave goods consisted of pottery, stone tools
and very occasionally weapons (flint spearheads, flint and
metal daggers, antler ax-hammers), and copper artifacts.
— 651
YAMNA CULTURE
/
0 10
\'J»7 /
mm
Yamra I b. Plan of Mikhaylovka, Ukraine; c. Plan of Yamna
kurgan indicating primary (central) burial, secondary burials
and enlargements of the tumulus; d. Anthropomorphic stelae as
covering slabs for Yamna grave; e. Yamna burial under timber
roof from the Ukraine.
YAZ CULTURE
Animal remains (cattle, sheep/goat and horse) are all recovered
from graves as well.
Regional studies of the labor involved in the construction
of the kurgans have suggested that they may reflect a tripartite
social structure and the three social classes of early India have
even been explicitly employed in describing the existence of
Yamna “priests”, “warriors” and “herdsmen”. Although there
does seem evidence for marked social differentiation, it does
not suggest such specific classes.
The origin of the culture appears to lie both with the earlier
Khvalynsk culture on the middle Volga and the Sredny Stog
culture of the middle Dnieper. With its mobility, expressed
both in the use of the domestic horse and wheeled vehicles
which were pulled by oxen, the Yamna culture evolved as a
vast area of cultural interactions and exchange. To the east,
Yamna burials are found to the east of the Urals and some
would derive the very distant Afanasevo culture of the Altai
and Yenisei from the Yamna and related European steppe
cultures. To the west, Yamna burials are found extending
beyond the mouth of the Danube through Romania, Bulgaria,
Serbia and Hungary.
The enormous area of distribution, its dynamic borders,
and cultural life-style (e.g., horses, wheeled vehicles) of the
Yamna culture has insured its general recognition as the
archaeological reflection of a major group of the early Indo-
Europeans. Its specific identification is disputed since models
for IE origins diverge considerably in terms of the time and
place of dispersal. Within the “Kurgan model”, it is seen as a
variant of late IE, ancestral to many although not necessarily
all IE-speaking groups; those who reject the Kurgan model
tend to limit the linguistic identity of the Yamna culture to
the Indo-Iranians. The Yamna culture was followed in the
west by the Catacomb culture and in the east of its distribution
by the Poltavka and Srubna cultures.
See also Afanasevo Culture; Catacomb Culture; Khvalynsk
Culture; Kurgan Tradition; Novotitorovka Culture;
Poltavka Culture; Sredny Stog Culture; Srubna Culture.
U.P.M.)
Further Readings
Hausler, A. (1974) Die Graber der alteren Ockergrabkultur zwischen
Ural und Dnepr. Berlin, Akademie Verlag.
Hausler, A. (1976) Die Graber der alteren Ockergrabkultur zwischen
Dnepr und Karpaten. Berlin, Akademie Verlag.
Mallory J. P (1990) Social structure in the Pontic-Caspian eneolithic:
a preliminary review. JIES 18, 15-57.
Merpert, N. (1977) Drevneyshie Skotovody Volzhsko-UraVskogo
Mezdurech’ya. Moscow, Nauka.
YAWN
*gh(hl)ii-eh a - ‘yawn, open the mouth wide’. [1EW 419-
420 ( *ghii-a-)\ Wat 20 ( *ghai-)\ Buck 4.52; BK 234 ( *ga -/
*ga-)]. Lat hiare ‘yawn, gape’, OHG glen ‘yawn’, Lith zioju
‘open, yawn’, OCS zijp ‘open the mouth wide’, Rus zijatl
‘yawn’. Also *ghihi-neh a -: ON glna ‘yawn’, OE ginan ‘yawn’,
OCS zinQti yawn, split apart, open the mouth’, Rus zlnutl
‘yawn, split apart, open the mouth’ (in Germanic we also find
new ablaut grades in OE ginian ‘yawn, gape’, OHG ginen
‘yawn’, and OE ganian ‘yawn, gape’ [> NE yawn] , OHG geinon
‘yawn, gape’). Finally from *ghehii-v- we have OCS zijp
‘yawn’ and TochA £ew- (*ghehii-u-) ‘yawn, gape’ and from
*ghohii-eh a - is TochB kaya- yawn, gape’. Subject to much
morphological rebuilding in the form of different iterative -
intensives, but still clearly a PIE word.
*gheh a - ‘yawn, open the mouth wide’, [cf. IEW 411
( *ghan-)\ BK 234 (*ga-/*g9-)]. ON gan yawn; cry, din’, Grk
Xotvog ‘mouth’ (both < *ghfr a nos ), Grk x<*ctkco ‘yawn’, xavvco
‘talk with the mouth open’, and words for the ‘open mouth’
(see *gheh a mp s.v. ‘mouth’). Distinct from and not as wide-
spread as the previous word, it is still of respectable PIE
antiquity.
See also Mouth; Sleep. [D.Q.A.l
YAZ CULTURE
The Yaz culture was the early Iron Age culture of Bactria
and Margiana. It is dated to c 1500-1100 BC. Settlements
emerge on top of earlier late Bronze Age sites or virgin ground;
they sometimes exhibit stone towers and sizeable houses
Yaz Distribution of the Yaz culture (commonly associated with the
culture depicted in the Avesta).
— 653 —
YAZ CULTURE
which are associated with large irrigation systems. Single
manor complexes consisting of living and store rooms and
open courtyards have also been uncovered. Ceramics were
initially almost entirely hand-made but through time there
was increasing use of wheel-thrown ware. The most frequent
evidence of metal tends to be bronze arrowheads; sickles or
carpet knives are also found. No burials assigned to the culture
have been found.
With respect to location, date and a settlement type which
may represent early Iron Age farmer-chieftains, the Yaz culture
has been regarded as a likely archaeological reflection of east
Iranian society as. depicted in the Avesta. The marked absence
of burials has also been interpreted as evidence for the
Zoroastrian method of disposing of the dead through exposure
rather than burial.
See also Indo-Iranian Languages . [J . P M . ]
YEAR
♦yet- ‘year’. [IEW 1175 (*yef-); Wat 78 (wet-); G1 685
( *wet h o-)\ Buck 14.73; BK 503 (*wat[ h ]-/*w9t[ h ]-)\. Mir feis
‘sow’, Com guis ‘sow’ (Celtic < *‘yearling’), Lat vetus{< *uet-
es -) ‘old’, ON vedr 1 ram, wether’, OHG widar ‘wether’, Goth
wiprus ‘year-old lamb’, Lith vetusas ‘old’, OCS vetuchQ ‘old’.
Alb V7f(< *uetos ) ‘year’, vjet ‘last year’, Grk (p)exoq ‘year’, Hit
witt- ‘year’, Sogd wtsnyy ‘old’, OInd vatsa- ~ vatsara- (with
same suffix as Germanic < *wet-ro-) ‘year’, vatsa- ‘yearling’.
With a wide geographical distribution and morphological
derivatives common to several stocks, this root is certainly of
PIE date.
*(hl)i£ro/eh a - ‘year, new season’. [IEW 296 (*iero-); Wat
79 (*yer-)]. Lat homus ( <*ho-yor -, with same formation as
in ho-die ‘today’) ‘of this year’, ON ar l year’, OE gear 1 year’ (>
NE year), OHG jar ‘year’, Goth jer ‘year’, OCS jara ‘spring’,
RusCS jara ‘spring’, Grk Spoq ‘time, year’, Luvian ara/i- ‘time’,
Av yara ‘year’, TochB nerwe (< *(h jejne- [a demonstrative] +
ier- + [the adjective -forming suffix] *-uo- ‘today’). A remote
connection with *hiei- ‘to go’ is likely, paralleling the
formation of *h a etnos ‘year’ from *h a et- ‘to go’. A good
candidate for PIE status.
*perut - ‘last year’. [IEW 1175 ( *uet-)\ . OIr on nurid ‘from
the last year’, ON fjord ‘last year’, Grk Jtepvcn ‘last year’. Arm
heru last year’, OInd par-ut ‘in past years’. This root appears
to be an old locative or accusative of the zero-grade of *yef-
‘year’ prefixed with *per- ‘forward, through’. Probably PIE in
date.
*h a etnos year’. [IEW 69 (*af-); Wat 4 (*at-)\ Buck 14.73;
BK 366 (*at[ h ]-/*9t[ h ]-)\. Lat annus (< *atnos ) ‘year’, Umb
(acc. pi.) acnu ‘years’, Goth (dat. pi.) apnam ‘year’. *h a etnos
is a nominal form derived from the root *h a et- ‘to go’ (cf.
OInd atati ‘he/she goes’). Geographically restricted to a few
western languages and clearly derived semantically as ‘the
period gone through, the revolving year’; a “westemism”.
*hjen- year’. [/EW314 (*en-); Wat 17 (*en-); Buck 14.73;
BK 424 ( *an y -/*9n y -)} . Goth fram fair-n-in jera ‘in the last
year’, Lith per-n-ai" in the last year’, Latv ppms (< extended
form *per-hino-yo ) ‘of last year’, Rus (dial.) lo-ni l oi last year,
Grk evoq ‘year’. Limited distribution suggests dialectal IE.
See also Seasons; Time. [RB.[
YELLOW
*ghel- ~ *ghel- ‘yellow’. [IEW 429-430 ( *ghel-), Wat 21
(*ghel-)\ G1 618 {*^el-)\ Buck 15.69; BK 228 (*gil-/*gel-)\.
OIr gel ‘white’, Weis gell ‘yellow’, Bret gell ‘brown’, Lat helvus
(< *ghel-uo -) ‘honey yellow’, fel ‘gall’, ON gulr ‘yellow’, gall
‘yellow’, OE geolu ‘yellow’ (> NE yellow ), OHG gelo ‘yellow’,
Lith geltas ‘yellow’, zelvas ‘golden’, Latv z£lts ‘gold’, OCS
zelenu ‘green’, zlutu ‘yellow’, Rus zelenyj ‘green’, Grk ykopoq
‘green’, yoXoq ‘gall’, Av zairi- ‘yellow’, zara- ‘gall’, OInd hari-
‘blond, yellow’. When, in post-Indo-European times, ‘green’
and ‘blue’ became distinct from one another, words for ‘yellow’
were often sources for new words for ‘green’. This root is
recorded from Celtic to Indie and is assured in Proto-Indo-
European. This also argues that the Proto-Indo-Europeans
recognized yellow as a primary color and hence had at least a
Stage III color system.
See also Color; Green; White. [M.E.H.I
YESTERDAY
*(dh)ghies yesterday’. [/EW 41 ( *ghdies)\ Wat 14
(*dhgh(y)es-)\ Buck 14.49]. OIr inde ‘yesterday’, Weis doe
‘yesterday’, Lat heri ‘yesterday’, ON 1 gaer ‘yesterday’, OE
geostra ‘yesterday’ (> NE yester ), OHG gesteron ‘yesterday’,
Goth gistra-dagis ‘tomorrow’ (Gmc < suffixed comparative
*ghies-ter-), Alb dje ‘yesterday’, Grk yOeq ‘yesterday’, Av zyo
‘yesterday’, OInd hya- Yesterday’. The etymological basis of
Goth gistra-dagis is puzzling; we have no PIE word for
‘tomorrow’ (utilizing mostly forms like ‘in the morning for
that purpose). However, *(dh)ghies ‘yesterday’ is definitely
PIE.
See also Day; Time; Today. [P.B.]
YEW
*hjeiyos ‘yew ( Taxus baccata)'. [1EW291 ( *(e)i-\jo-)\ Wat
16 {*ei-)\ GI 540-542 {*ei-wo-)\ Fried 121-125]. OIr eo ‘yew’,
ibar ‘yew’, Weis ywen ‘yew’, ON yr ‘yew’, OE Iw ‘yew’ (> NE
yew), OHG Iwa ‘yew’, OPrus iuwis ‘yew’, Lith leva ‘bird cherry’,
Latv ieva ‘bird cherry’, OCS iva ‘willow’, Rus iva ‘willow’, Hit
oxs e(y)a(n)- ?yew’. If Hittite is allowed, PIE status.
*taksos ‘yew (Taxus baccata)'. [IEW 1059 ( *fek u -); cf. Wat
69 ( *tek w -)\ cf. Gl 541; Fried 125-129], Lat taxus yew', Rus
tis ‘yew’, Grk ro^ov ‘bow’, Scythian taxsa ‘bow’, MPers taxs
‘bow’. At least late PIE status but irregularities in the vowel
correspondence are striking.
The first term is well supported by a half-dozen or more
languages each in Germanic and Slavic, all of which denote
‘yew’. The yew figured in early Germanic legal and ritual
symbolism, e.g., the judge’s staff, perhaps because of its special
properties such as truly extraordinary longevity. Regular
phonological correspondences between these cognates permit
us to posit a central dialectal feminine o-stem, *h]eiuos. But
— 654 —
YOUNG
\
the central dialectal forms have another cognate in distant
Hit eyan, which appears in ritual and legal texts with the
meaning, scholars have concluded, of ‘evergreen’ and the yew
occurs in a text that stresses its longevity, asking for a long
reign for the king and queen; the yew flourishes in Anatolia
and the north Caucasus. Moving away from tight semantic
correspondences, we find a set of forms in "Baltic meaning
variously ‘yew’ or ‘bird cherry’. In the same vein, the Greek
forms denoted the ‘bird cherry’ or ‘service tree’. The denotation
in Greek and Baltic may have been motivated by shared
properties (berries, red heartwood, etc.); in fact, one reputable
hypothesis derives all the potential yew words from a PIE
*hiei- ‘reddish’ which may also underlie Lat uva ‘grape’; by
yet another hypothesis the entire ‘yew’ set, irrespective of the
color term, is cognate with the ‘grape’ set in Latin and Armen-
ian but this is speculative. In any case, *hieiuos was a PIE
term for the ‘yew, (specifically the) English yew’, stands of
which grew throughout Europe, Anatolia and the Caucasus,
and which had diverse ritual uses as well as providing the
raw material for bows, as the second term suggests.
The bow, for which yew wood is ideal, was used from pre-
PIE, i.e. , Mesolithic, times on throughout Eurasia and naturally
including the greater IE area. In fact, archery was a favored
sport among the Vedic, Old Persian, Hittite and Mycenaean
Greek aristocracies as frequently reflected in both texts and
their visual arts. The English yew, incidentally, was so ideal
for bows that the west European stands had been largely
destroyed by the end of the Middle Ages. Above all, the
Scythians, preserving an archaic pattern, made archery a
quintessential aristocratic (and generally martial) skill, using
a word taxsa ( taxs in Mediaeval Persian) that is (almost too)
transparently cognate with Greek xo^ov (occurring about
twenty-five times in Homer, including the climactic scene in
the Odyssey). It has often been presumed that the Greek word
was borrowed from the Iranian, either during the initial
contacts between Greek colonists and Iranian-speaking steppe
nomads north of the Black Sea in the seventh century BC or
after Scythian archers later served as the Athenian police;
however, the word is already present in late Bronze Age Greece,
e.g. Myc to-ko-so-wo-ko = Grk x o^o(f)opyog ‘bow maker’.
Presumably a Proto- Greek and Proto-Iranian (?) form for ‘yew’
shifted to ‘bow’ by the same metonymy by which ‘ash’ went
to ‘spear’ while a borrowed term ofiiXat, began to be used for
the tree. In two other stocks, on the other hand, the reflexes
of PIE *taksos retained their original arboreal meaning,
notably in the Slavic languages and Latin. In any event, the
association of the yew with the bow is so widespread, that
almost any discovery of a Neolithic or later bow in Europe
will be predictably of yew, e g., most recently the yew bow-
stave of the Tyrolian “Ice-man”.
See also Berry; Bow and Arrow; Trees. [REJ
YOKE
*iugdm ‘yoke’. [/EW 508-509 ( *iu-go-m ); Wat 79
(*yug-o-)\ GI 625 ( *yuk’om )\ Buck 10.781. OWels iou ‘yoke’.
Lat iugum ‘yoke’, ON ok ‘yoke’, OE geoc ‘yoke’ (> NE yoke),
OHG joh ‘yoke’, Goth juk ‘pair’, Lith jungas ‘yoke’ (whose
form has been influenced by the corresponding verb), Grk
fi>ydv‘yoke’, Arm luc (whose initial has been influenced by
lucanem ‘unharness’) ‘yoke’, Hit yukan ‘yoke; couple, pajr’,
Av yugam ‘yoke’, NPers juy ‘yoke’, Olnd yugam ‘yoke’.
(Perhaps Olr cuing ‘yoke’ belongs here if it reflects *com-
iungo-.) Different formations with identical meaning include
*iugtdm ‘yoke’ in OE geoht and Olnd yuktam and *iuges-
‘yoke’ in OE gycer , Goth jukuzi (< *yukizi with assimilation
of the second vowel to the first), OCS igo (pi. izesa) ‘yoke’,
Rus igo ‘yoke’. The underlying verb *ieug- (pres, ju-ne-g-ti)
‘joins, harnesses’ is seen in Lat iungo ‘join, harness’, OHG
untar-jauhta ‘l subjugated’ (compare also ON eykr (< *ieugis)
‘draft-animal’), Lith jungti ‘join, harness’, Grk ^evyvv/ji ‘join,
harness’, Av yuj- ‘join, harness’, Olnd yunakti ~ yanjati ‘joins,
harnesses’ (and yojayati ‘joins together’). This word is
widespread and obviously ancient in IE, failing to appear only
in Albanian and Tocharian. (Though it has been suggested
that *iugom might be independently derived in those stocks
where it appears, there being nothing archaic or otherwise
special about its morphological form, the fact that it does
exist in this exact form so widely, even in languages, such as
Hittite, where the underlying verb is not attested, makes the
hypothesis of common inheritance by far the better one.)
The yoke was the normal method of harnessing oxen for
their use in traction in pulling plows or wheeled vehicles.
The yoke was later applied to horse traction until proper horse
harnessing appeared (late in the west, earlier in China). The
earliest depictions of wheeled vehicles also include representa-
tions of yokes, hence we find the graphic representations of
yokes at least from the fourth millennium BC onwards, e g.,
in the TRB culture, and also evidence for paired draught
(paired oxen in burials) which would generally imply yokes
although it has also been argued that cattle might also be
yoked to vehicles or plows by their horns on the evidence of
cord marks on horn cores from the TRB culture as well as
ethnographic evidence. Traces of yokes are also known from
the wagon burials found in the steppelands north of the
Caucasus in the late fourth and third millennia BC. As the
‘plow’ is reconstructible to PIE a word for ‘yoke’ might almost
have been predicted.
See also Plow; Shaft, Tool, Wagon. [D.Q.A., J.RM.l
YOUNG
*h^eu- ‘young’. [/EW510 ( *\eu-)\ Wat 79 ( *yeu-)\ Buck
14.14; 1. Olr da ‘younger’, MWels ieu ‘younger’, OE geong
‘young’ (>NE young), Goth juggs ‘young’, Lat iuven is ‘young’,
Lith jaunas ‘young’, Latv jauns ‘young’, OCS junu ‘young’, Av
yvan- ‘youth’, Olnd yu van- ‘young’. The various IE languages
reflect some form of this root: Germanic employs a suffixed
form */iaJeu-n/c-; Latin, Baltic, Slavic and Indo-lranian reflect
an extended zero-grade of *h a iuuen~. From *h a 6i us ‘strength,
vitality’. The root is definitely of PIE status.
*haiuhx-Q-Kds ‘youth’. [IEW 510 ( *iuugk6-s> Wat 79
— 655 —
YOUNG
( *yeu-)\ Buck 14. 14] . OIr oac ( D1L oc) ‘youth’, Weis ieuanc ~
ifanc ‘youth’, Lat iuvencus ‘young (cow)’, ON ungr' young’,
OE geong ‘young’ (> NE young), OHG jung ‘young’, Goth
juggs ‘young’, Olnd yuvasa- ‘young’. From *h a oi us ‘strength,
vitality’, i.e. ‘one possessed of vitality’. Widespread and old
in IE.
*maghus ‘young man’, *maghyih a - ‘young woman’. [7EW
696 ( *maghu-)\ Wat 38 ( *maghu-)\ BK 545 (*mag-)]. Olr
mug 1 male slave or servant’, Corn maw 1 youth; servant’, mowes
‘young woman’, Bret mao ‘youth; servant’, OE mago ‘son;
man; servant’, maeg(e)p ‘maiden, virgin; girl; wife’, NE
maid(en), OHG magad ‘young woman’, Goth magus ‘youth’,
mawi ‘young woman’, magaps ‘young woman’, Av mayava-
‘unmarried’. As if from *magguos is OWels map ‘son’; as if
from *mak w os is Olr mac(c). All possibly from *magh- ‘be
able’ (cf. *uih x r6s ‘man’ from *ueih x - ‘strength, vitality’). A
word mostly of the far west of the IE world with an outlier in
Iranian.
*m&ijos young man’, *meijh a - ‘young woman’. [7EW738-
739 ( *merio-)\ Wat 38 ( *mari-)\ BK 522 ( *mar-/*mor-) ] . Latin
maritus ‘husband; lover, suitor’ (< *merih a -to- ‘one possessed
of a young woman’). Alb shemer‘co-wife, concubine; (female)
rival’ (< older shemere ), Grk psipcd; ‘young man or woman’,
Av mairya- ‘young man’, Olnd marya- ‘young man, lover,
suitor’. Somewhat more distantly related is Lith merga ‘girl’.
?*koryos ‘youth’. 1/EW577 ( *ker-)\ Wat 30 ( *kor-wo-)\
Buck 2.25; Szem 3.1], Myc ko-wo ‘boy’, Grk KOp(f)oq ‘boy,
son’, Kurdish kur ‘son’. At best a late word of the IE southeast.
It is not certain that the Kurdish word belongs here and, if
not, then the Greek word is best reconstructed as *kdruos
and taken as a derivative of *ker- ‘grow’. The Kurdish word
has also been plausibly taken as related to NPers kurre ‘foal,
colt’, Oss kur ‘steer, young ox’ and, outside Iranian, to
Macedonian Kvpvoq ‘bastard’, and Hit kurka- ‘foal’.
Young men were designated in a number of ways,
depending upon their functions and the attitudes they evoked,
but the commonest term referring principally to their
youthfulness was *h a iuh x -p-kos based on a widespread root
for ‘young’. Young women were often referred to by *m(e)nh a
a term which is reflected not only in terms for young women
and wives in Greek and Albanian but by terms for bachelors
or newly wed males in Latin and Indo-Iranian.
See also Age Set; Warriors. [M.E.H., PB. ]
— 656 —
ZARUBINTSY CULTURE
Zarubintsy is the easterly variant of the Przeworsk-
Zarubintsy complex of cultures that occupied the northern
Dnieper region from the third or second century BC to the
second century AD. The culture is known from about five-
hundred settlements and cemeteries. The settlements include
both open sites and hilltop villages defended by banks and
ditches, the later indicating attacks from (Iranian-speaking)
Sarmatian tribes. These settlements, consisting of ten to fifteen
small houses that measured about 12 to 16 m 2 , have been
interpreted as the residences of single tribes. The economy
was based on mixed agriculture. Among the plants raised
were millet, wheat, barley, rye, pea, lentil, bean, hemp and
flax. An unusually high percentage of wild faunal remains
may suggest deliberate hunting for skins to supply the Black
Sea trading towns. Burial was by cremation in an urn or pit.
The territory, both in terms of geographical position and the
evidence of early Slavic river names, is probably to be
associated with the (Proto-?) Slavic language although there
are scholars to argue both a Germanic, or Baltic identity.
See also Przeworsk Culture; Slavic Languages. (J.RM.]
Further Reading
Hausler, A. (1986) Zu den sozialokonomischen Verhaltnissen in der
Zarubincy-Kultur. Zeitschrift fur Archaologie 20,1 45- 170.
Zarubintsy a. Distribution of the Zarubintsy culture.
— 657 —
iARUBINTSY CULTURE
LANGUAGE INDEX
Proto-Indo-European 661
Albanian 681
Anatolian 683
Hittite 683
Palaic 686
Luvian 686
Hieroglyphic Luvian 686
Lycian 686
Lydian 687
Milyan 687
Armenian 687
Old Armenian 687
Middle Armenian 687
New Armenian 687
Baltic 690
Old Prussian 690
Lithuanian 692
Latvian 698
Celtic 701
Continental Celtic 701
British 702
Old British 702
Old Welsh 702
Middle Welsh 702
New Welsh 703
Old Breton 705
Middle Breton 705
New Breton 705
Old Cornish 705
Middle Cornish 705
New Cornish 705
Irish 705
Ogham Irish 705
Old Irish 705
Middle Irish 709
New Irish 710
Indo-European Languages
Scots Gaelic 710
Germanic 7 1 1
Early Germanic 711
Early Germanic 711
Runic 711
East Germanic 711
Gothic 711
Crimean Gothic 714
West Germanic 714
Old High German 714
Middle High German 720
New High German 721
Swiss German 721
Middle Low German 721
New Low German 721
Middle Dutch 721
New Dutch 721
Old Saxon 721
Frisian 721
Old English 722
Middle English 729
New English 729
North Germanic 733
Old Norse 733
Old Danish 739
New Danish 739
New Icelandic 739
Norwegian 739
Old Swedish 739
New Swedish 739
Greek 739
Mycenaean 739
Greek 739
New Greek 750
Indo-Aryan 751
Older Indie 751
— 659 —
Mitannic 751
Old Indie 751
Middle Indie 760
Prakrit 760
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit 760
Modem Indie 761
Gawarbati 761
Hindi 761
Kalasa 761
Kashmiri 761
Khowar 761
Maldivian 761
Marathi 761
Nepali 761
Panjabi 761
Pashai 761
Sindhi 761
Torwali 761
Nuristani 761
Ashkun 761
Kati 761
Nuristani 761
Prasun 761
Tregami 761
Waigali 761
Iranian 761
Eastern Iranian 761
Avestan 761
Bajui 766
Sogdian 766
Sogdian (Buddhist) 766
Sogdian (Manichean) 766
Sogdian (Parthian) 766
East Iranian 766
Early Iranian 766
Ishkashimi 766
LANGUAGE INDEX
Khotanese Saka 766
Middle Iranian 768
Russian Church Slavonic 782
Khufi 766
Parthian 768
Old Russian 782
Khwarezmian 766
Italic 769
New Russian 783
Munji 766
Oscan 769
Ukrainian 785
Ormuri 766
Umbrian 769
West Slavic 785
Oroshi 766
Paelignian 769
Old Czech 785
Ossetic 766
Sabine 769
Czech 785
Parachi 767
Old Latin 769
Kashubian 785
Pashto 767
Latin 769
Polabian 785
Roshani 767
Late Latin 777
Old Sorbian 785
Sanglechi 767
Old French 777
Lower Sorbian 785
Sarikoli 767
New French 777
Old Polish 785
Scythian 767
Italian 777
New Polish 785
Shughni 767
Portuguese 777
Tocharian 786
Wakhi 767
Rheto-Romance 778
Tocharian A 786
Wanji 767
Romanian 778
Tocharian B 788
Yagnobi 767
Spanish 778
Other Indo-European
Yazghulami 767
Slavic 778
Languages 791
Yidga 767
South Slavic 778
Dacian 791
Zoroastrian Pahlevi 767
Old Church Slavonic 778
Illyrian 791
Western Iranian 767
Middle Bulgarian 782
Macedonian 791
Old Persian 767
Bulgarian 782
Messapic 791
Middle Persian 768
Serbian Church Slavonic 782
Phrygian 791
New Persian 768
Old Serbian 782
Raetic 792
Bakhtiari 768
Serbo-Croatian 782
Thracian 792
Baluchi 768
Slovenian 782
Venetic 792
Kurdish 768
East Slavic 782
Non-Indo-European Languages
Afro-Asiatic 792
Mongolian 792
Sino-Tibetan 793
Berber 792
Turkish 792
Proto-Sino-Tibetan 793
Egyptian 792
Caucasian 793
Burmese 793
Hausa 792
Abkhaz 793
Chinese 793
Proto-Semitic 792
Agul 793
Sumerian 793
Akkadian 792
Chechen 793
Uralic 793
Arabic 792
Etruscan 793
Proto-Uralic 793
Flebrew 792
Hattie 793
Estonian 793
Phoenician 792
Hurro-Urartian 793
Finnish 793
Syriac 792
Hurrian 793
Flungarian 793
Syrian 792
Urartian 793
Ingush 793
Tigre 792
Kartvelian 793
Komi 793
Ugarit 792
Proto-Kartvelian 793
Mari 793
Bantu 792
Georgian 793
Mordvin 793
Basque 792
Korean 793
Samoedic 793
Altaic 792
Nilo-Sharan 793
Udmurt 793
Chuvash 792
Nubian 793
Veps 793
Karakalpak 792
— 660 —
Xanty 793
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
* abhor- 358
*adu - 486
*ak w eheh a 487
*(a)lbh - 177
*alontoseh a 487
*alu 352
*alu- 7, 433, 620
*am- 386
*am-bhi 400
*an- 385
*anos 486
*ar 583
*at - 195
*atlos 14
*baba- 42
*badios 85
*baitih 2 - 109
*bak - 110
*balba- 542
*balbal- 542
*bandu- 477
*barbar- 542
*baub- 5 1
*bel- 242, 305
*belos 317, 550
*b(e)u- 412
*blek- 70
*boliios 525
*b(o)mb- 395
*bu- 68
284
*bukketi 284
*bulis 88
*bhabheh a - 55, 433
*bhag - 161
*bhagus 17
*bhaghus 26
*bhako/eh a - 10, 433
*bhar- 453
*bhardheh a - 251
*bhardheh a tos 251
*bhar-es- 453
*bhares(o)s 51
*bhars 7, 51, 432
*bhebhesti 490
Proto-Indo-European
Alphabetic order: a, b, bh, d, db, e, g, g, gh, gh, g w , g^, hi, h2, h3, 114, b a> b x> i/j,
k, E, kh, k w , 1/1, m/rji, n/$, o, p, ph, r/p, s, t, u/y
*bhebhrinos 57,
*bhebbrus 57, 313, 364,
576
*bhedh- (bed) 57, 62
*bhedh- (dig) 159
*bheg - 81
*b(h)egh 646
*bheg w - 491
*bheg w e/o- 49 1
*bheh 2 - 352, 353, 513
*bheh 2 (e)s- 352
*bheh2ti 513
*bheh 2 tis 353
*Wie/v 346, 535
*bheh a d- 236
*bheh a g- (fortune) 211
*bhehag- (sharp) 510
*bhehagos 211
*bhehag6s 32, 58, 294,
599, 600
*bhehaghus 26
*bheh a meh a - 535
*bheh a ti 535
*bheid- 538
*bheidh- (persuade) 418
*bheidh- (pot) 444
*bheih a - 549
*bhei(hx)- 57
*bhel- (blow) 7 1
*bhel- (coot) 125
*bhe/- (forehead) 209
*bhel- (henbane) 8, 267
*bhd- (leaf) 207, 348
*bhel- (mammals) 91,
364, 365, 371
*bhel- (pot) 444
*bhel- (priest) 45 1
*bhelgh- 45, 561
*bhelhi - 641
*bhelhios 641
*bhelh a gs 282, 431
*bhels- 5 1
*bhendh- 64, 196
*bhendhfros 196
*bhenegti 81
*bhengb - 3
*bhenghus 3
*bher- (break) 81, 549
*bher- (brown) 85, 115,
356
*bher- (clothing) 109
*bher- (cook) 76, 125
*bher- (heal) 262, 376
*bher - (bear) 84, 387,
452, 496
*bhere/o- 28, 56, 90, 467,
478, 525, 592
*bhereg- 5 1
*bhereu- 76
*bhergh- 268
*bhergh- 269, 630
*bherghs 210, 269
*bherghus 14
*bherh 1 -u- 539
*bherhxg- 513, 514
*bherhxgos 65, 295, 378,
583, 599, 600
*bherk- 514
*bhermn - 90
*bheromes 462
*bhers- 194
*bhertlom 356
*bhertor 452
*bh e rug- 249
*bhes- (blow) 72, 82
*bhes- (rub) 490
*bhesneh a - 623
*bheud - 549
*bheudh- 516, 636
*bheudhetor 636
*bheug- (bend) 62
*bheug- (flee) 206
*bheug- (use) 614
*bheug(h)- 621
*bheu(h x )~ 53
*bheuh x tlom 649
*bhh 2 teis 353
*bhh x u - 649
*bhibhoih x € 198
*bhidrds 28
*bhid s tos 538
*bhidh - 444, 446
*bhih a e/o- 549
*bhi-k w 6- 57
*bhmed s ti 538
*bhmeh a ti 549
*bhlag- 549
*bhlaghmen 451
*bhleg- 513
*bhlegti 5 1 3
*bhlehi- 70
*bhlehne/o- 70
*bhl(e)hmos 246
*bhlei- 7 1
*bhlendh- 147
*bhleu- 561
*bhleud- 561
*bhleug- 561
*bhlgenti 513
*bhjbi6s 641
*bhlfy a d- 348
*bhlh a gos 43 1
*bhlihxg- 549
* 6/#- 431
*bhlohxdhos 207
*bhluseh a - 206
*bhQghous 3
*bhodb x rds 149, 376
*bhdg- 125
*bhoh a no/eh a - 535
*bhdlghis 45 , 561
*bholhios 1 14, 641
*hhdlhis 641
*bhdIiom 348
*bhdlom 209
*bhdr- 9 1
*bhorg w os 22
*bhone/o- 549
*bhoros 9 1
*-bhoros 9 1
*bhosos 45
*bhdu 400
*bhoudei 549
*bhoudheie/o- 516
*bhrag- 81
*bhrak- 450, 451
*bhrakie/o- 450
*bhreg- 81
*bhreh}U[ 539
*bhreh a ter47 , 84, 221,
242, 305, 333, 463, 525
— 661 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*bhreh a ter - 478, 480
*bhreh a mieh a - 84
*bhreh a tfiom 84
*bhreh a tru}os 334, 392
*bhreh x i - 158
*bhrei - 158
*bhrem- 24
*bhrentos 155, 365
*bhres- 8 1
*bhreu- (break) 81
*bhreu- (ferment) 199
*bhreus- (break) 81, 158
*bhreus- (swell) 561
*bh[g - 125
*bhrg - 125
*bhfgh- 269
*bhfghent- 269
*bh[ghptih a 269
*bh[ghos 269
*bhfghus 269
*bhrfy a k- 451
*bhris - 194
*bhgno - 155
*bh[ntds 155
*bhrodhnos 642
*b(h)roid(h)is 155, 365
*bhfso-on- 418
*bhfsUs 439
*bhftis 91
*bhpus 2 1 1
*bhfu - 109
*bhruhinds 539
*bhruh x s 17, 18, 188,
478, 480
*bhrutom 199
*bhs-eh a -ti 490
*bhudhnd- 247, 248
*bhugos 98, 229, 366, 576
*6/11//]*- 47, 236, 649
*bbub x siont- 53
*bhuh x ti- 53
*bhuiie/o- 53
*bhu-n-dh - 636
*bhunekti 614
*bhunktor 614
*bhuto- 53
*da- 204
*daih a uer 84, 85
*dapnom 496
*das- 343
*de 37, 590
*de- 43
*de 37
*dedorke 469
*dedorkh2e 468
*dedrukos 522
*dedrus 375, 522
*deg- 595
*dege/o- 595
*dehi- 64, 261
* deb imp 261
*deh3- 185, 186, 224,
468, 563, 650
*de/] 3 nos 185
*de/i 3 f 185, 186
*deh 3 fer224
*deh 3 tores ueseudm 438
*deh a - 416
*deh a (i)~ 160
*deh a mos 416
*deh a nu- 232, 486, 487
*deh a u- 87
*dei- 513
*deig- 159
*deigh- 628, 629
*dei£- 159, 346, 516
*deikst 468
*deikt 468
*deino- 149, 173
*deiu- 149, 173
*deiuos 47, 222,230
*de-kont- 403
*dek- (hair) 252, 569
*dek- (honor) 271
*de£- (numerals) 403
*dek- (take) 564
*dekes- 271
*dekip 28, 98,242,305,
317,403
*dekip-duo 404
*dekrp(e)tos 403
*dekipmos 403
*dekmos 403
*de-krpt- 403
*dekipt- 403
*dekqitos 403
*deks- 403
*deks(i)nos 130, 271, 485
*deks(i)teros 271, 485
*deks(i)uos 271 , 485
*deku- 403, 404
*de/- (flow) 207
*de/- (cut) 143, 397
*dem- 206
*deme/o- 592
*demehs 650
*dem(h a )- 87, 192,281,
565
*dem(h a )e/o- 87
*demh x - 565
*dems 192, 281
*dems-pot(i)- 281, 371,
531
*denk- 68
*dens- 567
*denses- 567
*densus 574
*dephx- 550
*der- (grain) 237
*der- (sleep) 526
*der- (tear) 522, 567
*derbh- 607
*derdh- 526
*dergh - 564
*derh a - 649
*derk- 169, 468, 505, 623
*derketos 623
*deru- 598
*deruo/eh a - 598
*des- 179
*deuh4~ 349
*deuk- 468, 471
*deuke/o- 471
*deu(s)- 343
*dh2ekru 567
*d(7] 3 )eu- 650
*dfr 3 ghmds 525
*dh a ep- 496
*dh a epnom 496
*dideh 3 - 468
*didreh a ti 491
*die~ 98, 149
*die(u)- 149
*d]eu- 230, 513
*dieus 119, 165, 230, 231
*dj£us p&jter 230, 231 , 438
*digos 229, 366
*dig(h)- 357
*dighos 628
*dighs 283,628, 629
*dih j- 208
*dihiie/o- 208
*dih x tis 10
*diieus 513
*d/ks 229, 366
*dikeh a - 159, 516
*diktis 516
*dino- 149, 173
*dis- 25, 43
*diuios 230
*diu(o)~ 576
*(d)komt- 404
*dlehighistos 305
*dlgho-h a oiu 439
*dlhigbos 305, 357
*dlhighoteh a - 357
*d)kus 317, 560
*dlonghos 357
*drpneh x ti 565
*drp-pedom 206, 282, 283
*dpghuh a - 17, 18, 594
*dpg w heh a - 592
*dpg w heh a n- 222
*dpg w heh a t- 98
*dpsous 574
*dpsros 567
*do 37, 590
*ddgei 595
*do/] 3 . 47
*doh3nom 3 1 7
*doh3nus 98
*doh3rom 28, 242
*doikos 159, 516
*doios 399
*doios 400
*dokei 564
*doklo- 252, 569
*ddm 192, 281, 282, 283
*dom(h a )- 193, 531, 565
*dom(h a )os 192, 193,281,
282, 283
*dom(h a )u-nos 371
*domh x eh a - 468
*domh x eh a li 565
*domfyxios 136
*domh x tor- 565
*domos 525
*don- 481
*donu 555
*dork w 175
*dork w om 175
*doru 14, 305, 598, 592,
599
* dous- 17, 26
*drap - 109
*dreb - 109
*drehj- 526
*dreh a - 1 15, 491
*drem- (run) 1 15, 491
*drem- (sleep) 526
*drep- 109, 567
*dreu- 486
*dreuentih 2 486
*dreuom 598
*dfb a ie/o- 649
*dfh x ueb a - 7, 237, 432
*d/£- 169
*dfk w os 175
*drop- 109
— 662
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*drous 598
*dru 598
*druh a - 598
*druh a o/eh a - 598
*dubus 47
*d\ieh 3 (u) 399
*dueh a ros 356
*duei - 198
*du(e)i-plos 400
*duh a eh a - 592
*duh a ros 356
*dui- 198, 400
*duigheh a - 10
*duiios 399
*dyis 400
*duis- 25
*d\iitos 399
*dukeh a - J \7\
*dud dekiji 404
*duo-deku 404
*duoi- 400
*duoiios 400
*duoios 400
*dus- 43, 281
*dus-kl6\}es- 438
*dus-menes- 438
*dusmenis 281
*duueh 3 (u) 399
*d(u)ijioi - 399
*d(u)uoiios 400
*dhabh - 139
*dhabhros 139
*dhal- 348
*dheb- 574
*dhebh- 258, 528
*dhedhhii 382
*dhedhnos 382
*dhegh - 205
*dh(e)ghem - 419
*dheghom 174
*dheg w h- 87
*dheg w he/o - 10
*dh(e)hi- H 3
*dhehi- (god) 231
*dhehi- (put) 141, 237,
345, 346, 348, 352,
390, 472, 506, 543
*dhehi- (suck) 556
*dhehj- (uncle) 610
*dheh 1 (i)~ 82,237,382,
556
*dhehilus 82, 317
*dheh intis 345
*dhehim$ 345
*dhehis 231
*dhehiter - 141
*dheh pis 345
*dheh a unos 647
*dhei- 358
*dheigh- 87,576,592,649
*dheighti 649
*dheighti peigti (-k w e) 439
*dheig w - 472
*dheihxg w - 472
*d(h)ek w - 516
*d(h)ek w se/o- 516
*dhelbh - 1 59
*dhelg- 424, 428
*dhemh )r 147
*dhen- 486, 491
*dhenf 255
*dher- (hold) 270
*dher- (jump) 323
*dhergh- 528, 600
*dherghdn 528
*dherghs 528
*dhergh- 64
*dherh a - 270
*dhers- 35, 80
*dheu- (death) 82,150,375
*dheu- (run) 491
*dheub- 154
*dheubos 222
*dheye/o- 49 1
*dheugh- (daughter) 148
*dheugh- (fortune) 211,
614
*dheu(h 2 )~ 388, 529
*dheuk - 268
*dheup - 154
*d(h)eup- 534
*dheus- 103
*dhghem- 248
*dhgh(e)men 247
*dhghemdn 248
*(dh)ghies 654
*dhghmeh a (-i) 247
*dhghrpon- 366, 367
*dhghom - 366
*dhghom- p\th a u- 438
*dhghuh x - 205,604
*dhg w hei- 150, 158, 375
*dhg w her- 207
*dhg w hitis 150
*dhhiileh a ~ 82
*dh(i;s-en-23l
*dhfaisos 231
*dhi}iteis 345
*dhbaVos 647
*dhidhehiti 472, 506
*dhineghti 649
*dhjgh- 123,
*dhrpbhos 243
*dhpgdus 147
*dhdg w hos 149
*dhohjmos 222
*dhoh a us 647
*dhoh x neh a - 7,237,305,
432, 592
*dhoigh-o- 629
*dhdlh a os 618
*dh(o)ngu - 147
*dhongus 147
*dhdndu 202
*dhonu- 78, 202,600
*dhdnu- 232, 486
*dhoughei 614
*dhoukei 268
*dhreg- 477
*dhreg- 226
*dhregh- (pull) 471
*dhregh- (run) 49 1 , 640
*dhregh- 491
*dhreibh - 170
*dhren- 58, 395
*dhreugh- (companion)
116
*dhreugh- (spirit) 154,
538
*dhfghnos 528
*dhfghds 528
*dhrigh - 252
*dhrogh- 170
*dhroghos 640
*dhroughos 538
*dhroughos 115
*dh[stis 81
*dh[sus 81
*dhubhos 638
*dhubros 592
*dhuen- 533
*dhuenhx - 147
*dhiier- (harm) 258, 424
*dhuer- (shaft) 508
*dhuerhx~ 258, 424
*dhuer(h x )gh- 258
*dhyes- 150, 538
*dbuesmi 82
*dhug - 148
*dhug(h a )ter 525
*dhug(h a )ter 147, 222,
231, 393
*dhug(h a )ter diuos 149,
231,438
*dhug(h a )trds 147
*dhuh2mos 47, 525, 529
*dhuh x nos 210
*dhulis 160
*dhunos 210, 211, 630
*dhuor98, 168, 282, 283
*dhuoros 592
*dhur- 28, 242
*dhur- 508
*dhurds 168
*dhurom 222
*dhurhx- 14
*e- 399
*ek w etu- 402
*ek w etJjo(s) 402
*(e)neijQ 403
*eni-oino- 399
*esor 412
*etro- 194
345
*ga/- (able) 3
*ga/- (call) 89, 112
*ga/ondh~ 639
*gargos 568
*gehi(0- 519
*geh a dh- 256
*geh a u- 256
*geh x gh- 625
*geM- 62
*geid - 45 1
*gel- 113
*gem- 450
*gen- 45 1
*ger- (crane) 28, 67, 140
*ger- (gather) 2 1 7
*ger- (noise) 395
*gerg- 534
*ges- 284
*geu- (bend) 62, 179
*geu- (charcoal) 104
(hair) 252
*g(e)ulo- 104
*geulos 62
247
*gleubh- 143
*glhps 317, 364, 387, 522
*glogh- 575
*gloiuos 108
*glukus 560
*gneihh- 451
*gneu- 45 1
*gneug- 451
*gol(h x )uos 45
— 663 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*gordebhds 33, 34, 365
*gouf 252
*gras - 175
*greut- 45 1
*grih x ueh a - 175
* grigs 160
*gubho/eh a - 283
*gudom 62, 179
*guesdos 80
*gulom 104
*gunos 252
*gupeh a - 62
*gumos 62
*guros 62
*gutf 17, 18, 62,249
*gar- 89
*ge/- 349
*gelu- 349
*|era- 247
*gembh- 594
369, 533
*g(e)m(hx)ros 85, 332
*gemh x tos 533
*gen- (know) 288
*gen- (bear) 288, 531
*genh!- 56, 107, 192,
288,419, 533, 576
*genh}es - 192
*genhitor 195
*genhitrih a - 386
*gemt 14, 17
*genu- 98, 222,317, 322,
336, 592
* genus 336
*geP- 175
*gerh a - 152, 237, 248,410
*gerh a ont- 152, 409
*gerh a ontes 7
*gerh a onts 531
*gerh a os 409
*geus- 566
*gieuhx - 175
*glain- 83
*glaktos 381
*glhi- 28
*g\b3Uos- 521, 522
*g(j)lakt 381
*grpmh x ros 533
*grp-ro-s 533
*gneh3- 336, 518
*gneh3mp 518
*gneh 3 ter- 337
*gneh 3 tis 337
*gneh3tds 337
*g$h3neh a - 336
*gnfr a dhos 322
*g$neh a - 47
*gombhos 10, 17, 18,305,
525, 592, 594
*gomh x ter- 533
*gonh a dh-o-s 322
*gonu 17, 18, 28, 242,
305, 336
*gonuihi 592
*gfh a ndm 7, 236, 432
87, 88
* gust is 566
*gustus 566
*ghabh- 563
*ghabhlo/eh a - 209
*ghaidos 229, 317, 366
*ghais- 4
*ghait(so)- 251
*ghebhol 260
*ghednie/o - 10
*ghedh- 64
*gheh a - 653
*gheh a (u)m[ 387
*ghel- (call) 89, 247
(smooth) 529
*ghel- (yellow) 654
*gheldh- 158
*ghelgheh a - 225
*ghel(h 2 )d- 287
*gheluh x s 595
*gheluneh a - 17, 356
*ghendh- 523
*ghe(n)dh- 564
*ghe(n)dh(i)e/o- 564
*gher- (animal cry) 24
*gher- (hedgehog) 264
*gher- (take) 564
264, 363
*gherdh- 199, 224
*ghersos 90, 205
*gh(e)rto- 382
*gheugh- 268
*ghh a i- 537
*gh\dhie/o - 158
*ghleh x dh-(ro)~ 529
*ghleu - 255
*ghl(h2)-ed- 287
*gh$dne/o- 98
*gholdhos 158
*ghdrdhoi 10
*ghordhos 10, 152, 199,
222, 525
*ghordhs 199, 224
*ghordhs 199
*ghdrtos 199
*ghostis 249, 317
*ghou - 418
*ghouehi- 418
*ghouros 568
*ghfdhds 199
*ghrebh- (dig) 159
*ghrebh- (take) 563, 564
*ghredh- 546
*ghrei- 595
*ghreib- 564
*ghreibe/o- 564
*ghrem- 582
*ghrendh- 247
*ghrendheti 247
*ghres- 577
*g(h)reuom 48 1
*ghroibheh a - 564
*ghromos 582
*g(h)ru(n)(d)- 249
*ghaises - 537
*ghaisos 537, 630
*ghalgheh a - 442
*ghalh x -r/n- 43
*ghalh x ros 43
*ghan - 236
*ghans 67, 236, 558
*ghasdhos 442
*ghede/o - 187
*ghedie/o- 187
*ghehi - 349
*ghehiiu- 653
*ghei- 274
*gheim - 504
*gheimeh a - 47, 525
*gheimen- 242
*gheios 274, 365
*gheis- 214
*ghel- (color) 114, 115,
217, 234, 558, 654
*ghel- (plow) 435
*gheln - 217
*ghengh- 546
*gher- (pig) 425
*£/ier- (shine) 514
*gher- (short) 515
*gherdh- 199
*gh(e)rh x - 180
*ghers- 5 1 , 547
*ghesl(ii)os 405
*ghes-lo- 405
*ghesf 405
*ghesr- 10
*ghesr- 14, 17,28,254,255
*gheu- 351 , 448
*gheud - 222, 448
*gheu(h x )~ 89, 231, 534
*gheuh x e/o- 89
*gheumQ 351
*gh(e)utreh a - 444
*gh(hi)iieh a - 653
*ghb a \ios 96
W 335
*(ghi/e)ghehjti 349
*ghihjneb a - 653
*ghim- 24
*ghimos 24, 305
*ghimreh a - 592
*ghidm- 504
*ghngheno/eh a - 88
*gho- 6 1
*ghohiros 534
*gboisd~ 214
*gholn- 217
*gholos 217
*g(h)ombhros 136, 137,
365
*ghor- 425, 547
* ghorh x neh a - 180
*ghor(ie/o)- 158
*ghostos 254
*ghresdh(i) 7,51, 432
*ghfsdhi 10, 51
*ghfsdhos 5 1
*ghuaks 595
*ghuer23, 366
*ghuer-h 3 dk w s 23
*ghijene/o- 592
*ghueros 23
*ghuh x eh a - 89
*ghuoig w os 514
*ghuonos 534, 592
*ghutdm 231
*g w abh- 160
*g w adh- 160
*g w edh- 62
*g w eh a - 115, 151,358,491
*g w eh a men- 1 1 5
*g w eidh- 490
*g w eih 3 - 356
^e/- (death) 150
*g w el- (pierce) 312, 424,
549
*g (w) elbhus 242, 615
*g w eleh a - 539
*g»Wh/-581
*g w elh a - 407, 408
— 664 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*g w elhx- 539
*g w eldn 312, 549
*g w el(s)~ 207
*g w em- 35, 115,358,491
*g w emie/o - 3 1 7
*g w eneh a - 28, 592
*g w enh a 14, 642, 648
*g w enh a -n 222
*g w eni- 648
*g w er(h 3 )- 175, 391
*g w er(h a )~ 474
*g w erh a nus 474
*g w erhx- 449
*g w erh x u- 10
*g w eru 536, 537, 630
*g w es- 188, 284
*g w et- 535
*g w eta 65, 500
*g w etus 2
*g w ieh 3 - 23, 500
*g w ieh 3 ue/o- 356
*g w ieh 3 yiom 22, 23, 366
*g w ieh 3 umon- 366
*(g w i)g w eh a ti 115
*g w ih 3 ue/o- 356
*g w ih 3 uo- (sap) 500
*g w ih 3 u os (live) 47, 305,
317, 356, 500, 525
*g w ih a os 78
*g w (i)ieh a (bow) 78, 630
*g w (i)iih a (destroy) 158
*g w jtur- 624
*g w rpie/o- 115
*g w rpske/o - 115, 468
*g w iptis 115
*g w neh a s 648
*g( w ^dlbhos 615
*g w orhx- 270
*g w orh x s 270
*g w ou- 47, 242, 268, 305,
525, 592, 648
*g w ouios 134
*g w ou-krpto- 137
*g w ou-k w olos 268
*g w ous 134, 365, 592
*g w 6us 98,134,365
*g w l - 10
*g w reh a u- 264
*g w reh a uon- 474
*g w retsos 574
*g w fh a u- 264
*g w [h a nous 474
270
*g w [h x -dheh i~ 436
*g w fh x -dhos 436
*g w fh x 6s 270
*g w rih x ueh a - 39 1
*g w u - 187
yuilr 186, 187
*g w uh x los 186
*g w haidros 83
*g w hedh- 98, 449
*g w hedhie/o- 449
*g w hel- 629
*g w hen- 14, 548
*g w henti 305, 548
*g w her- 88, 263
*g w hermds 28, 125', 222,
242, 263, 317
*g w hih x (-eh a )~ 569
*g w hih x (slo)- 569
47, 525
*g w hnenti 305
*g w hnske/o- 592
*g w hpto/eh a - 222
*g w hondheiyos 98
*g w honds 3
*g w honos 242
*g w horehi- 525
*g w hormds 47, 125
*g w hren - 575
*g w hrensos 263
*hiddnt- 17, 18, 594
*hie 466
*(hie)bhuh x t 53
*h ie d- 208, 237,413,594
*hiedmi 175
*hiedonom 208
*h\ed s to- 592
*hiedunds 413
*hieduol 413
*hieg- 343
*hi eg (pronouns) 454
*hieg- (speak) 535
*(hie)gneh 3 t 337
*hiegdm 454
*/2iegh- 135,365
*hjegh- 343
*hiegherom 343
*hjeghis 264, 265, 363
*hieghs 411
*h\eg w h - 175
*(hie)g w hent hjdg w him
438, 529, 579
*hieg w his 529
*hjeg w hmi 175
*h\ehig- 535
*hiehitmen- 82, 359
*hiehitr- 17, 18, 82, 359
*hiehitrds 359
*hieh 3 k- 274
*h;ej458
*hiei- (belief) 61
*h\ei- (berry) 63, 655
*hiei- (go) 227,228, 408,
487, 654
*hiei- (pronouns) 457
*h\eig- 388
*hieige/o- 388
*hieih)c 287
*hieidm 458
*hjeis- 22, 78, 262, 506
*hieisus 78
*hieiti 227
'*hieitor 487
*hietfj r 487
*hieiuos 63, 599, 600, 654
*hiekt- 393
*hiekyeh a - 274, 365
*hiekuom 621
*h!ekijos 98, 168, 222,
273, 274, 277, 365,
465, 576, 592, 621
*hiekuos hxeh 3 keues 439
*h 1 ekyot- 274, 277
*hiel- (deer) 155, 420
*hiel- (go) 228
*hiel- (swan) 558
*hielem 178, 353, 599, 600
*hieleu- 324, 599, 600
*hielhien 154, 178, 365
*hieIhienos 154
*hielh]$bhos 154
*hielh 1 mh a - 155, 365
*hielhinos 154
*hielkes- 375, 523
*hielip 178
*hi(e)lmos 178
*hieldm 178
*hielu- 1 14, 155, 481
*hiem- 564
*hjeme 454
*hjeme- 454
*hiempfs 312
*hien 4, 63, 179,248, 508
*hie/on 53
*hien- (other) 411
*hjen- (year) 654
*hjendo 14, 290
*hiendrds 507
*h i en -dhog w heie/o- 1 0
*hjenek - 35
*hieng w - 329
— 665 —
*h\enhiu 646
*hienh 3 mQ 390
*h } en(i) 290
*hieni-h 3 k w o/eh a - 17, 18,
191
*hienter 4, 63
*hient(e)rom 17, 18, 179
*hienteros 2
*hiep- (back) 42
*h\ep- (desire) 158
*hiep- (take) 563
*h\cperos 365, 425
*h}epi 28, 116, 391
*hjepi - 451
*(h 1 e)pi- 507
*hiepop 272
*hier- (earth) 174
*hier- (flow) 207, 506
*hier- (sheep) 365, 511
*hiereg w o-8, 415, 432
*hier(hj)~ 160
*hierh]~ (oar) 408, 490
*hierhj- (quiet) 474
*hierhim- 474
*hierhiter- 490
*h]erhitrom 408
*hierh a s- 197
*hierh x - 108
*hierk w - 449
*hierk w os 449
*hiermen- 375, 516
*hiers- (dew) 159, 638
*hiers- (flow) 206
*hies- (be) 14, 53, 229,
235, 242, 317, 466,
484, 522, 606
*/?ies- (master) 372
*hjes- (throw) 581
*hjes- 14, 522
*h jesen- 504
*hiesh2eh a - 371
*hi e sh2nos 71
*hiesb.2orl\
*hiesh 26 s 371 , 372
*hiesh2r 17, 18, 71, 372
*h i (e)sie/o- 58 1
*hjesieh a s 458
*h[esids 458
*bjesmi 10, 28, 53, 462
*h jesor 52 1
*hiesor 522
*h\est- 525
*h 1 esti47, 49, 53, 222, 305
*hj(e)su- 198, 235
*h[esu menus 438
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*hjesu(o)s 469
*h iesus 469
*hieti 156, 215
*(hieti)loik w os 482
*h\eu- (clothe) 109, 522
*hjeu- (empty) 179
*hieu- (burn) 202
*hieug w h- 449
*h ieug w hetor 449
*h ieug w hto 449
*h\eu(h a )- 179
*hieuh x dh- 82
*hieuk - 4
*hieus- 87, 88, 281
*h\ger- 37
*hiid 458
*hiideh a 458
*hiidh a 458
*hiidom 458
*h}ieh a - 228
*hiienh a ter- 522
*(hi)iero/eh a - 654
*hjih a - 458
*hjisii6s 78
*hiisuo-ghesfih a 438
*hpsus 78, 630
*h liter- 228
*hiiteros 458
*h 1 itfy a 458
*hiith a eh a 458
*hiith a em 458
*hiitnos 487
*hiiuh x #kos 98
*hileg w h- 353
*hileig- 323
*hilengh- (blame) 70
*hilengh- (light) 353
*hile(n)g w h- 353
*hileudh- (go) 228
*hileudh- (grow) 248, 417
*hileudhe/o- 248
*h i leudheros 248,416
*hileudhis 248
*hilhionbhos 154
*hjlhionos 154
*hilmos 178
*hiloigei 323
*hiludhet 228
*hjme454
*hime-em 454
*himege 454
*himeghi 454
*himem 454
*himeme 454
*hi#-217
*hinegh- 537
*hineghes- 537
*(hi)neg w hros 329
*hineh3m$ 390
*bjnehjmr] dhehi- 438
*hinek- 224
*hineug 403
*h in-goro/eh a - 35
*(hi)ng w en- 376
*(hi)ni- 313, 507
*h initios 290
*hiQmen- 10
*hinom \ 3 390, 468
*hinomy dhehi- 390
*hinomnie/o- 468
*hiodhes 37
*hidg w his 529, 530
*hioikos 398
*hioinos 398
*hioistro/eh a - 22
*hiditos 408, 409
*hioiuos 398
*hion 290
*hion - 411
*hionhxes- 87
*hidnteros 411
*hiop- 158, 563
*hiopi 391
*hiopop 272
*hiopus 194
*hior- 468
*hiorei 468, 506
*hidr-es- 468
*hiorhxdeh a - 268
*hidrs(o)- 17, 18, 88
*hiort or 506
*hios-en- 504
*h j os-/- 504
*hiosu 468
*hioues- 522
*h iduhxdhf 82
*hioutleh a - 109
*hirebh- 282, 283, 488
*hireg w -es- 147, 314
*hirehi-ueh a - 474
*hirei- (flow) 207, 388
*hirei- (tear) 567
*hireihx~ 207
*hireik- 567
*hireip- 567
*hirep- 564
*hires- 638
*hireudh- 1 14, 379, 480
*hireug - 61
*hinh x tis 207
*hirineh x ti 207
*hirineuti 388
*hipieu- 468
*hifneuti 468, 506
*hir(o)h x deh a - 268
*hiroios 388
*hiros - 159
*hiroudhos 222, 379,
481,525
*hirudh- 47
*hirudhehi- 468
*hirudhros 242, 468, 481,
592
*hisenti 53
*hismes 462
*hisont- 606
*hisous 469
*hisu- 43
*hisu-dhhienos 3, 484
*hisu-hiekijos 439
*(hi)su-h a nftos 366
*hisu-menes 469
*hisu-menesie/o - 198
*hmak - 179
*(hi)uebh- 312
*hiu(e)h a stos 179
*hiue/ors 477
*hiuers- 477, 478
*hm-es- 203
*hiues- 639
*hiuh x dhnos 82
*hiufs- 477
*hi/4ehisos 387
*hi/^eis- 261, 376
*h;/4e/t- 434
*h i/^er- 450
*h m ohi(e)s- 17, 18, 387
*hi/ 4 oketeh a - 434
*hi/ 4 dmsos 17, 18, 515
*hi/4or- 536
*h 2 ed(h)- 260, 600
*h 2 eb(h)- 486, 636
*h 2 ed- 237, 432
*h 2 eg- 200
*h 2 egros 8
*h 2 eh 2 er- (thresh) 8, 581
*h 2 eh 2 (e)r- (kidney) 17,
18, 329
*h 2 ehx- 32, 87, 88, 263,
468, 469
*h 2 eh x mer - 149
*h 2 eh x or 87
*h 2 ehxds 32
*h 2 eh x s- 87,469, 543
*h 2 eh x seh a - 87, 263, 469
*h 2 eh x ster- 87,
*h 2 eh x ter- 87, 263, 468
*h 2 eh x tf 84
*h 2 eh x tr- 359
*h 2 eh x treh a - 263
*h 2 eh x triio- 468
*h 2 eker 367
*h 2 ekem 367
*h 2 ek$s 367
*h 2 ekr 367, 599,600
*h 2 ekr(o)s 367
*h 2 ek- 288, 418, 510
*h 2 eke(tro)- 550
*h 2e kreus 567
*h 2 ekru 567
*h 2 eks- 17
*h 2 eku- 418
*h 2 elbhit 7, 10, 51,432,
639
*h 2 elg w ho/eh a - 484
*h 2 ehjos 96
*h 2 em- (bitter) 69, 258
*h 2 em- (harvest) 330, 443
*h 2 emgh- 64
*h 2 em-h a ksih a 245, 443,
625
emhjc 330
*h 2 emros 69
*h 2 ems- 330, 443
*h 2 en- (draw water) 169
*h 2 en- (mother) 238, 239,
333, 385, 386
*h 2 eng- 6 1
*h 2 enk- 61
*h 2 enseh a - 255, 481
*h 2 ensiio/eh a - 330, 481
*h 2 ensus 330
*h 2 ent- 4, 17, 18, 32, 209,
399
*h 2 entbhi 32, 506
*h 2 entbhi-k w olos 506
*h 2 entbho 32
*h 2 enti 4, 60
*h 2 entio/eh a - 209
*h 2 ep- (join) 64, 116, 353
*h 2 ep- (lake) 343, 636
*h 2 ep- 636
*h 2 epes- 17, 18, 353
*h 2 epis 64, 116
*h 2 epdm nepots 203
*h 2 er- 405, 599, 600
*h 2 erdus 269
*h 2 ereh a - 7, 432
— 666 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*h 2 erg- 518
*h 2 ergi - 14
*h 2 ergptom 518, 641
*h 2 erh 3 - 47,434
*h 2 erhx - 158
*h 2 erh x mos 17
*h 2 erios 96
*h 2 erk- (destroy) 158
*h 2 erk- (hold) 28, 270
*h 2 eru- 450
*h 2 es - 170
*h 2 ests 77
*h 2 et- 237
*h 2 euel- 644
*h 2 eug- 514
*h 2 euh 2 - 333, 609, 610
*h 2 euh 2 ih a - 239,333
*h 2 euh 2 os 28, 85, 237,
238, 239, 333, 334,
370, 386,392,521,
592, 609, 610
*h 2 eu(hx)s - 169
*h 2 eyi- 409
*h 2 euios 510
*h 2 eulos 96
*h 2 h x sg(h)- 32
*h 2 b x sko- 32
*h 2 hxter- 87, 469
*h 2 lei- 506
*h 2 mehi~ 258
*h 2 merg- 258
*h 2 met- 258
*h 2 omos 478
*h 2 dmos 478
*h 2 op- 637
*h 2 o/ep(e)n- 637
*h 2 osdos 80
*h 2 os(k)~ 32
*h 2 ost 17, 18, 77
*h 2 ost- 83
*h 2 ouikeh a - 365, 511, 525
*h 2 ouis222 > 242, 317,
317, 365, 510, 511, 512
*h 2 ous 17, 387
*h 2 retk- 329
*h 2 retkes- 55, 329
*h 2 lg- (bear) 56
*h 2 [g- (color) 114
*h 2 fges- 641
*h 2 [gipios 173
*h 2 [gi-p(t)h d jos 469
*h 2 /£os 576
*h 2 j-gros 194
*h 2 [grds hjekuos 439
*h 2 [gros k(u)udn 439
*h 2 /gu- 641
*h 2 ftko/eh a - 329
*h 2 ftkos 10, 28, 55, 98,
305, 329, 364, 583
*h 2 sousos 170
*h 2 ster 543, 584
*h 2 sus - 170
*h 2 ued- 23, 647
*h 2 uedh(hx)- 346, 369,
483, 642
*h 2 gehi- 72, 644
*h 2 uehiius 643
*h 2 uehint- 643
*h 2 iiehintos 72, 643
*h 2 uentos 643
*(h 2 )uer- 64
*h 2 yes- 171, 281
*h 2 uhjnt- 643
*h 2 ydstu 281,282,283
*h 2 / 3 eihios 508
*h 2 /3eihios 508
*h 2 /3(e)lg(h)~ 237
*h 2 / 3 enk- 35, 224
*h 2 /3eu- 572
*h 2 /3ihis- 508
*h 2 /3ihisos 508
*h 2 /3leg(h)ikiio- 237
*hy 3 \g(h)- 237
*h 2 /3psis 561, 630
*h 2 /30ihiseh a - 508
*h 2 /3dnkos 224, 441
*h 2 /3orbhos 4 1 1
*h 2 / 3 osp- 33, 599, 600
^^ijebh- 572, 636
*h 2 /3uednos 23, 647
*h 2 / 3 uedf 23, 647
*b 2 / 3 ueg(h)~ 424
*h 2 /3ueg w h- 449
*h 2 /3uerg- 640
*h 2 /3uergh- 141
*h 2 / 3 uk w - 443
*h 2 /3Uobhcs - 636
*h 2 / 3 uop- 43
*h 2 /3Udpei 43
*h 2 /3Uopseh a - 636
*h 2 /3upelos 43
*h 2 / 3 Ufgis 640
*h 3 bhel- 29
*h 3 ed- (hate) 259
*h 3 ed- (smell) 528
*h 3 ei- 61
*h 3 eketeh a - 8
*h 3 ek - 194
*h3ekus 194
*h 3 ek w - 505
*h3elek - 176
*h3elhi- 158
*h3elVn- 17, 18, 98, 176
*h 3 eng w - 24, 376, 382
*h 3 eng w n 382
*h 3 enh 2 - 124-125
*h3en[ 169, 170
*h 3 ep- 88
*h 3 er- 67, 142, 249
*h3erbbis 108
*h 3 (e)mos 173
*h3eron 173
*h3es- 32
*h3esk- 32
*h 3 es(k)~ 32,599,600
*h 3 eug - 113
*h3lem- 81
*/i 3 %osl0, 242,516
*h3meigh - 110
*h3meigh - 110
*h 3 ineighe/o- 613
*h 3 tnerg- 646
*h 3 mighleh a - 47 , 110, 242
*h 3 min(e)gh- 613
*h3mpnegti 646
*h 3 nobh- 17, 18, 391
*h 3 nogh(u)~ 17, 18, 389
*h 3 od- 28
*h 3 o-die 594
*h3oktdtis 10
* 630 /^ 17 , 47, 188, 505,
525, 529, 592
*h3ok w -on- 222
*h 3 dk w s(i) 304, 305
*h3ok w ihi 242
*h 3 ong w en- 317
*h3ondrio- 28
*h3onf 10
*h 3 or- 28, 173
*h 3 orbhos 28
*h 3 oron - 14
*h3pusos 507
*h 3 reg- 187, 329, 330,
485, 576
*h 3 regiom 329
*h3rigios 329
*h3regQS 330
*h 3 regpti 330
*h 3 regon- 329
*h3regos 329
*h 3 regf 330
*h 3 rigs 7, 121,329,417,
531,630
*h 3 regti 330
*h 3 regtos 130, 329, 485
*h 3 rehig - 330
*h3reuk- 159
*h 4 edhes 37, 630
*h 4 ei- 186, 224
*h 4 ekmon 547
*h 4 el- 247
*b 4 elbhos 51, 114,641
*h 4 elhi- 560
*h4elhin- 560
*h 4 em- 386
238, 385
*b 4 ens- 198
*h 4 ep- 42, 156
*h 4 eper- 42
*h 4 epo 42, 637
*h 4 epok w itis 123
*h 4 epu 637
*h 4 er- 2 1 3
*h 4 erg w - 125
*h 4 erh 2 os 71
*h 4 enomen- 375
*b 4 erios 213
*h 4 eros 213
37
*h 4 eu- (favor) 175, 197,
317
*h 4 eu- (perceive) 418, 623
*b 4 ejjis- 418
*b 4 eijis 623
*h 4 log- 80
*h 4 odhes 37
*h 4 drghei 507, 508
*h 4 orghiieb a - 10, 98
*h 4 orghis 14, 17, 18, 28,
47, 242, 305, 507, 508,
592
*h 4 drghos 222
*(h 4 )pd 42
*h 4 rgheh a - 525
*h 4 fgbios 507
*h 4 [ghor 508
*h 4 ijelk- 471
*h 4 upelos 43
*h 4 uper(i) 4 1 2
*h 4 upo 612
*h 4 upo- 43
*h 4 upo-sth 2 i/o- 506
*h a ebe/olne/eh a - 25
202, 600
*h a eb/ 25
*h a ebdl 25
— 667 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*h a ebVl- 25, 599, 600
*h a ed 590
*h a ed-bher- 496
*h a egesos 509
*h a egmen - 170
*h a egos 509
*h a eguisi(e)h a 38
*h a eg- (fight) 201
*h a eg- (axle) 39
*h a eg- (companion) 116,
284, 348, 506
*h a ege/o- 170, 592
*h a egeti 305
*h a igi- 409
*h a egi/fr x los 194
*h a eginom 269
*h a egmen 116
*h a egos (goat) 229, 269,
366
*h a eg6s (leader) 348, 630
*h a egreh a . 284
*h a egros 200,201,222,584
*h a egh- (bad) 43
*h a egh- (fear) 198, 247
*h a egh- (rain) 477
*h a eghes- 247
*h a eghleh a - 375, 413
*h a eghlos 43, 247
*h a eghlu- 477
*h a eghf 149
*h a eg w isi(e)h a - 38
*h a ig< w) si(e)h 3 - 38
*h a eg w hnos 365, 510
*h a eh a enos 486
*h a eh a oghh 2 e 247
*h a eh x per- 515
*h a eh x peros 515
*h a ei- (early) 173
*h a ei- (injure) 312
*h a eid- 56 1
*h a eidh- 87,88, 173,471
*h a eier - 173
*h a eies- 234, 347, 379
*h a ezg- 407, 408, 599, 600
*h a eigs 229, 366
*h a eig w hes- 509
*h a eik- 270
*h a eiRsmo/eh a - 537, 630
*h a eios toennom 587
*h a eis- 629
*h a ekkeh a - 386
*h a eksti- 7, 237
*h a ek- (grain) 237
*h a e/c- (sharp) 288
*h a ekes- 7, 237
*h a eks- 39,47,391,516,
625
*h a eksleh a - 39, 516
*h a ek w eh a - 636
*h a e/- (bum) 87
*h a eL (flow) 207
*h a e/- (grow) 248
*h a e/- (wander) 629
*h a ele/o- 248
*h a elek - 112
*h a elgh - 113
*h a elios 64, 41 1
*h a elisno/eh a - 1 1
*h a eliso/eh a - 1 1
*h a elisos 11, 599, 600
*h a elmos 539
*h a elnos 64
*h a elpos 528
*h a elsnos 1 1
*h a elut- 60
*h a em- 625
*h a emesl- 70
*h a emh 3 - 560
*h a em(h x )Iijeh a - 375, 413
*h a en- 458
*h a endhes- 207
*h a epdhos 70, 376
*h a engj 104
*h a engh- (neck) 392
*h a engh- (pain) 413
*h a enghes- 375, 413
*h a enghus 391
*h a engh(u)en- 392
*h a eng w his 530
*h a en(h})- 82, 330
*h a enhimi 82
*h a enhimos 82
*h a enhitlo- 98
*h a en-h a e 612
*h a enh a ti- 67, 171
*h a enh x t(e)h a 168, 282,
283
*h a enk- 272, 515
*h a enkos 212
*h a enkulos 5 1 5
*h a en/- 548
*h a ens- 330
*h a ensus 330
*h a enu 612
*h a epu- 637
*h a er- (number) 397
*/i a er- (make) 362, 410
*h a er- (physical
anthropology) 420
*h a er- (reed) 481
*h a er- (trees) 699, 600
*h a erdhis 439
*h a ereh a - 491
*h a erh 3 - 200,
*h a erh 3 ie/o - 8, 434, 436
*h a erh 3 trom 434
*h a erh3Uos 200
*h a erh3Uf- 200
*h a er(h x )- 26
*h a erh x mos 26
*h a erkuos 78
*h a ero/eh a - 213
*h a ertis 362
*h a ertus 362, 410
*h a eruos 630
*h a eru(s)~ 376, 650
*/i a ef (away) 37, 156
*h a ef- (father) 195
*h a et- (go) 228, 654
*h a etnos 654
*h a eu- 175
*h a euei- 66, 67, 68, 173,
176
*h a eues- 149
*h a eug- 47, 209,222,248,
452
*h a euges- 209, 305, 493
*h a eugmen- 248
*h a euis (oats) 409, 432
*h a euis (bird) 66
*h a eiiisos 7
*h a eu(o)nt- 539
*h a eus- 47, 148, 174
*h a eusom 148, 234
*h a eusos 148, 159, 231
*h a euss 1 73
*h a eust(e)ro- 174
*(ha)ger- 35
*hages- 39
*h a idhros 471
*h aieu- 655
*haieupk- 655
*h a ious 352, 548
*71^- 352
*h a iuh x nko- 7, 531
*haiuh x pkos 655, 656
*haiuuen- 352, 655
*h a ks- 39
*h a lei- 528
*h a leit- 259
*h a lek- 458
*h a lekse/o- 458
*h a lineh a ti 528
*(h a )mauros 147
*h a melg- 38 1
*h a melgti 381
*(h a )merh x g w - 147
*h a mlgenti 38 1
*h a molgeh a - 381
*h a molgeie/o- 38 1
*h a ner- 581
*h a ner 305, 366, 531, 548
*h a neres 7
*h :i ng w heis 530
*h a ph a n- 171
*h a nh a tino/eh a - 171
*h a nh x th a os 168
*h a n[-g w hen- 434
*h a pros 366, 548
*h a psous 330
*h a ogeh a - 63, 433
*h a oiu 463
*h a oius 352, 548, 655,
656
*h a ongol 104
*h a onkos 272
*h a o(ij)iom 66, 176
*h a ous- 173
*h a rei- 397
*h a reidh- 397
*h a rei(h x )- 397
*h a [h x mos 26
*h a rih x mos 98
*h a fteis 362
*h a pous 362, 410
*h a ijeis 66
*h a uet- 436
*h a ugrds 305
*(h a )uiselos 364, 638
*h a uokseie/o- 248
*h a ijot- 436
*h a usos 173
*h x eh3k-us 194
*h x eh a per- 515
*h x eh x - 6 1
202
*b x eh x ti 202
*h x epis 1 1 6
*h x igh-ie/o- 158
*h x ih x igh-(e/o)- 1 58
*h x ih x -lu- 371
*h x isti- 108
*/i A /ice;s 177
*h x nas- 47, 481
*h x nas 395
*h x nasos 395
*h x nass 17, 18, 395
*b x nd- 547
*h x neid- 3 1 3
— 668 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*h x nei-u- 313
*h x ng w nis 104, 202, 203,
584
*h x oiuo/eh a - 63, 433
*h x oktd 402
*h x oktdu 402
*h x oldhu- 74
*h x oleh a - 37
*h x olkis 177, 365
*h x olu 362
*h x ond - 547
*hxOp- 649
*h x opes- 649
*hxorghi- 357
*h x orki- 357
*h x osgos 336
*h x ous-h 2 -os 387
*h x oust- 387
*h x oust-eh a - 387
*h x oustiiom 487
*(h x )reg- 330
*h x ftkos 647
*h x ued- 83
*h x Vnghel- 176
*h x Vnghur - 176
*jag- 242, 650
*iak(k)~ 262, 376
*(i)ebh- 176
*iebhe/o- 369, 508, 592
*ieg- 287
*iegi- 135
*iehi- (make) 117, 362
*iehl- (throw) 582
*iehlgweh a - 209
*jehjs- 223
*ieh3sm- 224
*ieh 3 s(m)no/eh a - 224
*ieh 3 Sto/eh a - 224
*ze/i a (pronouns) 457
*jeh a - (ask) 33
*jeh a - (go) 228
*ieh a nu- 228
*ieh a nuieh a - 228
*ieh a uot(s) 457
*iek- 536
*i£Ru 252
*i'e£us 252
*iek w r(t) 17, 18, 356
*zem- (hold) 270
*iem- (marriage) 369
*iemds 608
*iereh a - 117
*ies- 77
*iese/o- 10
*ief- 472
*ieu- (bind) 64
*ieu- (grain) 236
*ieu- (sacred) 494
*ieudh- 31, 507
*ieudhmos 31
*ieu(e)s- 410, 41 1, 494
*jeug- 64, 655
*ieug- 547
*ieuh x - 84, 384
*ieuom 236, 432
*ieuos (grain) 7, 236, 237,
432
*ieu(o)s (law) 345, 346
397
*iRs- 356
*il(l)eh a - 232
*-io 20
*io- 456
*iod 457
*ioinis 481
*ioRu 252
*iorkos 155
*idr/cs 155, 365
*jos 49, 419, 457
*ioteros 456
*idtz 456, 457
*isghis- 7, 356
*ishirom menes- 438
*ishiros 233, 312
*it- 583
*iu - 394
*iudh- 201
*iuges- 655
*iugdm 14, 222, 242, 305,
317, 465,525, 655
*iugtom 655
*iuh x r- 636
*iuh*s (pronouns) 454,
455
*iuh x s- (broth) 47, 84
*iunegti 655
*kagh- (fence) 199
*kagh - (take) 564
*kaghlos 287
*kaikos 70, 376
*kaiuelos 12
*Raiuptds 96
*kaiuf(t) 96
*kak(k)eh a ie/o - 187
*kal- (beautiful) 56
*kal- (skin disease) 523
*kamareh a - 620
*kamer- 620
*kamp- 62
*kan- (fresh) 213
*kan- (sing) 112, 548, 519
*kane/o- 519
*kannabis 266, 293, 433
*kant(h)o - 143
(take) 90, 222, 563
*kap- (falcon) 191
*kapmi 10
*kapdlo- 261
*kapr 229, 317, 507
*kapros 229,366, 409
*kaptos 90
*kaput 260
*kar- (crab) 512
*/rar- (poet) 436, 449
*karkr(o)- 512
*kars- 570
*karu- 436
*ka(- 9 1
*kat-h a e 169
*katu- 201
*/cau- 66, 321
*kau- 412
*kauk- 66
*kau(k)- 66
*/cau/os 432, 542,620
*kaunos 284
*ked- 229
*keh a - 214, 357
*k(e)h a isVr- 251
*keZi a /*214, 357
*keh a ros 214
*keh a u- 549
*keh a ud- 549
*keh x i- 264
*kei - 506
*kek- 365, 439
*kekseh a - 583
*kel- (cock) 112
*kel- (deceive) 154, 543
*kel- (drive) 170
*kel - (neck) 392
*kel- (plank) 43 1
*kel- (prick) 45 1
*kelhi- (call) 90
*kelhi- (strike) 549
*kel(h 1 )~ 352
*kelh x - 270
*kelp- 444
*kem- (hum) 284
*kem- (love) 357
*kem- (press) 45 1
*kemeros 265
*ken- (fresh) 213, 399
*ken- (love) 358
*ken- (press) 451
*kenh x is- 33
*kenk- (gird) 224
*kenk- (hock) 270
*kenk- ^hunger) 284
*kent- 509
*kentr/n- 110
*ker- (ancestor god) 20
*ker- (birds) 66, 67, 112,
268
*ker- (burn) 88
*kerd-(cui ) 143, 186
*kerd- (gird) 224
*kerdeh a - 139
*kerdos 139
*kerdheh a - 268
*kergh- 65
*kerh x - (bum) 88
*kerh x - (set in motion)
507
*kerk- 267
*kermen- 522
*k(e)m- 106
*kerp- 258
*kert- (knife) 336
*kert- (textile prep) 571
*kes- 14, 570
*kes(k)eh a - 583
*ket- 282
*keu- (beautiful) 56
*keu- (pot) 443
*keudes- 361
*keuh 1 - 361, 418
*keuh x - 42, 268
*keu(h x )- 444
*keuh x J 268
*k(e)uh x tes- 522
*keuk- 62
*keuke/o- 592
*keul- 425
*keus- 418
*kh a en- 637
*kfa a n- 637
*k£ a rds 214, 357
*kik(i)eh a - 323
*kitros 83
*kla(n)g - 66
*kleh a - 539
*k\eh a dhreh a - 11, 600
*kleh a uis 272
*klemus 367, 599, 600
*kleng- 62
*klep- 468, 595
*klepie/o- 468, 595
— 669 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*klh x m(s)~ 588
*klh x nos 270
*k\h x ros 282, 431
*klh x uos 45
*klindus 367
*klinu- 367
*k\nos 375, 523
*k\ter 336
*klu- 45
•Muzi- 534
*kifih a ros 512
*kijih a rds 512
*kijih x ph a - 58
*knab(h)- 573
*knei-g w h- 348
*icneu-405, 406, 599, 600
*kneug/k- 451
*kph a mos 349
*kph a pkos 271
*knh a onks 271
*kob- 3, 21 1
*kobom 211
*ko(n)gos 272
*kogeh a - 230
*kogheh a - 229, 230, 366
*kdh a ilus 262, 376
*koh a f 271, 637
*koik- 252
*koitus 83
*/cofe- 323
*koRso/eh a - 17, 18, 323
*kol- 4
*kolh x -on 270
*kolnos 70, 376
*kolsos 392
*kolu- 45
*ko(m) 646
*kom-bhert 387
*kon- 362
*konh a ip 17, 349
*koph20s 90
*kopso- 70
*itor- (army) 47, 242
*lcor- (birds) 67, 68
*kononos 348, 630
*korios 7, 30, 348,417,
531, 630
*fcoris 312
*korm- 84
*koruos 656
*Kost- 284
*kosulo- 260
*kos(V)los 260, 406, 599,
600
*kouhieie/o- 418
*kouhiii(s) 451
*kf- 67
*kreb- 52, 53
*kreidhrom 518
*krek- (fish) 205
*krek- (textile prep) 572
*krem- 84
*kremh x us 433, 620
*krep- 514
*kreps 17, 18, 76
*kret- 509
*kr(e)ubh- 217
*kreuh a 71, 98, 386,521
*kreuh a iio- 71
*kreuh a (s) 17, 18, 71
*kr(e)uh x - 217
*kreuk- 90
*kreup- 375, 490, 523
*kreu(-s)- 549
*kreut- 509
*k[hipis 514
*kfRos 574
*knjih x ous 620
367
*k pies- 106, 599
*kfnet s ti 571
*kfnom 106, 599, 600
*fcro- 68
*/croh- 285
*krdkieh a - 441
*kroku- 282, 441
*kropos 217
*krosno/eh a - 539
*krouh a os 71
*kfpos 76
*kfsneh a 539
*kruh a - 386
*kruh a os 7 1
*kruh a ros 71, 304, 305
*krupiios 592
*k (w) fuis 594
*(k)seks 402
*kseu- (cough) 133
*kseu- (razor) 478, 510
*kseubh- 509
*ksih x rds 382
*ksneuti 510
*(k)sijeid- 382
*ksueks 402
*(k)s(u)eks-komt(b a ) 405
*ksukstos 402
*/csun 646
*ksurom 478
*/cyat- 199
*kueitos 114
*kuelh x k- 45
*kuerp- 607
*kuh x l- 134
*kuh x los (back) 42, 98, 268
*kuh x los (spear) 537, 630
*kuh x los 268
*kuh x p- 444
142, 143
*kukis 507
*kul- 542
*kumbos 443
*/tus- 335
*lcur- 509
*kutsnds 507
*kutsos 507
*kVlVk- 444
Wr-C- 142
*kha- 344
*£ad- 191
*kakolos 538
* Ramos 510
*Rank- 80
*Rapeh a - 200, 201
*Rapos 8, 200, 201
*Rarh x keh a - 362
*£as- 113, 240
*Rasen- 256, 364
*Rasos 256, 364
*Rat- 22
*Rehj- 535
*Reh}kom 7, 80, 620
*Rehimi 10
*Rehjs- 536
*Rehisti 536
*Rehiti 536
*Rehiuer 644
*Rehjur 644
*Reh a des- 259
*Reh a k- 323
*Reh a peh a - 200
*Reh a pos 200
*Reh a u- 88
*Reh x (i)- 442, 510, 641
*£ei-214, 352,622
*Rei- 2 1 4
*Reibh - 194
*Reigh - 194
*Reir- 69, 114
*Reiu- 214, 622
*Reiuos 214, 622
*Rek w - 186
*R(e)k w nds 186
*Rel- (cold) 112
*Rel- (cover) 134, 282
*kelb- 266
*Rel(h x )~ 537
282
*Relto- 112
*Rem- (cover) 134
*Rem- (horn) 273
*Remh a - (prepare) 450
*Remh a - (tired) 588
*Renk- 255
* Renos 179
*Re(n)s- 536
*£enf- 1 10
*Rer- (birds) 66, 70, 362
*Rer- (green) 69, 246
*/cer- (horn) 272
*/cer- (injure) 3 1 2
*Rer- (grow) 248, 656
*Rerberos 265
*Rerd 17, 18, 28,262
*Rer(es)- 252
*Rerli 2 272
*Rerli 2 - 260
*Rerh2or 260
*Rerh2(s) 272
*/c‘erh 2 s 272
*Rerfr2S- 273
*Rerh2Sf 272
*Rerh x - 384
*£ers- 491,625
*Rer(s)no- 287
*/ces- 336, 561
*Resos 428
22
*Reudh- 268
*Reu(hi)- 448,493, 560
*Reuhjes- 560
*Reuh2- 560
*Reuk- (call) 90
*Reuk- (shine) 514, 558
*Reuke/o - 592
*Rblkh 26 s 80
*Rhiuerrp 644
*Rhiuros 644
*Rh a et- 22
*Rh a ot- 22
*Rh x iijon- 442
*Rfr x lo/eh a - 510
*kfr x nos 510
*Rb x tos 510
114, 115, 246
*Riei- 335
*Rih x -udn- 442
*Rih x uon- 442
*RiRer- 8, 106, 433
670 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*kis 458
*Riu- 214, 622
*R luon- 442
*Rludn 28, 29
*Riuos 214, 622
*Rlei- 348, 441
*Rleu- (clean) 108
*/c leu- (hear) 192, 262,
378, 437, 534
*£ieyes- 192
*R leumptom 192
*R /eyos 437
*Rleijos hiesu 438
*Rleuos h a prdm 438
*R leuos megh a 437
*Rleuos ndhg w hitom 192,
437
*Rleuos ueru 437
*R leuos uesu 438
*R leus- 262
*Rleutrom 534
*Rlh x mds 542
*Rlitos 441
282, 441
*R(l)l6s 282
*Rloueh a - 262
*Rlounis 17, 18, 260
*Rlousi6m 480
*Rludhi moi 438
*Rlutos 262
*Rmeh a - 450
*Ripneh a ti 588
*Ripstos 525
*&pt- 404
•ftptdm 47,83,98, 222,
242,305,317, 398,
403, 404, 405, 592
*Ripto(m)-g w uo - 135
*Roh}koh 2 so
*Roh x inis 510, 641
*Roh x nos 510, 641
*Rdh x f 5 1 0
*Roimos 622
*Roino- 240
*Roiueh a - 96
*Roipis 96
*Rok w r 186
*Rol- 112
*Rolh x om 542
*-Romt(h a ) 404
*R(o)nid- 357
*Ronk- (crab) 5 1 2
*Ronk- (hang) 255
*Ronk- 255
*Ronk(e)h a - 512
*konkh 2 os 512
*Ronkus 205
*Roph2elos 90
*Roph2ds 272
*Ropos 206
*Rdrh2Sj; 260
*Rorkeh a - 547
*Ror(mo/eh a )- 287
*Rormon- 364, 638
*Roros 246
*icdru 195,273,412
*£oss 428
*/cos- 599, 641
*Ms 428
*Rosdhrom 336
*Rosneh a 480
*Rostrom 336
*ftSuhif448,560
*Rouh}ros448
*Rouh x - 96
*Rduh x f 96
*Rdunos 481
*R{d- 14, 242, 305, 317,
525
*kfdjeh a - 98, 592
*kfdos 262
*Rred- (belief) 61
*Rred- (framework) 213,
283
*Rred-dhehi~ 61, 263, 439
*Rrehid- 213
*R[h2ds 260
*kfh 2 sro(h x )on- 273
*Rfh x tos 384
*Rripes- 251
*Rripo- 17, 18, 251
*Rj-nom 272
*Rropos 282, 488
*Rfreti 2 ~ 260
*/qreh 2 17, 18, 260
*£/-sos 625
*Rpjos 246
*Rsehi~ 170
*Rsehiros 170
*Rsulom 282, 441
*Rueitos 64 1
*Ruendhno- 2 1
*Ruendhro 8, 21
*Ruen(to)- 493
*Ruesh x - 518
*Ruesh x mi 82
*Ruhjeie/o 560
*Ruh i ros 448
*Ruh x dds 186
*Ruh x los 537
*Ruh x nos 96, 650
*Ruitros 641
*Run-musieh a - 208
*Runds 47, 168
*R(u)u6n 14, 98, 168,
317,364
*£Vr- 201
*k w as- 52
509
*1^ 304, 305
*-ic w e 20
*k w ed- 510
*k w ehi(i)~ 198
*k w eh a 456
*k w eh a k- 457
*k w eh a li 457
*k w eh a m 457
*k w eh a s - 133
*k w eh a sleh a - 10
*k w ei- (build) 87
*k w ei- (compensation) 123
*k w ei- (perceive) 418
*k w eih i - 474
*k w ek/g- 25
*k w ek w leh a 640
*k w ek w leh a 640
*k w ek w lom 640
*k w ek w lom 469, 640
*k w el- 268, 469, 506, 606,
640
*k w ele/o- 10
*k w elom 640
*k w elp - 62
*k w em - 175
*k w enk w e 401
*k w ent(h)- 375, 413
*k w er- (cut) 144
*k w er- (make) 362
*k w erti 144
*]c w erus443, 446
*k w es(i)o 456
^ef- 104
*k w etesor- 401
*k w eti 456
*k w etuer- 98, 401
*k w etuior- 401, 402
*k w etuores 592
*k w etuor-pod- 23, 366, 469
*k w etuortos 401
*k w etur 401
*k w £ tur- 401
*k w eturtos 401
*k w h a uep- 529
*k w i- 28, 455, 456
*k w id 456
*k w nehitos 474
*k w is 14, 242, 317, 456
*^ w, ie/£-413
*k w Iep- 158
*k w leu- 607
455, 456
*k w od 222,456
*k w odeh a 456, 457
*k w oihxOs 457
*k w oimos 610
*k w omeh a - 123
*k w ok w los 592, 640
*k w 6los 268, 640
*k w om 456
*/c w dr 456
^os 47, 304, 305, 456
*k w oteros 457
*k w oti 456, 457
*k w rei- 185
*k w rei(h a )- 185
*k w resnos 598
*k w ret- 587
*k w rmeh a ti 185
*k w fmis 649
*k w fsnos 69
*k w rusten 1 1 2
*k w sep- 394
*k w u- 455,456
456
*k( w) uh a p- 529
*la- 249
*/a£>- 352
*laiuos 131, 349
*lak- (lick) 352
*\ak- (tear) 568
*/a/- 42
*la(m)bh- 564
*/ap- 513
*/as- 157
*lau- 484
*leb- 356
*/ebh- 177
*leg- (flow) 207
*leg- (collect) 592
*legs 346
*leg- 505
*lege/o- 242
*/egh- 57, 98, 352
*/egh- 352
*leghe/o- 592
*leghes- 57
*lehi- 123
*leh[d - (leave) 349
— 671 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*lehid- (tired) 588
*lehl-eie/o- 588
*lehi(i)- 475
*lehinos 475
*leh 2 - (army) 31
*leh 2 - (pour) 448
*leh2Uos 31, 531, 630
*leh a - (bark) 50, 51, 123
*leh a - (complain) 123
*leh a d- 358
^lehje/o- 50
*leh a peh a - (cow) 136
*leh a peh a - (foot) 209
*l(e)h a s- 547
*leh a t - 639
*lei- (left) 349
*lei- (slimy) 527
*leib- 351
*leigh- 351
*leik w - 28, 348, 482, 638
*leik w -e/o- 242
*leip- (shine) 514
*leip- (smear) 528
*leipeh a - 353, 599, 600
*leis- 215
^eitfhx)- 151, 228
*lek- 323
*le/ok- 444
*lekeh a - 468
*lekeh a ie/o- 323
*l e ksos 497
*lem- 538
*lemb- 255
*lendh- 8, 200
*leng- 62
*lenk- 62, 618
*lenos 475
*lenteh a - 353, 599, 600
*l(e)nto- 532
*/enf os 317
*lep- 110, 568
*lerd- 62, 156
*lese/o- 222
*fesi- 356
*letrom 269
*leu - 160
*leuanks 547
*leubh- (bark) 50
*leubh- (love) 358
*leubhds 358
*leud - 43
*/eug- (bend) 62
*feug- (grieve) 247
8 1
*leugh- 352
*leuh3- 52
284, 481
*leuhx6n 23, 284, 366
*leuk- 83,353,360, 385,
505, 513
*leuk-ehi- 468, 513
*leuk(e)t- 513
*leukos 83
*/eu/cs 468
*leuk- 513
*/eup- 567
*leus- 481
*lik w - 47
*lik w tos 482
*linek w ti 305, 348
*linom 8, 206, 433
*hnom 206
*lip- 353
*li(u)- 356, 365
*lpdhuos 356
*/og/ios 57, 592
*loh a po - 136
*loh x K- 638
*loid- 434
*loigos 136
*loik w nes- 638
*l(o)iseh a - 8, 215
*lokus 343
*/o£s 294, 497,525
*loksis 47
*londh- 200
*londhu 356
*ldnko/eh a - 618 .
*lop - 110
*lord- 62
*lord(sk)os 156, 376
*lorgeh a - 112
*los- 569
*Iosiuos 637
*loubho/eh a - 50
*louh 3 dhrom 52
*louh 3 trom 52
*loukeie/o- 14, 513
*louk(es)~ 353
*louksneh a - 385
*/u- 357
*luh x nos 23, 284
*luk- 359, 365
*lus- 357
*mad- 649
*maddhos 496
*mag- (press) 450
*mag- (work) 649
*magh- (able) 3
*magh- (youth) 656
*maghuih a - 656
*maghus 656
*magh(e)s- 630, 631
*mai- 160
*ma/c- 450
*ma/c- 450
*m-am- 386
*mand - 199
*mandh- 175
*mant - 175
*manu- 367
*markos274, 276, 277, 365
*masdos 282, 441
*mar- (plow) 434
*mat- (worm) 650
*mater 385
*mauort- 630
*ipbhi 400
*me 395
*meth a - 380
*med- 262,374, 376
*medonts 531
*medhios 28, 380
*medhu 47, 271, 278
*medhuih a - 313
*megh a 344
*megh a - 344
*megdh a 344
*mehj- 374, 385
*mehi(i)- (grow) 249, 374
*mehi(i)- (large) 344
*meh i(i)- (noise) 394
*meh 1 l- 23, 98, 365, 366
*mehin(e)s- 385
*mehjnes-rp 385
*mehi-ndt 385
*mehindt 385
*meh ins-os 385
*mehiros 249, 344
*mehitis 374
*meh 2 lom 25, 26, 599, 600
*meh a - 154
*m(e)h a d- 638
*meh a k- (long) 357
*meh a k- (plants) 434, 440
*meh a kon 440
*meh a kos 574
*meh a nos 639
*meh a f 254
*meh a (t)- 235
*meh a ter- 36
*meh a fer47, 98, 222, 242,
305,317, 333,385,
525, 592
*meh a lr-t'h a - 10
*meh a tfk w eh a - 36
*meh a tros 385
*meh a irdus 36, 335, 610
*meh a lruh a - 36, 332, 333,
334, 610
*meh a tru(u)ios 335
*meh a truuds 335
*mei- (exchange) 184, 185
*mei- (less) 351, 401, 528
*mei- (post) 441
*meidhos 496
*meigh- (close the eyes)
109
*meigh- (cloud) 110
*meig(h)- 7, 51, 432
*meih x - (dirt) 160
*meih x - (go) 228
*meih x eh a - 228
*meik- 109
*meik- 384
*me/oino- 410
184
*meiuos 40 1
*mel- (defect) 155
*mel- (good) 235
*mel- (harm) 125, 258
*me/(d) 378
*meldh- (clay) 108
*meldh- (lightning) 353
*meldh- (pray) 449
*meles- 155, 353
*melhi- 532
*me]h}k- 532
*melh 2 - 8, 247, 258, 383,
432
*melh2i 383
*melh2nos 383
*melh3- 515
*meli- 45
*melit 69, 271, 639
*melilih a - 57
*melos 155
*mel-n- 69, 1 14
*melse/o- 258
*memonh2e 575
*me(m)s 17, 18, 374
*memsds 374
*me(m)sro/ch a - 375
*men- (alone) 12
*men- (fish) 205
*men- (hill) 270
*men- (hostile) 281
*men- (man) 366
*men- (project) 107, 453
— 672 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*men- (remain) 482
*men- (think) 385, 536,
575
*mendios 274
*mendo/eh a - 155, 376
*menegh- 3
*menes- 438, 575
*men(es)~ 348
*meng- 154
*menk- (lack) 343, 528
*menk - (press) 450
*menkus 532
*menmp 575
*men(s)-dh(e)h 348
*menth 2 - 547
*mentis 575
*menuIuos 528
*me/o- 457
*mer- (bind) 64
*mer- (crush) 142
*mer- (death) 150,366,375
*mer- (forget) 209
*mer- (sea) 503
*mer- (shine) 514
*merd- 490
*mergh- 64
*merih a - 656
*merios 31, 631, 656
*merk- 147
*mers- 209
*mesg- (dive) 160
*mesg- (textile prep) 571
*mesge/o- 160
*meu- 528
*meud- 256
*meug- 154
*m(e)uh x - 108
*meu(h x )- 388
*meuh x ko(n) 262
*meuk- 527
*meus- 387, 388
*meus 385
*rjigh a os 344
*mhiteis 374
*m-h4em- 386
*mh a egh - 630
*mh a k(e)sds 574
*mh a knds 440
*mi} a krds 574
*mfr a nos 254
452
*zm- 452
*mimne/o- 482
*mineh a - 228
*mineuti 351
* minus 351
*misdhos 484
*mitds 441
*m/ts 282, 441
*m\dus 242, 317, 532
*mldho/eh a - 108
*mleuh x - 536
*mlh x dh-o- 261
*mlh x dh-6n - 261
*mjk- 595
*mneh a ti 575
*m$h x - 205
*mpietor 575
*m$teis 575
*m$tneh2- 547
*mi)tnh 2 ie/o- 547
377
*modheros 246
*mdhi(i)ei 249
*mohiros 249, 344
*moinis 184
*moinos 184
*moisos 366, 511
*moks 533
*moldh- 14
*moleh a - 515
*molh 2 ei 247
*moneh a - 391
*monis 17, 18, 391
*mono/i- 392
*mor- 550
*morg- 77
*mori 503, 504
*morios 531
*morm- 24
*morom 388, 433, 600
*moros 150, 375
*morsos 209
*mortos 150, 366
*mdrtos 367
*moruis 24
*mosghos 80, 370
*mdstf 79, 370
*moud- 158
*mouros 24
*mf-47
*mregh- (bind) 64
*mregh- (rain) 477
*mreghmen- 79, 80
*mregh(m)n-o- 79
*mregh - 515
*mfghus 515
*mfk- 433, 620
*mrogh- 64
150, 375
*m[tdm 150, 375
28, 150, 375
*mfuos 98
*mu- 394
*mu- 149, 376
*mudros 256
*/n ug- 394
*muh x - 207
*muh x knos 262
*mu(k)skos 34, 365
*mukslos 34, 35, 365
*murmur- 388
*mus- (fly) 207
*mus- (steal) 543
*mtis 10, 28, 242, 305,
317, 364, 387, 388
*mus/h x - 207
*muskos 508
*musneh a ti 543
*musos (moss) 385
*musos (mouse) 387
*muss 364, 387
*musds 255
*mus(do)- 17, 18,388,505
*mVnu- 367
*mVnus 366
242, 305, 317, 395
*na/c- 570
*nak(es)~ 269
*n-an- 386
*nant- 201
*nas- 525
*nbh(ro/ri)- 477
*ndhero- 611
*$dhes 611
*ne (not) 395
*ne (thus) 583
*ne- (grandson) 240
*ne- (downwards) 230
*ne- (pronouns) 454
*ne 395
*nebh- 477
*nebhel- 110
*nebhes- 14, 110
*ned- (knot) 336, 393,428
*ned- (river) 487, 488
*nedih a - 487
*nedos 48 1
*n e dskeh a - 428
*ne/og w nos 45
*neh i tor 530
*neh2- 198
*neh a uiios 74
*neh a uis 150
*neh a us 28, 74, 446
*nei' (not) 395
*nei- (sacred) 493
*neig- 109
*neig w - 108
*neih x - 346
*neik- (begin) 6 1
*neik- (winnow) 646
*ne£- 150, 375
*nektfh2 495
*nekus 150, 375
*nek w t- 394
*nem- (bend) 62
*nem- (give) 224, 564
*nem- (grove) 248
*neme/o- 564
*nemes- 62, 248
*r>emeti 62
*nemos- 248
*ne-pot- 240
*nepo(os 180, 239, 392
*nepdts 239, 334, 370,
392, 394, 610
*neptih a - 157, 237, 394
*neptiieh a - 157
*nep[iios 157
*neptonos 203
*ner 159, 61 1
*nes- 484
*nesetor 484
*neu- (call) 89
*ncu- (nod) 394
*neud- (push) 471
*neud- (use) 614
*neueh 2 - 468
*neuios 98, 393, 397
*neupmos 403
*neijpnos 403 .
*neuos 14, 317, 393, 397,
468, 592
*pg w en- 225
*nhpnk- 530
*nfaitrds 530
*nhiue 454
*n-h4en- 386
*nb a uos 74
*ni 169
*nt- 393
*nig w tos 108
*nmstor 484
*msdos 80, 304, 393, 507
*nk w tus 394
*n-mpg w iones 367
*n-mf-tds 494
454
— 673 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*n(o)h x t- 88
*pehimp 375, 413
*pelo/eh a - 8, 104
*pe/r 283
*noibhos 493
*peh2- 198, 200,415,439
*pelou- 104
*pers- 540
*noihxei 346
*peh 2 s(k)eti 198
*pelpel- 88
*persneh a - 17, 18, 265
*nok- 467
*peh2ti 198
*pelus 364, 387
*pertus 229,487
*nok w t- 394
*peh2ur 202
*pempe 401
*peru 547
*nok w ti- 525
*peh2U[ 583, 584
*pen- (feed) 198
*peruh x nos 582
*nok w ts 242
*peh2usdn 415
*pen- (marsh) 370, 371
*perut- 654
*nos 10, 305, 454
*pehj- 444
*penk- 371
*pesd- 194
*nos- 454
*peh 3 (i)- 175
*penk w e 3, 28, 100,255,
*peses- 17, 18, 507
*Qsme 454
*poh 3 tlom 444
378, 401
*pesos 242
*gs6s 14
*pehag- 64
*penk w e dekip 404
*pef- (fly) 192, 208, 646
*nu (new) 393
*peh a gmi 64
*penk w e-(d)komt(h a ) 404
*pet- (textile) 569
*nu (now) 397
*peh a k- 64
*penk w e-Romt(h a ) 404
*pete/o- 208
*nu 222,592
*peh a kti 64
*penk w -e-tos 401
*pet(e)n- 646
*p-uk w -tos 535
*p(e)h a no/eh a - 569
*penk w -tos 401
*pet(e)r- 646
*peh a usdn 415
*pe(n)s - 499
*petetro- 27, 28
*6 313
*peh x - 313
*pent- 202, 487
*peth a - (fly) 208
*o- 399
*peh x (i)- 313
*pent - 265
*peth a - (spread) 443, 539
*oi- 399
*pei- 519
*p(o)nt- + *dhehi-/*k w er-
*peth a lom 539
*ozkos 398, 399
*pe/g- 259, 260
452
*pe/oth a mos 569
*oinogo- 12
*peig- 64
*pente/o- 202
*p e tb a nds 443
*oinokos 12
*peih x - 208, 382
*penth a -fros 196
*petfr a tor 208
*oinos 12, 398, 399
*peik/k- 259
*per (through) 60, 174,
*p e tneh a ti 539
*oiuos 398, 399
*peik- (bind) 64
581, 654
*petuor- 401
*o£- 274
*peik- (paint) 414
*per- (animal) 24
*peturtos 40 1
*o£td 402
*peiReh a tei 480
*per- (attempt) 36
*peug- 451
*oktdu 402
*peis- (blow) 72
*per- (blow) 72
*peuh x - 109, 639
*oktduos 403
*peis- (thresh) 8, 581
*per- (exchange) 185, 186
*peu(h x )- 471
*oRtijds 403
*peiseh a tei 480
*per- (go) 228, 229, 488
*peuks 428, 429, 451,
*ok w etu- 402
*pek- 23, 570
*per- (numerals) 399
599, 600
*ok w etuo(s) 402
*peke/o - 570
*per- (panther) 415
*p(e)um- 469
*os- 32
*pekte/o- 570
*per- (shore) 515
*peumds 469
*os(o)nos 34
*peRu 23, 48, 168, 366
*per- (strike) 407,549,582
*p}j2Uen-s 202, 583
*osthx- 83
*peku-seruos 439
*per- (wife) 642
*pbagenti 64
*pek w - 125
*per 214, 358
*ph a gmes 64
*pad 171
*pek w e/o- 10
*per 283
*pfr a Renti 64
*pandos 143
*pek w ter- 125
*perd- 415
*pb a ter 28, 194, 195, 222,
*paniko/eh a - 383
*pek w tis 125
*perde/o- 194
242, 305, 333, 463,
*pano- 383,432
*pel- (bend) 62, 400
*perg- 282, 441
465, 592
*piino/eh a - 569
*pel- (exchange) 185
*perg- 407
*ph a triios 195
*panf- 2,17
*pel- (skin) 269, 443
*per(h3)- 441
*ph a tros 195
*pap- 82
*pel- (mouse) 387
*peri- 61
*pfa a tr-ou- 28
*papa 195
*pelekus 37
*peri-hies- 229
* petrous 335, 609
*parikeh a - 123
*peles- 376, 650
*peri-steh 2 - 6 1
*pfr a truuios 333, 334
* past os 204
*pelhi~ 201, 443
*perk- 198
*ph a tru(u)ids33>3, 334, 609
*pau- 200
*pel(hi)euis 443, 446
*perk- (ask) 33, 369
*pfr a trwjds 333, 335, 609
*p(a)u- 533
*pelhius 3
*perk- (color) 113, 537
*phx6I- 191
*paukos 200
*pelh a - (hand) 205, 255
*perk- (pig) 425
*pibeti 98
*pauos 200
*pelh a - (set in motion) 507
* perk/s- 415
*pieh x u- 639
*pauros 200
*pelh a k- 205
*perkus 81
*piek- 549
*ped- (fall) 192, 206
*pelhx- (bear) 56
*perk w - 407
*p/hj- 175
*ped- (track) 595
*pelh x - (fort) 49,210, 630
*perk w - 582
*pih x (i)- 313
*pedom 14, 27, 595
*pel(i)s- 548
*perk w unos 582
*pih x vf 194, 382
*pedos 208
*pefn- 268
*perk w us 407, 429, 582,
*pik- 500
*pehi(i)- 258
*pelneh a - 507
599, 600
*pikskos 604
—
674 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*pi(k)skeh a - 604
* piles- 251
*pilos 251, 317, 500, 569
*pilso- 569
*piho- 569
*pin- 442
* pines ti 581
*piphje/o- 175
*pipih x usih a - 382
*pipp~ 66
*pis- 45 1
*pisc/- 451
*pisdo/eh a - 507
*pise/o- 525
*pisk- 72, 604
*pitru> 428, 429, 599,600
*pitus 208
*(p)kormos 413
*(p)korm os 413
*pkuon 168
*plehi- 417
*pleh}dhi}ehis 417
*pleh jdhuh ids 417
*plehjios - 3
*plehinos 214
*pleh a gmi 549
*pleh a k- (please) 434
*pleh a k/g- (strike) 549
*pleh a kti 549
*pleh a nos 205
*plek- 87
*plek- 567, 570
*plet- 516
*pl(e)t- 17, 18,516
*pleth2~ 83, 133, 539
*pleth 2 es- 83
*pleu- 74,359, 561
*pleudhom 347
*pleumon 17, 18, 359
*pleus- 570
*p\hinos 3,214
*plhidus 3
*plhju-k w id 3
*plh i u -poik/kos 538
*p/h 2 is 14
*plh3~ 64 1
*plh a meh a - 206, 255
*plh a mos 255
*plh a ng- 549
*p(l)lous 387
*plokei 567
*pldth 2 us 83
*plouiom 74
*pIoukos 206
* ploy os 74
*plsos 548
*p\th20us 83
*p\th 2 u- 83
*plth 2 -uih a - 133
*plth2us 539
*p}tnos 98
*plumnds 359
*p/us- 206
*plut- 282,431
*pneu - 82
*pn(k w )stis 255
*pnk w (t)os 401
*ppf/i 2 e/i a - 640
*ppfh 2 os 202, 487
*po 43
*pod- 27, 28
*podrp 208
*pdds 17, 18, 208
*pogsos 517
*pohi(i)- 268
*pohiimen- 268
*poh x iueh a - 200
*poik - 113
*poksos 17, 18, 517
*polh a iji 255
*polih x os 255
*polik(o)s 255
*poIkeh a - 8, 200
*polt- 441
*poniom 370
*ponth a - 27, 28
*pontoh2S 202, 463, 487,
625, 640
*porei 228
*pdrkos 215, 317, 365,
425, 525
*porkuos 113
*pomom 646
*poro/eh a - 229
*pos 42, 43
*posk w o- 43
*posp 43
*pot- 348,371
*poteh a ie/o - 208
*poteh a ie/o- 208
*poteie/o- 208
*pdth a f 443
*podetoi 490
*potis 47, 240, 283,317,
371,490, 531,622,642
*potmen- 208
*potmos 208
*potnih a - 371, 622, 642
*poums 17, 18, 251, 469
*pr 581
*prek- 369
*prem- 450
*prep- 25
*pres-sth 2 - 583
*prest- 583
*preu- 323
*preug- 323
*preuieh a - 358
*preus- 72 (blow)
*preus- 88 (bum)
*preus- 287 (ice)
*pfh3ktds 24
*pf(h3)tis 441
*pfh a eh i 60
*pih a ei 60, 159
*pfh x uos 399
*prihx- 642
*prihx-eh a - 358, 642
*pn'Ms 2 14, 283,358
*priidm hineh 3 mn 438
*pfj05 213
*pfkeh a - 8, 215
*pfkeus 81
*pfkske/o- 33, 468
*pfk (w) eh a - 407, 428, 599,
600
*pfnds 283
*pro 6, 61
*pro- 156, 399
*pro- 173, 174
*prd- 174
*pro-bhuos 236
*prokeh a - 33
*prokiom 480
*proti 6
*prdti-h 3 (d)k w o/eh a - 1 9 1
*pftous 229, 487
*prugske/o- 323
*prus- 287
*pstenos 17, 18, 81
*pster~ 133
*ptehi- 191
*pteleieh a - 178
*pteleueh a - 178
*ptoh}t6s 191
,*pu- 469
*pu- 528
*pu-g- 72
*puh a snos 415
*puhx- 528
*puh x es- 375, 471
*puh x r- 109
*puh x -ro-s (clean) 109
*puh x ros (wheat) 7, 432,
639
*puh x -to-s 109
*puk(eh a )- 563
*puic- (headband) 26 1
*puk- (press) 451
*pukos 428
*pulos 251, 469, 500, 569
*pumsos 10
*purk (w) eh a - 407, 428
*puf- 144
*pudos 533
* put os 17, 18, 507
*p(h)eu- 72
*ph6l- 191
22
*rapeh a - 432, 620
*red- 503
*reg- 572
*re£- (silver) 518
*ieg- (wet) 639
*rehi- (put in order) 472
*rehj- (wealth) 638
*reh lids 637
*rehjis 637
*rehimos 160
*rehipo/eh a - 282
*reh\t- 282, 442
*rei- (line) 354, 537
*rei- (shake) 509
*reidh- 485
*re/£- 187
*reik- 354
*reiroih2e 509
*rek- 535
*reknos 639
*remb- 255
*remos 160
*rendh- 567
*rep- 141
*repeh a - 8, 432, 620
*repe/o- 10
*resg- 571
*rer/i 2 - 491, 512, 641
*retb2e/o- 49 1
*reu- 488
*reud- 642
*reudh~ 471
*reudh a - 246
*reudh a ti 246
*reughmen- 382
*reuh x - 534
*reu(h x )- 252, 567, 570
*reuh x es- 534
*reuk/g- 516
— 675 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*reumn~ (abdomen) 2, 137
*reumn- (hair) 98, 252, 567
*reup- 81
*reus - 125
*rik- 317, 357
*rohjdh- 472
*roikos 155
*rds 158, 159
*rdsrp 158
*roth 2 ikom 49 1
*roth. 2 o/eh a - 49 1 , 640
*roth20s 98, 491
*roudh a os 246
*fsen 363
*rudlos god 642
*rughis 8, 432, 491
*ruk~ 110
*sab- 500
*saiuos 568
*sak - 494
*sakros 493, 494
*sal- (salt) 28, 242,317
*sal- (plank) 43 1
*sal(i)k- 599, 600, 643
*samh x dhos 499
*sap- (sap) 500
*sap - (taste) 500, 566
*(s)bhondneh a 528
*se 455
*sebh- 354
*sed- (go) 228
*sed- (sit) 80, 228,352,
393,451,505,506, 522
*s(e)d- 507
*sedehiti 522
*sedes- 505, 522
*sed!om 505
*sed-ros 505
*sed s ti 522
*segh- 123, 630
*seghuf 124
*sehi- 8,47, 222,505,
525, 534
*sehi(i)- (go) 228, 523
*sthi(i)- (magic) 362
*sehl(i)- (sieve) 518
*sehl(i)- (long) 357
*sehptom 518
*sehik- 523
*seh]mi} 317, 505
*sehiros 357
*seh'itlom 518
*sehitos 357
*seh 2 - 520
*seh2(i)~ 500
*seh2tis 500
*seh 4 i- 375,413
*seh a 457
*seh a (e)l- 498
*seh a el 498
*se/7 a g- 505
*seh a l 498
*seh a 6l 498
*seh a u(e)l- 88
*seh a ueliom...spokom 438
*seh a ul 232,556
*seik- (extend) 187
*seik- (pour) 448
*sek- (cut) 38, 144, 494
*sek- (dry) 170, 517
*sek- 523
*sekur- 38
*s(e)Knds 186
*sekstis lo
*sek(s)-tos 402
*sek w - (back) 43
*sek w - (eye) 188
*sek w - (follow) 115, 208,
505
*sek w - (numerals) 399
*sek w - (speak) 536
*sek w - (with) 646
*sek w etor 208
*sek w h 2 ios 115
*s e k w h 2 ios 208
*sek w o- 646
*sek w t 1 7
*sek w tnos 349
*sel- (jump) 285, 323
*sel- (plank) 43 1
*sel- (take) 564
*seles- 370
*selg- 481
*selh x - 236
*selk- 471, 643
*selke/o- 471
*selpes- 1 94
*selph x (e)s - 194
*selpos 10, 592
*sem 399, 499, 646
*sem- (draw water) 169
*sem- (numerals) 253,
398, 410
*sem- (put in order) 472
*sem- (seasons) 504
*sem- (some) 533
*semgo(lo)s 12
* semis 253
*semlom 410
*semos 499
*sems 399
*sen(h a )- 3
*senh a ti 3
*senehiie/o- 409
*seng w h- 519
*senhxdhr- 639
*sen-i/u- 24
*senk- 170
*seno-meh a ter 239
*senos 28, 98, 409, 531
*senos 7
*sent- (go) 228, 488, 637
*sent- (perceive) 418
*sentos 228, 488, 637
*sep- (death beliefs) 151,
450
*sep- (taste) 566
*sepelie/o- 151, 450
*sepit 7, 432, 639
*sept 462
*septrp 242, 305, 402
*septip(e)tos 402
*septrpmos 402
*septijitis 10
*septrptos 402
*ser- (flow) 207
*ser - (line) 354
*ser- (protect) 458
*seren(i)uh x s 232
*serK- 229
*serk 108, 123, 629
*seros 357
*serp- 141
*seru 630
*ses- 14, 527
*ses(i)os 7, 236, 432
*sesti 527
*setos 357
*seu- (boil) 76
*seu- (left) 349
*scu- (rain) 477
*seue 455
*seug- 375, 517
*seug/k- 556
*seuh3- 507
*seu(h x )- (bear) 56
*seu(h x )- (juice) 323
*seuh xr 238, 289,425,533
*seuij x tor 289
*seuios 131, 349
*seuos 412
*seup- 493, 494
*(s)grebh - 143
*(s)greh a b(h)- 273, 599,
600
*sb2dmen- 520
*s'h 2leis 500
*sh2tos 500
*s-(h 3 )ek w - 188
*s-h4upo 6 1 2
*sh a uel- 88
*sh a u-en-s 556
*sih2mn 283
*silVbVr- 518
*singhos 350, 365
*sinos 10
*sid(u)ros 84, 85
*sisdeti 522
*siskus 170
*siuhi- 573
*siuhimen 573
*siubitos 573
*skabh- 270
*skaiuos 131, 349
*(s)kamb- 143
*(s)kand- 323, 514
*skauros 156
*skebh- 503
*(s)ked- 500
*(s)k e dneh a ti 500
*skehp-d- 144
*skehil(h)- 312
*(s)kei- 144
*skeits 512
*skek- 323
*(s)kel- (split) 74, 336,
442, 538
*(s)kel- (crooked) 142
*(s)kend- 385
*(s)keng- 142, 156, 376
*(s)ker- (cut) 143, 144,
258, 312, 336, 444,
514, 518, 522, 594
*sker- (jump) 324
*sA’er- (threaten) 577
*(s)kerbh- 53
*(s)kerp- 444
*(s)kert- 143, 144
*sket(h. )- 312
*skeu- 133
*skeubh- 471 , 509
*(s)keud- 58 1
*(s)keude/o- 581
*skeu(hi)- 418
*(s)keuh\-. 451
*(s)keu(h x )- 134, 522
*(s)keup- 262
*(s)keu-t- 1 34
*skidros 574
— 676
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*skih x rom 382
* ski tos 512
*(s)kng- 142
*skobhei 503
*skoitom 512
*(s)kdit[ 83
*(s)koitros 83
*(s)koli- 168, 364
*skolmeh a - 561, 576
*(s)kolmos 74
*(s)kdlos 442
*skdtos 508
*(s)kueh x tis 522
*skueis 80
*(s)kuh x teis 522
*skuios 80
*(s)ku(n)t- 509
*(s)kegos 229, 365, 511
*(s)kehiu(e)r- 644
*(s)Kei- 96
*(s)khiu(e)r- 644
*skiieh a s 508
*skoih a 508
*(s)kup- 516
*(s)k w alos 510
*(s)lag w - 564
*(s)lag w ie/o- 564
*slak- 549
*(s)/eb- 255
*(s)leh 2 g- 523
*(s)lei- 527, 529, 568
*(s)leidh- 527
*sleidhe/o- 527
*(s)leim- 527
*sleimak- 529
*(s)lein- 527
*(s)leip- 527
*slenk- 607
*s/eu6h- 527
*(s)lh 2 g- 523
*s\ie/o- 323
*slih x ii- 115, 246
*slougos 506
410
*(s)me 380
*smeg- 566
*smei- 344
*smeid- 528
*smeit- 582
*smek- 17, 18, 107,251
*(s)mer- 483
*smeru 194
*(s)m(e)ug- 527
*(s)m(e)ug(h)- 529
*(s)m(e)uk- 527
*(s)mel- 154
*(s)mdd- 378
+ *h3nog w h- 12
*smih a - 399
*sip-loghos 57, 642
*srpmds 532
*smdkuj~ 17, 18, 107,251
*smonos 12
*srpteros 253
*srp-uid- 611
*(s)nehi(i)- 530, 571
*(s)nehiie/o - 571
*snehimn 571
*sneh\tis 571
*snehju- 571
*snehi(u)- 568
*snehiuf 571
*snihiuf 568
*(s)neh a - 74, 561
*sneh a ii 561
*sneig w h- 530
*sner- 394
*(s)ner- 573
*sneu- 148
*sneubh- 148, 369
*sneudh- 110
*snig w h-s 530
*(s)nih}- 571
*spneuti 3
*snohpeh a - 571
*snoig w h-os 530
*snoudh- 110
*sn-ter 25
*smj- 148
*snusos 28, 148, 369
*snusus 148
*so 457, 592
*sodeie/o- 525
*sodeieti 506
*sodeieti 506
*sod(i)o- 522
*sohif 534
*soilo/eh a - 362
*sokto- 376, 517
*s6icr 186
*sok w eh]ske/o- 208
*sdk w h2oi 115, 208
*sok w os 499, 500, 592
*56/^ 349
*solh x - 160
* solo/eh a - 282
*soluos 262, 376
*som- 646
*somo-g#(hi)ios 192, 193
*somo-ph a tdr 195
*somds 499
*sor- 401, 521
*sor 521
*sorbeie/o- 10
*soru 77, 531
*spehi- 500
*spehi(i)- 3, 458
*spehnei 500
*speh x i- 208
*(s)p(e)iko/eh a - 143, 648
*(s)pek- 505
*(s)pekie/o- 505
*(s)pel- (skin) 269
*(s)pel- (speak) 536
*spelgh- 17, 18, 538
*spelo/eh a - 5 1 2
*(s)pen- 571
* spend- 351
*speno- 81
*sper- (scatter) 500
*sper- (sparrow) 534
*sper- (wind 2 ) 644
*spergh- 284
*sper(hi)- 265, 329
*sperh x g- (speak) 535
*sperhxg- (spread) 539
*(s)peud- 284, 471
*(s)p(h)el- 5 1 3
*spfyiros 3, 458, 500
*spfr a dheh a - 43 1
*sph a en- 431
*(s)pi(e)uh x - 538
*(s)pingos 201
*spleigh - 546
*(s)plend- 514
*spndo(to)r 351
*sp6hjuei 500
*spoh x ino/eh a - 208
*spoh x mos 208
*spondei 351
*(s)pondh(n)os 444
*spoudeh a - 284
*spreg- 394, 535
*(s)pre(n)g- 644
*(s)pfh x g- 394
*spfbj6m 265
*srebh- 175
*sredh- 77
*(s)reg- 113
*srenk- 530
*sreno/ch a - 260
*sret- 77
*sreu- 207, 486
*sreue/o- 207
*sreumen- 486
*s/g6s 548
*s[h cl gds 63
*sriges- 1 1 3
*srdbhei 175
*sroh a gs 63, 433
*sromos 156
*sroumos 486
*srouo/eh a - 207
*sfpo/ch a - 8, 517
*smds 28
*srutus 98
*sfae- 542
*stag- 207
*(s)teg- 134, 282, 283, 442,
*(s)feges- 282, 488
*steh2- 61 , 343, 431, 442,
469, 547
*(s)teh 2 - 543
*sleh 2 bho/eh a - 282
*sleh 2 ehi- 468
*steh2-m 469
*stch2mon 431
*steh2tis 430
*steh 2 tlom 431
*steh2U- 442
*steh2ur 282, 442
*(s)tehj- 543
*(s)leh^tis 543
*(s)teh 4 iu- 543
*(s)teh 4 ius 543
*steibe/o- 28
*steig- 45 1
*steigh- 228, 488
*sre/- 442, 472, 506
*(s)tel- 475
*(s)telh x - 247
*stembh- 543
*stemh 2 - 387
*sfen- (moan) 384
*slcn- (narrow) 391
*(s)tenh x - 582
*sfer- (barren) 52
*srer- (spread) 539
*s/er- (steal) 543
*(s)ter- 548
*(s)tergh - 142
*(s)terhi- 547
*slcr(h ].)- 57
*s[erh}mn 57
*stenos 28
*steu- 449
*(s)teud- 471
*steup - 442
*steuros 23, 135, 366
*sth 2 bho/eh a - 282, 442
— 677 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*sth2ei- 547
*st(h 2 )eug- 547
*stfr2mens 43 1
*sf^2mnds 431
*stfr2teis 430
*stb.2tlom 43 1
*sth2tos 431
*sth2unds 442
*stighs 228,488
*stisteh 2 mi 469
*stfsteh 2 ti 542
*st\neh a - 282, 442
*stoigho/eh a - 228, 488
* stomp 387
*storos 543
*streh 3 - 539
*strenk- 574
*(s)trep- 89
*streu- 539
*streug- 588
*stfh 3 mens 57
*strh 3 mnds 57
*stf(h x )ion- 550
*(s)tfneghti 142
*stfneh 3 [i 539
*stfneu(i 539
*stuh2nos 442
*(s)tuned s ti 471
*sfup- 442
*su- (good) 235
*su- (pig) 425
*su- (sister) 521
*sy- 521
*su- 85, 412
*spard- 345
*sue 455
*sye- 195, 386, 412, 521
*s(y> 143
*s(jj)ebh- 354
*s(u)edh- 143
*suedh- 455
*suedh-o- 354
*sueh a d- 560
*sueh a de/o- 566
*sueh a dus 560, 566
*sueh a du- uek w - 438
*(s)ueh a gh- 89
*suei- 72
*sue(i)- 63
*sueid- (shine) 514
*syeid- (sweat) 560
*syeide/o- 560
*(s)ueig- 154
*sueighl- 72
*sueidn 85
*sueisd- 72
*suekruh a s 196, 386
*suekruos 196
*(s)ueks 402
*sueks-os 402
*syek(s)-fos 402
*suekuros 85, 195, 196,
386, 412, 469
*suekuros 85, 469
*sue7- (plank) 431
*sue/- (burn) 88, 232
*s(u)el- 282
*suelih x on- 85, 332
*sueliion- 85, 332
*suelp- 88
*suem- 561
*sydm 455
*sjje(n)g- 63
*suenh x - 534
*syep - (sleep) 527
*syep- (throw) 582
*siiepnos 527
*suepdr 527
*sijepti 527
*syer- (dark) 147
*syer- (house) 282, 442
*suer- (speak) 535
*(s)uer- 535
*suerbh- 607
*sijerd - 147
*suergh- 142, 375, 516
*s\ 2 erhxghti 636
*sijerh x K- 636
*syeros 375, 650
*suesdr 37, 333, 334, 393,
401,412,521
*suesrih x nos 392
*suesriios 392, 521, 609
*syesros392, 521
*sue-t- 455
*suh x trom 290
(pig) 425
*suhx- (rain) 477, 478
*suh x e/o- 289
*suh x ius 56, 533
*suh x nus 56, 533
*suh x ros 69
*suh x s 425
*suh x sos 10, 238
*suidie/o- 560
*suig/k- 5 1 8
*suih x nos 222
*suleh a - 323
*suneh 3 ti 507
*sunusus 148
*suoiniieh a - 521, 522
*suoiniios 85
*suombhos 539
*suonh x os 534
*suopeieti 527
*sudpeieti 527
*suopniiom 170
*suopnos 527
*suopf 527
*su(o)r- 516
*suoraks 363, 516
*suorgeie/o- 10
*supnos 10, 527
*suros 69
*sQs 317, 365,425
*suueinos 425
*s(u)uos 425
(leader) 348
*fag- (touch) 595
*fag- 472
348
518
*takehi- 518
*taksos 599, 600, 654, 655
195
*tauros 24, 98, 135, 136,
317, 365
*te 454, 455
*tegus 574
*t(e)h 2 U-s- 475
*teh 4 i-e/o- 543
*teh a - 378
*teh a g- 472
*teh a li 457
*teh a mot(s) 457
*teh a u-
*teh a uot(s) 457
*teig w - 518
*tek- (bear) 56, 107
*tek- (extend) 187
*te/c- (run) 49 1
*teke/o- 491, 525
*fekef 305
*tekmen- 56
*tek(m)n-(o)- 56
*teknom 106
*tekos 592
*feks- 38, 139, 436, 443
*Leksleh a - 37
*tekso/eh a - 37
*teksteh a - 139, 443, 444
*teks-(t)or/n- 139
*telh 2 - 352
ttelhr 450
*telh x -om 247
*telk- 47 1
*telp- 534
35
*temeti 35
*temh x - 549
*temh x -es- 468
*temh x sreh a . 147
*temh x -ti 468
*temp- 187
*t(e)msh x srds 468
*temsro/eh a - 147
*ten - (extend) 187, 469,
508, 574
*fen- (thin) 574
*teng- (think) 575
*feng- (wet) 639
*tengh- 264, 469
*teng(h)- 187
*tengh-s- 508
*tenfr a g- 343
*tenh x - 384
*tenk- (extend) 188
*tenk- (milk) 382, 516
*tenk\ 382
*fens- 187
*f endom 574
*fenus 574
*tep- 263, 264
*tep(V)s- 263
*fer 229
*£er- (go) 77
*£er- (numerals) 400
*ter- (shake) 509
*ter- (speak) 535
*terg w - 214
*terhi- 36, 424
*terh]trom 36
*terh 2 - (across) 4 ■
*terh 2 - (go) 229
*terh 2 - (pierce) 424
*terh 2 - (poetry) 439
*terh2ti 229
*lerh 3 - 424
*terhx- 424
*ter(i)- 490
*teruos 401
*terios 400
*TerK- 481
*terk w - 535
*terk (w) - 572
*t(e)rm- 569
*termn 77
*termn- 569
*termdn 77
— 678 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*terp- 500
Herptis 500
*ters- 170, 468
*teter- 142,217
*ti eu- (favor) 198
*teu- (people) 417
*teubh- 543
*teue 455
*teu(h a )- 383,417,560
*teus- (empty) 179
*teus- (happy) 255
*teuteh a - 7,31, 121,288,
417, 531,630,631
*t-h 4 et - 195
*tieg w - 650
*tieg w e/o- 650
*tih x n - 160
*tisres 400
*tkeh\- 490
*tl cei-87, 171, 622
*tken- 549
*tkiteis 622
*tkftis 622
*tlhxom 247, 525
*t)neh 2 - 592
*tjneh2ti 352
*tphag- 343
*tpklos 382
*tpndus 574
*tdd 457
*to(d) dh a eghf 149
*todeh a 457
*tod hiorsom 88
*tod h 2 ekru 567
*tod h a eghf 149
*toksom 78
*tolko/eh a - 496
*tolk w - 535
*tomh x es- 147
*topeso- 264
*tor 456, 457
*torseie/o- 468
* torsos 28
456, 457
*tr - 400
*£/bds 281
*trebeh a - 282
*trebrp. 281
*trebno- 282
*trebs 281, 282
*freg- 175
*tregh- 49 1
*treh 2 ie/o- 229
*treies 28, 222, 400
509
*trep- (tear) 567
*trep- (turn) 607
*tres- 198, 509
*treu- 490
*treud- 451
*treude/o- 451
*treu(h x )- 490
*tr-i- 400
*tn-(d)komt(h a ) 404
*trih a tdn god 504
*trii(i)h a 400
*tn-komt(fy a ) 404
*triios 400
*tris 401
*tris- 409, 434, 644
*tristis 400
*tri-tiios 400
*Tritos 138, 581
*tritos 400, 592
*tpiu- 575
*tromos 509
*trosdos 582
*tfpteis 500
*t{stos (dry) 170
*tfstos (numerals) 400
*tjsus 1 70
*tftiios 400
*trus- 409, 481
*(t)sel - 141
^uehr 383
*tueis- 509
*t\i e kds 522
*tueks 17, 18, 522
*tu£m 455
*tuengh- 45 1
*£yer- (take) 564
*ruer- (turn) 607
*tuerk- (creator) 141
*t uerk- (pig) 425
*tuh 2 s- 518
*tuh a s-kiptios 405
*tuh a s-krpto- 405, 561
*tuh x 10, 47,222,454,
455, 525
*tuh x om 305, 454, 455
*tuh x ros 382
*tuoh x [ 382
*tuorkos 425
*t ufk-ter- 141
*tusskios 179
*uadh- 625
*uadhom 625
*uag- 112, 538
*uagros 112
*yai (inteijection) 313,
647
*uailos 28, 647
*uak- 179
*ua/- 490
*ualsos 282, 442
*ud 612
*uden(i) 636
*udenrp 636
*udero - 2, 17
*udnds 636
*udros 364, 411
*uds 612
*ud s tero/eh a -2 , 179
*ue 454
*-ue 410
*ueben- 336, 630
*uebh - 437
*uebhel- 312
*yed- 535
*y edns 583, 636
*yedos 14, 469, 636
*uedh- (bride-price) 83
*uedh- (push) 91,112,471
*ijedhe/o- 525
*uedhego/eh a - 1 12
*yedhris 91, 471
*ijedmo/eh a - 82, 369
*ueg- 437, 572
*yeg- 550
*yegh- 507
*uegh- 91, 488, 507, 625
*ueghe/o- 9 1
*uegheti 305
*ueghieh a - 488
*ueghio- 9 1
*ueghitlom 91, 625
*ueghnos 91, 488, 625
*ueghtis 91
*ueg w - 639
*ueg w h - 448
*ue/6h x f 636
*uehintos 222, 592
*uehir- 606
*uehiros 98, 606
*ijeh a b- 89
*uehag- 89
*u(e)h a stos 179
*ueh a f- 375, 650
*ueh a tis 493
*uei- (sacred) 494
*uei- (willow) 643
*uei 454
*ueib- 607
*ueid- 337, 468
*ue\des- 337
*uezg- 63
*ueig/k- 607
*uei(h x )~ (follow) 208
*uei(hx)- (textile prep)
571, 644
*ueih x - 209, 656
*ueih x (e)s- 548
*ueih x s 209
*ueik- (appear) 25
*uei7c- (bend) 63
*ueik- (fight) 201
*ueik- (sacred) 493, 494
*ueik- 192,283,622
*ueikes- 192, 622
*ueimn- 571
*ueiom 454
*ye/p- 507, 607
*ueis- (cow) 136
*ueis- (flow) 207, 439
*ueis- (weasel) 638
*ye/s- (wind) 644
*ye/£- 599, 600, 643
* \jieitis 571
*uekeros 184
*uek- 629
*uekti 629
*ueks-tos 402
*uek w - 534, 623
*uek w es- 535
*uek w os teks- 436
*uek w os uek w - 438
*ijel- 91 (grass)
*uel- (death beliefs) 150,
153, 200, 201
*uel- (field) 200, 201, 240
*uel- (heat) 264
*uel- (see) 505.
*uel- (turn) 607
*uel- (want) 629
*uel- (wolf) 647
*ueld- 142
*uelg- 639
*uel(h 2 )- 567, 650
*ueliko/eh a - 599, 600, 643
*uelk- 639
*u(e)lk w o- 647
*uels- 388
*uelsu- (death beliefs) 153,
200 , 201
*uelsu- (field) 200, 201
*ueltus 505
*uelutrom 91
*uemh x irn 538
*uen- 548
— 679 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Proto-Indo-European)
*uendh- (hair) 252
*uendh- (turn) 607
*ue/ondhsos 252
*ueng- 63
*uenh x - 158
*uenVst(r)- 2, 137
*uer- (burn) 88, 125
*uer- (cover) 65, 134, 199,
268
*uer- (crow) 142
*uer- (find) 202
*uer- (fort) 210
*uer- (numerals) 401
*yer- (perceive) 417
*uer- (speak) 535
*uer- (willow) 643
*\}er-b(h)- 417
*uerg- (hair) 252
*uerg- (work) 649
*uergom 649
*uergh - 141
*uerh j- 535
*uerh x - 523
*uerhxdeh a - 375
*uerh x us 83
*uerie/o- 535
*uemo/eh a - 11, 599, 600
*uerp- 572
*uers- (agriculture) 8, 581
*uers- (peak) 416
*uers£n 363
*uert- 607, 630
*uerte/o- 607
*uenjer- 317, 364, 540
*yes- (clothe) 109, 468
*yes- (cow) 135
*ues- (crush) 142
*ues- (dwell) 171, 281
*ues- (exchange) 185, 186
*ues- (feed) 198, 268
*yesmn- 109
* yes-no - 185
*uesperos 184
*uesf 504
*uestis 109
*ues(t)o 109
*uestor- 268
*yesfr- 109
*uesu - 235
*uesu 438
*yef- (blow) 436
*uet- (year) 14, 654
*ueteIos 24
*uetes- 24
*uetos 10
*ueuok - 14
*ug w - 639
*u(hi)erh x - 606
*uhiue 455
*ui- 193
*ui- 25, 193
*ui(d)Kipt 28
*ui-(d)Kijitihi 404, 469
*uidmen- 337
*uidmes 222
*ui-dh(e)hi- 160, 642
*yidh- 642
*uidheuh a - 642
*ijidhhieueh a - 160
*uidhu 598
*uihiin 644
*uihinom 644
*uih x rd-pekud 439
*uih x rons peku(e)h a peh 2 ~
439
*uih x ros 209, 366, 548, 656
*uih x rds 7, 531
*uih x tek- 571
*\iih x tis 571
*uikso- 384
*uik- 192, 193, 283, 284,
348, 354,371,-531,642
*uikes 531
*uikipti 10
*ui-krptihi 404
*uf-krptih a 404
*uikos 622
*uik-potis 469
*xiikpots 348, 531
*y//ts 622
*uikijnihi 404
*yi(n)g- 178, 599, 600
*uis- 136, 137, 365
*uls 207, 439
*uisos 439, 592
*y/ss 207, 439
*jj!t(e)ros 25, 193, 399
*yims 571
*uk (w) s£n 135, 365
*ul- (bark) 51
*ul- (bird cry) 66
*ulh2neh a - 648
*ulh x mi- 637
*ulka 529
*ulkanos 529
*u\k w ih a - 274, 364, 647
*ulk w os 10, 47, 222, 305,
364, 462, 525, 583, 646
*ulk w os 646
*ul(o)p- 212, 364
*ul(ous 505
*ulu- 412
*unatkos 329
*unatks 630
*und s tis 70
*gnh x ske/o- 158
*u(p)natks 329
*Uobhel- 312
*uodf 14, 411, 469, 583,
636
*y oghos 91, 625
*iiog w hnis 434
*uoh 1 455
*uoide 337
*Uoidh2e 468
*uoihinom 644
*uoiko/eh a - 201
*yo/£- 283
*uoikos 193, 283, 348,
354, 622
*uoinom 434, 644
*uoituos 571
*uokeh a - 135, 365
*uok w os 623
*udk w s 623
*uok w ti 534
*\ 2 olno/eh a - 376, 650
*uolos 563
*uoIsuom 388
*uop - 343
*yop- 343, 636
*uorpas 354
*uorghos 141
*ijorh x di/o- 214
*i2orhxdo- 214, 375, 523
*uorh x dhus 269
*uor(h x )gs 208
*uorno/eh a - 376, 650
*\jorPo- 199
*uorsanos 65
*uorto/eh a - 199
*uortok w - 474
*uoruos 215
*u os 455
*uoseie/o- 10, 468
*uoseieti 109
*uos(h x )ko - 637
*uospo/eh a - 109
*y0su 638
*uof- 436
*up- 343
*y/-b- 80, 599, 643
80
*u[dhom 222
*uredh- 249
*ureg- 284, 471
*urehig- 81
*urehitos 268
*ur(e)h a d- 80
*ureh a gh- 575
*(u)rep- 608
*uretos 268
^u/gie/o- 649
*ufghos 354
*u[hien- 365, 51 1
*ufhinds 51 1
*ur(h a )d- 80
*u[h x dhij6s 269
*ufhxdhuos meigh- 439
*uf(h x )gds 208
*y/-h A -os 375, 523
*y/-/7xOiJS 83
*uri- 210, 630
*uriien- 2 1 0
*u[mis 649, 650
*u f nos 511
*urodhei 249
*u([)ren 5 1 1
*u/tu sedos 438
*y/r/s 1 99
*ufto/eh a - 199
*usr- 135
*usro- 135
*usye 455
*uteros 317
— 680 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Albanian)
Albanian [Alb]
Alphabetic order, a, b, c, g, d, dh, e, e, f, g, gj, h, i, j, k, 1, 11, m, n, nj, o, p, q, r, rr, s, sh, t, th, u, v, x, xh, y, z, zh
a 457
dege 10
emen 390
ha 175
agim 514
deb 388
emer 10, 396
hale 11
agon 514
dej 388
eper 391
hane 385
ah 32
de/e 82
epere 391
hap 42
ai 457
dem 136
epert 39 1
be 508
ajo 457
dere 168
erg/ez 357
bedb 581
ari 10, 55
dergjem 516
ethe 87
hell 442
arre 405, 406
dergjet 10
heq 471
asht 77
derk 425
embel 69
berdbe 10, 507
ata 457
derr 425
erne 386
bene 385, 514
ate 195
desba 566
ende 207
hie 508
ato 457
def 154
* enderr 10, 169
hipi 612
athet 509
diell 556
eshte 53
btrre 382
atbefe 509
dimer 504
hoje 637
dirsem 560
/are 500
huall 637
balash 641
dirse 560
fat 371
hyj 37
bale 641
dite 10
//a/e 536
hypem 6 1 2
bade 209, 641
djathe 382
/sb/y 490
hypi 612
bar 262
djatbte 271, 485
ftoh 263
bardhe 513
dje 654
inj 290
barre 56
d/eg 10, 87
gardh 10, 199
bathe 10, 55
dore 10, 254
gdhin 149
jam 10, 53
be 418
dra 170
gelepe 527
jap 503
bebe 42
drebe 175
gershas 449
jene 53
bej 513
drite 505
g/epe 527
jerm 517
bersi 199
drithe 10, 51
grua 248, 410
/osbe 239
bibe 66
drize 598
grure 236
Me 56, 90, 479
dru 598
gur 10, 270
/ta 134
bind 62
drushk 598
kalli 45 1
bir 56
duay 64
gjak 499
bam 10, 564
blegeras 70
dukem 595
g/a/pe 10, 194
kap 563
Mere 57, 271
Durres 1 1
g/a//e 262
kapitem 529
bote 649
dy 399, 404
gjarkez 108, 629
kater 401
breshen 81
dylle 637
gjarper 141
baterf 401
bresher 81
dyfe 399
gjashte 10, 402
be 564
bri 155
dyzef 404
gjashtet 402
bedb 229
bn 155
gjate 357
be 456
brume 76
dhanderr 533
gjej 10, 564
kelysh 168
buj 53
dbe 174, 629
gjerb 10, 175
kendoj 9
bumbullit 395
dhemize 650
gjerdh 10
berp 266
bung 58
dhemje 650
gjesh 10
bobe 583
dhemb 10, 594
gjeth 80
bo//e 10, 133
pi/e 142
dhender 85, 369, 533
gji 10
kopsht 200
dhi 229
gjize 207
brere 260
da/ 348
dhjes 187
gjolle 43 1
krife 251
dalloj 143
dhjete 403
gju 336
krimb 649
dane 68
dhjetet 403
gjume 10, 527
br/p 251
dare 68
gjysh 10, 238
b/ye 260
darbe 175
edb 229
gjyshe 238
brrabe 573
dash 82
e/b 10, 51
bur 456
— 681 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Albanian)
kush 456
labe 50
murg 147
mushk 34
lagje 57
n- 290
lakur 568
na 10, 454
laparos 527
nande 403
lape 568
n£nte 403
laps 358
nate 394
leh5 0
n-da/ 160
lehte 353
ndej 187
leme 81
ndez 10
lende 353
nde 290
lere 547
nder (between) 63
lesh 481
n der (extend) 187
le 349, 588
ndjek 49 1
lende 353
nduk 471
lengor 62
ne 454
hg 516
nende 403
lige 10
nene 386
lis 353
nente 403
lodhet 588
ngjel-bet 498
lope 136
ngjel-met 498
lunge 81
n-gjesh 224
ngrane 175
madh 344
ngre 37
maj 639
nguron 395
majme 639
nip 239, 392
mal 261
man] 639
nuse 148, 369
man 255
njelm 498
mat 374
n/en 366, 548
mbese 237, 394
nje 399, 404
mbi 32
njezet 404
me 380
nji 399
mekan 532
mekur 532
njoh 337
me 454
pa 42
meme 386
pale 63
mez 274, 367
pare 399
mi 10, 387
parz(em) 81
mik9
pas 43
mish 375
pe 571
mize 207
pele 56
mjeker 107, 251
penj 571
mjel 247, 381
perendi 582
mjesdite 380
pese 401
mjesnate 380
pese 401
mjet 380
pesedhjete 405
molle 25
peste 401
mos 395
petk 405
mot 374
per 581
moter 10, 134, 386
per-daj 160
mua 454
per-pjek 549
muaj 385
per-posh 209
mund 348
pi 402
pidh 110
shetate 402
pishe 428
shi 477
pisdlt 604
shkoze 273
pjek 10, 125
shlige 141
pjell 56
shoh 208, 505
pjerdh 194
shosh 518
plak 642
sh-pie 228
plas 567
sh-poroj 228
plesht 206
shpreh 535
pordhe 194
shqerr 143
po resh bore 158
shtate 10, 402
po resh shi 158
shtaze 23, 24
poshte 209
shteg 228, 488
prape 42
shterpinj 141
pres 549
shtie 539
prush 88
shfjeh 4 72, 506
pune 284, 471
shfq/ 542
punoj 284
shtrij 539
push 10, 251,479
sht>7 471
pushem 251
puth 451
tarof 135
qe 134
taroh 135
ter 170
qell 607
fete 10, 402
qeshe 607
tetef 403
qeth 252
te 455
qoj 506
tembel 69
quaj 9, 262
tenge 575
quhem 9, 262
fi 10, 455
re 158
t/err 424, 572
tre 400
re 158
fredh 451
resh 158, 638
tremb 509
ri 49,366, 548
trete 400
rite 207
trishe 644
rjep 10, 564
fy 455
rreth 491, 641
thader 336
rrenje 80
fha/170
rrif 249
thane 106
njedh 639
thanj 170
r/yep 564
thel 537
sim/ef 458
thelle 96
fher 312
sim v/'e7 458
therije 357
siv/ef 458
thi 425
sjell 10, 607
thiice 5 1 0
sorre 70
thinje 246
sot 458
thirr 69
sup 516
thjerme 246
surme 246
thjerre 249
sh- 25
thorn 10
thote 535
shemer 656
shemere 656
u 455
— 682 —
uje 636
vej 572
vidh 178
ujk 10, 646
vene 644
vit 654
une 454
vere 644
vjedh 91
ungj 609
verr 1 1
vjeherr 195, 386
vene 1 1
vjehene 386
vaj 313
verri 11
vjell 607
vale 264
vesh (clothe) 10, 109, 468
vjerr 64
vang 63
vesh (ear) 173
yjet 10, 654
varfer 411
veshk 142
vloj 264
varg 354
vete412, 455
V7one 1 1
van 134
vella 84, 238,416, 609
Wore 11
vane 650
vig 24
vorbe 88
vater 263
vida 66, 67, 169
vorfen 411
ve 642
vide 169
votre 202
Anatolian
HlTTITE [Hit]
Alphabetic order: a, d, e, g, h, i, k, 1, m, n, p, r, s, t, u, w, y,
a- 395
9-an-ti happesni 403
asanzi 53
*a- 399
anzas 14, 454
*asar- 521
*a- 399
appa 42
ass- 198
a-as-ma 410
appala- 563
assiya- 198
adanna- 208
appatariya- 563
assu- 198, 235
adant- 594
appuzzi 194
aszi 522
aki 343
ara- 213, 372
ales- 37
akkala- 434
a'ra 213
atessa- 37
akkanzi 343
arahzena- 77
attas 14, 156, 195
a&u- 547
arai- 450
atfas annas 239, 386
alanza(n) 1 1
arawa- 213
attas lsanus 230
ali- 154
arawahh- 213
awan 37
aliya(n)- 154
arawanni- 213
a(y)is 387
alkista(n)- 80
arga 508
allaniye- 560
arha - 77
da- 186, 224
alpa- 177, 641
arha(i)- 77
dai- 472, 506
alpa(nt)- 528
an 506
da-iuga 400
alwanzahh - 60, 362
ariya- 450, 536
dalugasti 357
alwanzatar 362
arki- 14, 507
daluki- 357
ammuk 454
arid 508
damaszi 565
an- 290
arkuwai- 125, 449
dan attas 156
an(as)sa- 516
arman- 517
dan-ki 400
anda 14
amuzzi 468, 506
dankui- 588
anda(n) 290
arr(a> 108
dankuiaz tagnaz 438
(anda) warpai- 199
arra- 88
dankuis 147
andurza 168
arri- 88
dassus 81, 574
1-an-ki, a-an-ki 410
arriya- 108
das(u)want- 343
9-an-ki 403
arru- 88
dusgaratar 255
7-an-na 402
arszi 207
dus/d- 255
annas 238, 385
arta 506
duwamai- 258, 424
anniya- 87
asan-at iyn-at 606
vaduyanalli- 399
antara 246
asant- 606
LANGUAGE INDEX (Hittite)
yll 87
yu 455
-zet 10, 404
ze 534
zjarm 125, 263
zonje 371, 622, 642
zor 10, 264
zone 175
zot 193, 348, 371, 622
eka 287
ekt- 393
ekuzzi 175, 176, 636
epzi 158, 563
erhui 77
erman- 517
es- 14
es- 14
esa 522
eshar 7 1
es(h)nas 71
esmi 53
eszi 53
etmi 175
euwann-a 52
ewan 236
eyan 655
Gls e(y)a(n)- 654
galaktar 38 1
ganeszi 337
genu 14, 336
giemi 504
giman(i)ye- 504
gimmant- 504
gurtas 199
hah(a)n- 329
hahhar(a)- 581
hahhariye- 581
hahlawant- 246
ha(i)- 61
— 683 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Hittite)
ha-in-kan-ta 62
hassikka- 32
zrhuz 77
kittan 352
hala(i) 506
hassu- 330, 401,481,521
jsha'- 371,372, 401
/cuen- 14
halki- 237
hassussara- 401, 521
ishahru- 567
kuenzi 548
halkuessar 484
hastai- 77
ishamai- 520
huerzi 144
halluwa- 96
hasterz(a) 543
ishamiye- 520
kumna- 14
hamesha- 258
haf- 237
ishassara- 371, 401
buis 14, 456
hammenk- 64
hat(t)-alkisnas 260
iskalla- 538
/our 456
han- 169
hatugnu- 259
iskis(a)- 356
bun- 168
handa 60
hatuki- 259
iski(ya)- 262
kunna- 493, 560
haniye- 169
hatukzi 259
ispai - 3, 458,
gis kurakki- 442
hann(a)- 125
hehur 509
ispand- 351
kuriwanas 348
hannas 238, 386
henkan- 22, 150, 441
ispant- 394
kurka- 656
ham- 60, 209
henkzi 224, 441
ispar- 329
kutruwan 401
hantezzi- 399
heu- 477
ispari 500
kuttar 62, 249
hantz 60
hinku war 441
ispamu- 500
kuwan- 14, 168
hanza 60
hinkzi 61
isparrizzi 500
kuwannu 379
hapa- 486, 636
hiqqar- 367
ispiyanu- 500
kuwapi 456
(h)apalki- 314
hissa- 508
zss(a> 362
kuwaszi 335
hapittala- 64
hueb- (pierce) 424
is(sa)na- 77
happ- 64, 116
huek- (praise) 449
zssas 387
/agarz 352
happar 637
huelpi- 615
ista(n)h- 387
lahha- 31
happessar 64, 353
hues- 171, 281
istaman- 387
lahhuzi 448
happin(a)- 88
huetar 23, 647
istar(ak)kiyazzi 142
lahni- 448
happina(nt)- 637
huetnas 23, 647
istarkzi 142
/ahpa- 177
happir 637
huett(iya)- 346
istaminkzi 142
la(i)- 349, 588
happiriye- 637
huhhas 238
ztar 228, 487
laki 352
hapusa- 507
huhhas hannas 239, 386
/a/a- 42
haran- 14
huitar 33, 647
bagas 272
lalukkima 513
harana 173
hulana- 648
ba//ar 43
laman 390
haranas 173
hulla(i) 158
kallara- 43
/aman c/a- 390, 438
har(ap)p- 411
huppai- 572
kalless- 90
lam(ma)niya- 390
haras 173
huppala- 572
kalmara- 270
Iap(pa)nuzi 513
GIS harau- 405
huppar(a)- 443
kaluis(si)na 620
/apzz 513
harduppi- 269
£ AD hupra- 572
kank- 255
lingai- 70
harganau- 187
hurki- 640
kant- 639
li(n)k- 70
hariya- 96
hurkil- 141
kapirt 387
lipp- (lip) 356
hark- 270
hurkiles pesnes 141
k(a)rap- 563
lipp- (smear) 528
harki- 14
hurkius 640
haras 5 1
lippanzi 527
harkis 64 1
huski- 171
k(a)ratan dai- 61, 439
/zssi- 356
harkzi 158
huttiye- 369
karawar 272
D UTU -liya 556
harra- 158
huwant- 72, 643
kard- 14
/uhar 174
bars- 434
huwappa- 43
karsmi 143
/ubb- 505
harsanas 260
huwappi 43
kartai- 143
lukkatta 5 1 3
harsar 260
huwapzi 43
hast- 284
/ubbe- 14, 513
harsar 260
katkattiya- 169
lukkeszi 468
harsiya- 434
idalu- 413
baffa 169
hart(ag)ga- 55, 56
zeffa 228
ki 458
mahla- 25
has 32, 87, 170
zezz 362
-hi 20
maz- 249
hasduer 80
i/a- 629
hznun 458
maista- 5 1 1
hass- 330
illuyanka kwenta 438
kir 262
maklant- 357, 574
hassa- 330
znan- 312
kisa(i)- 570
mala(i)- 235
hassa- 87, 263
i/inara 548
hiss- 14, 570
maid- 14
hassan 32, 87, 170
Innara 581
bzssar 14, 254
maldai- 449
hassi pahhur 263
innarahh- 548
hisi- 188
maldessar 449
hassikk- 32
innarawant- 548
kit-kar 260
malisku- 532
684 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Hittite)
mall(a)- 247
panku- 3
sakuwa 505
tapissa- 263
maninku- 528
pankur- 3
salpa 160
LU fappa/a- 496
maniyahh- 255
papassala- 175
sam(a)lu- 25
far- 535
maniyahhai- 255
pappars- 540
sanaz- 499
farhzz 229
mariyattari 142
para 61
sanhzi 3
tarku(wa)- 572
marla(nt)- 550
p(a)rai- 72
sanizzis 25
far/a 548
marmar(r)a- 503
parhu- 604
sapta-nigra 402
tarma- 77, 229
masi 457
party an 581
s(a)rap- 175
fama- 481
mauszi 388
parku- (birch) 65
sarhul(i) 442
farfa- 535
maya(nt)- 249
parku- (high) 14, 269
sar/cu- 229
faru 14, 598
mehur 374
parkuis 514
samikzi 108, 123
tayezzi 543
mekkis 344
pama- 283
sar-nin-k- 629
fe/can 174, 232
memma- 394, 536
pamant- 283
Gissa/pa-517
tekkussa- 516
znenz- 107, 453
pamas 283
sarra- 354
tepnu- 258, 528
mer- 150
pamawa(i)- 283
saru 77
fepu- 258, 528
meyu- 401
pars(a)na- 415
saruwai- 77
ferz- 400
militt- 271
parsna 265
sasa- 258
teripp- 607
mimma- 482
pasi 175
sassnu- 527
teripzi 567
zmu- 401
passila- 499
sawar 41 3
f eriyalla- 400, 401
miuwaniyant- 401
paszz 175
sawatar 290, 507
teriyan 400
mzyu- 401
par 371
*saweliya 556
teriyanna 400
-mu 454
pafa- 209
saz/cz 506
fezzz 472, 506
muga(i)- 394
pat tar 646
seppit 5 1 , 639
fzyezzz 543
muri- 388
Gls paffar 443
ses- 14
tittanu- 472, 543
pedan 595
sesa(na)- 236
tittiya- 472
9-z?a 403
pe hark- 270
sesmz 527
tuekka- 522
nah- 198
per 2 14, 283,358, 642
sippand- 351
fug 455
nahsar- 198
peru 547, 582
sipta- 402
tuhha(i)- 82, 529
nahsariya- 198
peru(na)- 547
sipta-miya 402
f uhuss(i)ye- 475, 518
naz 346
peruna- 407
Szli- 231
furiye- 14, 508
nakke(ss)- 570
perunant- 547
D szus 230
fuwa 349, 357, 399
nakki- 570
Perunas 407
slwatt- 149, 240
tuwala- 349
naffa 395
pe-ssiye- 581
szyarz 581
fuzzz- 417
naffa a'ra 213
pefa- 208
szyezz 581
negna- 84
pettinu- 191
suli(ya)- 246, 347
u- 37
ne/ca- 521
pidda- 159
sumanza 573
ug454
nekumant- 45
pzddaz 191
sumes 455
uhhi 418
ne/cuz 394
pisna- 507
sunna- 507
sal u(i)dati- 642
nepis 14, 110
pisnatar 507
supp- 527
ulip(pa)na- 212
newahh- 468
pittar 646
suppa- 493, 494
upzz 612
newas 14, 393
suppala- 612
ur-arzz 88
sal -ni 648
sagaz- 506
suppariya- 527
fzr/cz- 284
nini(n)k- 61
sah- 500
supp-i- 493, 494
usnyazi 185
mi 397
sa(z> (pain) 413
suu- 507
u-ssiye- 58 1
safz.)- (sow) 534
suwai- 290, 507
uwanisk- 549
padda- 159
sakiya- 505
pah(has)s- 198
sakiyahh- 506
fa 457
wa/cz 538
pahhur 202
saldc- 144
*f/da- 400
wa/dc- 179
pahwenas 202
sakkar 186
tabama- 574
walh- 567
pal 224
sakkuriya- 124
tagu- 574
walhmi 529
paimi 228
saklai- 493
takki 564
walkuwa- 646
palhi- 14, 83
saknas 186
taknas 174
walk- 567
paltana- 516
saktaizzi 376, 517
talliya- 450
wappu- 343, 637
uzu panduha- 2
sakui- 71
f/darz 399, 400
war- 125
pankar - 3
sakutt(a)- 349
fazzau 202, 555
warant- 88
685
LANGUAGE INDEX (Hittite)
wargant- 208, 330
wella 643
westara- 198, 268
-ya- 20
warpa 199
wellu- 153, 200
westra 109
yanzi 228
warpa dai- 199
wellu(want)- 240
wesuriya- 142
yuga- 372
warrai- 134
wen- (desire) 158
wett- 14
yukan 14, 372, 655
warsa 477
wen- (strike) 549
wewakk- 14
warsi 581
wenal 549
wezz- 471
zai 228
warsiya- 581
wenzi 358
wida(i)- 160
z(a)mankur 107, 251
wasi 185
werit 606
witar 14, 636
zana - 409
was(sa)pa- 109
we rite 417
witenas 636
za-sgar-ais 186
wassezzi 109, 468
wer(i)ye- 535
witt- 654
zena- 504
wastul- 179
wes 454
wiwida- 47 1
zenant- 504
watar 14, 636
wesi- 198
wiya- 208
zig 455
wekmi 629
wesiya- 198
wiyana- 644
zinu- 228
welku 643
wess- 109
ziyanzi 228
PAIAIC [Palaic]
hapa/i- 486
tum(m)an(t)- 387
tarrappunas 567
annas 238, 385
has(sa) 77
tuwanza 400
8-wa-a-i 403
bannu 199
hawa/i 510
tuwinza 400
9-wa-a-i 403
ha- 87,202,263
hlrut - 450
ulant(i)- 150
wal(a)- 567
hapnas 486
ipatarma- 508
unatti- 648
8-wanza/i 403
haranas 173
iparwassa/i- 508
9-un-za 403
9-wa n za/i 403
haras 173
/cast- 249
walant(i)- 150
warpi 199
haslra- 561
k(u)warti 144
5-w(a) 401
wawa- 134
hussiya- 169
k(u)waya- 198
8-wa-a-i 403
wi(y)ana- 644
i/a- 629
likk- 70
walwa/i- 646
9-za/i 403
ilaliya- 629
mallit- 271
wanatti- 648
zar-za 263
-kuwat 456
mammanna- 536
war(sa) 636
zumid 212
papa 195
m(a)na- 575
waspant- 109
zu-wa/i-n(i)- 168
sunat 507
mawa 401
wass(a)- 109
ff 455
mawaninta 401
wasu- 235, 638
LYCIAN [Lycianl
Tiya-22>\
mawati 401
wida(i)- 91
amu 454
tiyaz...papaz 230, 438
mimma- 575
wini(ya)- 644
arawa- 213
tu 455
nana/i- 84
zarwani(ya)- 272
arus- 2 1 3
werti 535
nanasriya 521
mu 454
nani(ya)- 84
Hieroglyphic Luvian
ne/i- 238, 385
LUVIAN [Luv]
natatta- 481
[HierLuv]
epirijeti 637
adduwal- 413
palahsa- 512
(a-)mu 454
epre/i- 42
adduwali- 413
pama- 283, 642,
astar 284
eshe- 274
aggati- 393
parray(a)- 269
atamain tuha 390, 438
. ti 611
a/oj- 175
parrayanza 269
azu(wa) 274
tre/i- 611
anna/i- 238, 385
piha- 352, 513
huha- 238
kbatra- 148
annar- 548
i0-£a 403
9-/403
kbihu 400
annara/i- 366, 548
fapar- 574
is 458
kbijehi 399
KUBABBAR-anza 518
tapassa- 263
nanasri 521
lada- 358
ara/i- 654
tarriyanalli- 400
nu-1 403
IaQ6e/i- 358
ass- 387
tatariya- 535
nu n za/i 403
mte- 155
sal duttar(ri)yati- 148
tatis 195
nuwan n za/i 403
nne/i 84
gurta- 199
tat is tiwaz 230, 438
pama - 283
nere/i- 52 1
hamsa/i- 330
fawa/i 198
fa/na- 87
nun- 403
hantel(i)- 399
7/waf- 231
tarkasna- 34
nunt-ata 403
— 686
LANGUAGE INDEX (Armenian)
pmnawa- 283
xntawa- 399
/caves' 451
MlLYAN [Milyan
Qelehi- 237
xOOase 237
kawe- 418
kille 123
snta 405
xuga 238
-kod 456
tbi-ple 400
tadi 472,506
ow- 449
fbzsu 400
tllaxnta 123
Lydian [Lydian]
sarta- 458
tri- 400
na- 238, 385
saw - 505
xawa- 510
kabrdokid 387
sfarwa- 535
xnnahe/i- 238, 385
kazare- 458
walw-el(i)- 646
Armenian
Alphabetic order: a, b, c, c\ £, £‘, d, e, 3, g, h, i, j, j, k, k‘, 1, 1, m, n, o, p, p‘, r, t, s, §, t, t‘, u, v, w, x, y, z, l
Old Armenian [OArm]
ance/ 323
aseln 509
beran 549
hat 237
and 207
asem 535
berem 28, 56, 90, 479
anec 313
as/an 509
birt 28
Middle Armenian
aner 196
asr 252
bok 45
[MArm]
ang/ 623
astl 543
brem 549
sareak 70, 362
ante 357
afamn 594
bu 412
urur 173
ani w 391
ate' 629
buc 229
anjuk 39 1
a team 259
buec 4 1 2
New Armenian [Arm]
anun 390
atmn 142
bun 247
acem 170
anur 480
aviwm 197
burgn 2 1 0
acem 63
anutf 28, 170
awaz 499
busanim 53
aciwn 32, 33, 170, 263
ap‘n 514
awcanem 24
ac‘k‘ 188
ar 60
awelum 29
caneay 337
aganim (clothe) 109
aracel 458
aw/ 530
cayeak 32 1
aganim (dwell) 171
arawr 434
aw/i 530
cer 248, 409
agraw 142
arb-an-eak- 411
awjik‘ 392
cicarn 89
a] 228
arbi 175
awr 149
cicarnuk 89
akn 28, 71, 188
arcaf 1 314, 518, 641
awt‘ 171
cin 192
akut‘ 443
arciw 173, 191, 194
aye 229
cm run 247
alik' 642
arcui 469
ay-d 457
cnawt 322
a/ 28,498
ard 362,410
aygi 63
cov 27
a/am 247
ardu 362, 410
ay/ 64, 411
cunr 28, 336
alawni 169
argel 28, 270
ayr (cavity) 96
a/bt'wT 539
argelum 270
ayr (man) 366, 548
c‘acnum 191
aljamulj-k" 477
ariwn 71
ayrem 202
c‘av 80
altiwr 539
armakn 26
ayt 561
c‘in 335
allies 212
a 77 28, 55
aytnum 561
c‘iw 132
am 504
art 200
azazim 170
c‘or-ir 401
am- 385
artasuk 567
c'fem 144
aman 443
artawsr 567
bad 171
c‘uc‘anem 418
amb 477
ar-ac 535
bal 64 1
c‘ul 168
amb-oz] 32
arajein 399
bard 91
e'urt 644
amen(-ain) 534
ara-spel 536
barjr 269
cVem 506
amis 385
arn 366
bark 22, 510
amo/c‘ 69
arnem 362
bay 535
celum 538
amul 56
aroganem 207
bekanem 81
cm/em 450
an-can 337
aru 28
belun 1 1
— 687 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Armenian)
c‘or 170
erknc'im 198
hanem 169
jalk 442
c‘ork‘ 401
erko-tasan 404
ban- gist 474
yayn 534
erku 27, 99
hanum 571
jawnem 90, 351
dadarem 270
eram 207
haravunk 1 200
jelun 356
dalar 348
es 454
harc'anem 33, 369
jer455
darbin 139
es 274
bare 7 468
jern 28, 254
dedevim 388
etl 505
hari 549
ji 274
del 382
ev28, 391
harkanem 158
jiwm 504
di 150
ewf'n 402
barsn 33, 369
jknak'al 268
diem 556
ezn
hasanem 35
jlem 435
dik‘ 231
basf 204
joyl 448
dizanem 649
dmpem 175
baw (bird) 66
ju 176
dnem 472, 506
and 60, 611
baw (grandfather) 28, 238
ju/cn 205
drand 168
onderk 1 179
hawran 198
drnc‘im 395
anf ‘ac‘ 488, 637
bayr 28, 195, 196
jerm 28, 125, 263
du 455
asf 43
be/c‘259
Jil 569
du/c‘455
helum 201
jnem 548
dur 424
ganem 548
henum 571
jur 636
durgn 491, 640
garun 504
beru 654
durk 424
gar/n 511
het 27, 595
kac'alak 362
durk‘ 28, 168
garn 511
him 28
kakac‘em 345
dutn 168
gay/ 28, 647
bin 28, 409
kakazem 345
dustr 56, 148, 533
gayr 636
bmg 28, 401
kalum 62
geb 263
hing-er-ord 402
kalin 407
e 53
gehean 203
hingetasan 404
/cam 1 1 5
e-ber 29
gelum 607
hiweanim 517
kanap ‘ 266
ed 472, 506
ge/ 629
bnoc‘ 202,263
/carer 568
e-git 29
gelj-k‘ 225
(h)ogi 72
karkac 534
e-harc‘ 33
geran 1 1
hoi 133
katu 91
eker 175
gercum 252
holm 82
kcanem 451
el 228
gerem 202
hor 84
kcem 451
elbayr 84
gef 636
hordan 229
kelem 549
elevm 324
gi 644
bof 28
kiknos 558
e/m 154
gin 185
hotim 528
/cm 28, 648
eln 154
gind 607
bovi-w510
kiv 500
em 28, 53
g/ni 644
broy 202
koe'em 535
ep‘em 88
gbem 337
bu 471
/cog/ 134
er-ir 40 1
g/ser 184
bum 478
kov 134
erast-ank‘ 24
glux 45
bun 27, 28, 202,487
krak 87
erbuc 249
gocem 535
hunjk' 224, 441
krunk 28, 140
ere/c 147
gog 449
hup 612
/cu 186
erek‘ 28, 400
gol 264
bur 202
k(u)ku 142
eresun 404
golanam 264
burn 62
erewim 25
gore 649
i 29p-
erg 449
gort 214
i-jez 455
-k‘20
ergicane- 81
govern 418
i-manam 575
k'akor 187
erin] 51 1
goy 171
im 454
k'alak' 210
eri-r 400
gre 140
-m 12
k'amel 451
eri-rord 400
inc 350
/c'an 457
er/can 474
bac7 32
in-c‘ 456
k'cani 457
ericar 27, 357
bac 500
inj 350
/e'en; 85, 521
er/caf‘ 3 14
bacar 237
inn 403
k'erem 143
erkir 400, 401
ham 566
i ver 412
k‘ert‘em 143
er/cn 413
hama-hayr 499
jz 529
k'eti 392, 521, 609
erkna-berj 269
ban 238, 386
klm-k ‘ 175
— 688 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Armenian)
k‘irtn 560
k‘o 455
k'oVanak 1 10
k‘oyr 521
k‘san 28, 404
k‘uk‘ 66
k‘un 527
lakem 352
lam 123
lanjk‘ 353
lap'el 352
/eard 356
/ezu 594
li 214
lie 207
/izem 352
lk‘anem 28, 349
loganam 108
lor 249, 474
lore ‘-k‘ 62, 156
/osdi 497
/oys 352, 513
lsem 262
/u (flea) 206
/u (hear) 262
/uaj 262
luanam 561
/uc 655
lucanem 81, 655
luc'anem 505
lusanunk 1 360
/usin 385
lusoy 352, 513
macani- 649
mal 23
malem 247
malt'em 449
mam 386
manr 528
mard 28, 150, 366
mart‘ank‘ 3
matc‘i- 377
maVil 650
mawr 503
mawru 30, 335
mawruk 1 107, 251
maxrll
mayem 394
mayr 385
mec 344
mecarem 344
meg 1 10
me] 28, 380
mekin 12
mek‘ 454
me/ 154
melk‘ 155, 532
melr 271
melui 271
mer 457
meranim 150
mi (not) 395
mi (numerals) 399
mic 528
mis 375
mit 374
mizem 613
mnam 482
mor 388
mori 388
mormok‘ 483
moranam 209
moyf‘441
mrmram 388
inukn 28, 387, 388
mun 207
mun/ 149
mux 529
naw 28
neard 568, 571
ner 522
net 481
ni- 169
nist 393
nsfim 522
nu 28, 148
o/c‘456
olok‘ 176
ol] 262
oin 176
olorm 517
omn 499
op‘i 33
orb 28, 411
orcam 6 1
ori 142, 173
orjik 1 28, 507
orjil 357
ork'iwn 357
oro] 511
oror 28, 173, 249,
orf‘ 24
or 88
os/cr 77
osf 80
ofn 27, 28, 209
ov456
oyc 113
ozni 264
plinj 379
popop 272
p‘a/ 125
p'alarik 125
p‘arem 644
p‘arp‘ar 125
p‘aycain 538
p‘etur 27, 28
p'lanim 191
p‘orj 36
p‘oyt‘ 284, 471
p l rngam 133
p‘ul 191
p‘und 444
p‘ut ‘oy 471
sag 68
sal 510
sarek 362
sarekik 201
sarik 362
sarin 287
sarn 287
satnum 287
seamk‘ 442
ser 622
serem 249
sin 179
sirem 622
sirt 28, 262
sisern 106
siwn 28, 29, 442
skalim 538
skesr-ayr 195
skesur 386
skund 108
slak‘ 537
so-in 1 2
so/im 141
sor 96
srem 510
stanam 542
stelem 506
ster] 28, 52
sun 81
stipem 28
strar 442
sur 510
suzanem 268
san 168
se/ 142
sen 622
sun 168
t- 43
fa/ 28, 521
fam 224
tan 192, 281
farga/ 598
tarmahaw 543
tart am 526
tareln 548
tasanem 271
fasn 28, 403
fawn 496
faygr 84, 521
tel 207
fe/am 207
ferem 567
f esi 271
tetrak 217
fi 161
ff/c 229
fiw 149
tiz 357
fo/ 397
top‘em 550
forn 607
trc‘ak 564
fun 192, 281
fur 28, 185
f'a/cn 442
Vamb 187
t'anam 378
t'arm 77, 229
Varsamim 27
tar 28
Varamim 27, 170
f‘e/cn 518
Veh 178
f‘e/os 178
fir 646
Voluw 352
t‘rt‘rak 535
Vranim 646
t‘rc‘im 208
Vuk‘ 538
Vurc 175
f'uz 433
ul 56
ul 91
ult27
— 689 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Armenian)
unayn 179
vandem 549
xaxank 344
z 61
unim 563
varem 88
xnj or 27
z-awd 572
unkn 173
vat'sun 405
xorovel 88
z-genum 109
ur 456
vay 313
z-gesf 109
urur 336
vec' 402
y-arnem 506
z-is 454
us 515
vec‘erord 402
yaw ray 28, 335, 609
z-k‘ez 455
usanim 4
-vor 91
yisun 405
z-mez 454
usfr 56, 533
(v)oski 234
y/em 285
utem 175
yli 56
ur‘402
xar(s)em 88
y-ogn3
uzem 449
xawsim 90
yuzem 449, 547
Baltic
Old Prussian [OPrus]
aulinis 96
crupeyle 523
genua 648
abse 33
aumusnan 108
cucan 271, 637
gerwe 140
abserg isna- 636
au-pallai 191
culczi 142
gde 407
abskande 1 1
ausins 173
curwis 273
girbin 143
ackis 1 88
ausis 148, 234
girmis 649
ackons 237
ausfo 387
da dan 47, 382
gimoywis 474
addle 429
awins 510
dagis 87
girtwei 449
agio 47, 477
awn's 238, 609
dantis 594
gnva 356
ains 399
*awyse 409
dasf 224
glosto 529
aketes 434
aysrnis 537
dauris 168
gorme 47, 263
algas 484
deblkan 574
gulbis 558
alkunis 176
babo 55
deinan 149
guntwei 548
alne 155
ba//o 209, 641
deiw(a)s 230
*alskande 1 1
balsinis 45
dellieis 142
/agno 356
alu 600
bebint 42
dessimpts 403
dga 357
alwis 347, 641
bebrus 57
dessimts 403
i'mf 564
anctan 24, 382
be/ 53
dragios 170
msuwis 594
ane 238, 386
berse 65
duckti 147
/ous 455
anga-anga 458
bbe 646
dum/s 529
iouson 455
angis 530
biatwei 198
dwa/ 399
ir 583
anglis 104
bitte 57
dyrsos 80
irmo 26
angurgis 176
boadis 159
fsf 175
ansis 255
bordus 251
eit 228
7Urin 636
an fers 411
brat/ 54
emens 390
mwis 654
antis 171
bray d is 155
en 290
ape 636
brofe 47
enterpo 500
/use 84, 384
apewitwo 571
but-sargs 636
enwackemai 535
arelie 173
buttan 53
ep- 391
kadegis 324
artoys 434
eristian 511
kails 262
as 454
camnet 273
er-kinint 123
kailustikan 262
as/nai 53
camstian 47, 273
es 454
kalis 5 1 0
as/nan 403
camus 284
esketres 550
kalo-peilis 549
assanis 504
cafto 91
esse 41 1
/ca/fza 90
assaran 343
caulan 542
esf 53
kan 456
ass/s 39, 516
cawx 62
kargis 30
aswinan 274
caymis 622
ga//an 424, 549
/cas 456
au- 37
corto 571
garian 270
kaules 542
auklipts 595
creslan 213
gem ton 115
kelan 640
— 690 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Prussian)
kelian 537
noafis 393
san- 646
farm 535
kelsai 90
nognan 269, 571
sansy 236
tarkue 572
kerdan 268
nouson 454
sardis 199
tatarwis 217
kerko 142, 249
nowis 150
sari 514
tauris 135
kermens 522
nozy 395
sarice 362
faufo 288, 417
kerpetis 444
-nu 397
sasin-tinclo 574
tien 455
kettwins 401
sasins 240, 258
tins 400
keuto 522
pa- 42
sau/e 556
firts 400
kirdit 449
paikemmai 259
sausai 170
fou 455
kirsnan 69
pannean 371
scalenix 168
fresde 582
klauslton 262
panno 202
sdns 458
fris 400
knapios 265, 293
panto 571
schokis 620
fu 455
krawian 71
pec/cu 23, 48
schumeno 573
furif 564
kumpinna 451
pectis 125
seimlns 622
tusimtons 405, 560
kurpe 514
peisai 414.
semen 505
f usnan 475, 518
peisda 507
semmai 248
labs 564
pe/e- 387
semme 174
udro 41 1
lasasso 497
peiwo 104
semo 504
unds 636
iauiclf 505
pentls 265
sepmas 402
urminan 649
laustinti 43
per 581
seyr 262
usc/its 402
lauxnos 385, 513
percunis 407, 582
sidons 522
usts 402
lindan 200
Perun god 582
sien 455
linis 568
peffe 539
sirsilis 273
wackltwei 535
lopis 513
peffis 539
sirwis 273
wagnis 434
iubbo 50
peuse 428
sis 458
waidimai 337
luysis 359
picle 648
slaunis 260
wais-patti- 469
lynno 206
piencts 402
smoy 366
waispattin 348, 371, 622,
iyso 215
pinfis 202, 487
snaygis 530
642
pirmas 399
souns 533
waldnikans 490
ma/dai 532
plauti 359
spenis 82
wans 455
malunis 247
plauxdine 570
spoayno 208
wanso 251, 252
mans 454
pleynis 268
sta 457
warbo 417
maiy 503
p/onis 205
stabis 442
wargan 141
mayse 5 1
po-balso 45
stallit 472, 506
wargs 141
mealde 353, 582
poieiti 175
starnite 543
wame 142
meddo 271
pollnka 349
sfas 457
warsus 4 16
median 380
*pomnan 72
staytan 512
warfo 199
melne 69
po-nasse 395
sfogis 489
wedde 369
meltan 247
posinna 336
stumawiskan 547
weders 2
mensa 375
postan- 542
suckis 205
wedigo 1 12, 471
mes 454
pounian 72
suge 477
weldisnan 490
moasis 51,511
pouf 175
sif/is 441
welgen 639
moke 440
pra 61
su/o 323
werstian 363
motde 385
prastian 425
sums 168
wenemmai 535
musgeno 370
prei 60
suris 69
weware 540
muso 207
pure 432, 639
swais 412, 455
widdewu 642
swenta- 493
wijrs 366, 548
nabis 391
quei 456
swestro 521
wd/ds 646
nage 389
swintian 425
wz/na 648
naktin 394
roaban 537
swlrins 23
wingiskan 63
neikaut 61
ripaiti 141
syme 236
wipis 607
nertien 366
sywan 246
wissa 25
neuwenen 393
sadcis 499
wis-sambris 136
newints 403
sagnis 80
tais 455
witwan 571, 643
ni 395
salme 542
fa/us 248
woaltis 176
— 691 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Prussian)
woasis 32
wormyan 649
wumpnis 443
*zambra- 136
wobalne 25
wosee 229
wundan 636
woble 25
wosi-grabis 273
wupyan 636
wobse 636
wosistian 229
wurs 636
wolti 240
wosux 229
wyse 409
Alphabetic order: a fe), b, c, £, d, e
Lithuanian [Luh]
(e, d), f, g, h, i (i, y), j } k, 1, m, n, o, p, r,
s, §, t, u, p, Q, V, z, z
abells 25
ap- 391
Ausrine 148, 149
blandus 147
abiem 400
ap-kerdziu 449
austa 148
blaskau 549
abu 400
ap-ninku 61
austi 113
blebenti 542
aile 508
ap-repti 564
auti 109
bl?st i 147
aistra 22
apusi 33
ava 37
blestis 147
akecios 434
apveikiu 201
Avanta 539
bliauju 561
Akele 487
ardvas 174
aveti 109
b/usa 206
aiceb 435
ardvas 174
avynas 238, 609
boba 42
akis 47, 188
ariu 434
avis 47, 510
breksta 513
akmud 547
ar/ce 357
avizos 409
briedis 155
akstinas 237
a'rWas 434
az(u) 61
brolenas 392
aks/is 237
armud 96
brobs 84
Alanta 487
arti 47
badas 62
broterilis 84
aiava 347
artl 362
balas 641
bruvis 188
aldija 74
arzilas 47
balbasyti 542
bQgstu 206
alga 484
arzus 508
baltas 641
buMa 649
aliai 64
^sa 255
balti 64 1
bulls 88
aliksnis 1 1
aS 454
balziena(s) 43 1
bundu 636
alkas 458
asara 567
bambalas 395
bure 109
alksnis 1 1
aserys 418
bambeti 395
burgeti 5 1
alkane 176
as/s 39, 47, 516
bar(i)u 549
burti 262
almes 207, 539
aSmas 403
barzdA 251
biirva 109
almud 207 1 539
aSmuo 547
barzdotas 251
burzdus 194
a/ne 155
asrus 509
basas 45
burzgus 194
alpfi 528
astrus 509
basasis 49
bQsiant- 53
alus 60
astuntas 403
baubti 51
butas 53
a/vas 347, 641
astuoni 402
baudziu 516
bQti 47, 53
amalas 69
aSva 274
be 646
amba 386
asvienis 274
bebras 57
da 590
anas 458
at-audai 572
bebrinis 57
dalba 159
angis 530
atdregis 477
bebriis 57
dalgis 424
anglis 104
afo- 37
bedii 159
dalyti 143
an-gu 458
a fsan/c 80
begu 49 1
dantis 594
anyta 386
au- 37
bendras 64, 196
darga 477
an/ca 61, 272
audziau 572
bengti 81
dar(i)au 649
ankstas 391
augmud 248
beras 85
daug 21 1,614
andt(e) 612
augu 47, 248
beriu 90
da ugi(a) 614
ans 458
aukle 109
bemas 56 , 107
dausos 82
anf 60
auksas 234
berzas 65
debesis 1 1 0
antiena 171
aulas 96
bezc/u 194
dide 609,610
antis 171
aulys 96
bijaus 198
dedervine 522
antis 60
ausis 47, 173
birginti 268
degu 87
antras 411
ausra 148
b/te 57
dereti 270
— 692
LANGUAGE INDEX (Lithuanian)
dergti 477
dvasia 82, 538
ge/fas 654
gurgulas 217
dezra 598
dvesiu 82
ge/fi 425, 549
gurnas 62
desimtas 403
dvi 399
geluo 312
gurti 395
desimtis 403
dw desimti 404
geluonis 312, 425
gUztz 268
desimts 403
dvidesimt(s) 404
gemu 35
desinas 271, 485
dvylika 404, 482
geniu 548
j 290
desini 485
dviratis 49 1 , 641
genu 548
ielekstis 508
defz 472, 506
dziaugiuos 256
geras-is 457
/ena 508
devyni 403
geriu 175
iesmi 87
devintas 403
edu 175
gerve 140
ieskau 629
dzegzu 472
eg/e 429
gesti 188
iesmas 537
diena 149
eimi 228
giedmi 519
/era 654
dz'evas 47, 230
eismi 487
giedoti 519
llgas 357
dievens 84
eke Li 435
giedras 83
unu 564
dzevo dukti 149, 231, 438
elksnis 1 1
g/edu 519
/n 290
dzezfi 649
elkQne 176
giesmi 519
ynzs 287
dygstu 472
ellenis 1 54
gija 78, 569
/nfe 522
dilge 424
e/ne 155
gyju 356
zf 583
dilgus 424
elnias 154
gile 407
zrzu 490
dirginu 471
elnis 1 54
gunu 115
irklas 408
dirgti 477
eras 511
ginti 47
irm-ede 26
dirgti 477
erdvas 174
gire 270
zrsfva 55
dznu 567
erdve 174
girgzdziu 534
zrtz 158
dizva 237
erelis 173
g/ria 270
l-sekti 144
dzrza 64
er/ce 357
giriu 449
is 411
dirzti 64
ersketas 550
gzma 474
is oro 77
dobiii 258
erskitis 550
gimos 474
if 458
drages 170
erfas 174
girfas 449
if 583
drapanos 109
es/m 53
gys/a 569
i-vykti 25
drpsiis 81
esfi 47, 49
gyvas 47, 356
draugas 115, 538
esti 53
glaudoti 255
(j)aknos 356
dregnas 170, 477
esti 175
gleives 108
jau 397
drengti 477
eserys 418
glinda 357
jaudinu 507
drpsu 35, 81
esketras 550
glodiis 529
jauja(s) 236
drezoti 226
esva 274
gnaibau 451
jaunas 655
drimbii 170
eze 343
gniauziu 451
jaura 636
drQfas 598
ezeras 343
gnybu 451
jaufz 384
du 399
ezys 264
godoti 564
jautis 64
dubus 47, 154
gdju 115
javaz 236
du/a 388
gabenu 563
gomurys 96, 387
7ega 209, 362
duje 388
gagu 345
graibo 564
(j)eknos 356
du/ere 147
gaidys 1 1 2
grasa 577
jenle 522
dtimai 47, 160, 529
gaidra 83
grasinii 577
ji 458
dumblas 154
gaidrus 83
grazoli 568
Jis 399, 458
dundeti 534
gaistu 4
grebiu 563
joju 228
Dundjus 487
galiu 3
gre'bn 159
judinu 507
duona 237
ga/sas 89
grendu 247
judu 455
duonis 185
ga/va 45
gresiu 577
judu 201, 507
duofz 47, 224
gafia 3
gridyju 546
j urn is 608
dizzys 168
gardas 199
griebti 564
jundii 507
duris 424
gauras 252
gr(i)eju 595
jiingas 655
duriu 424
gedauju 450
gristu 577
jimgti 64, 655
durklas 424
gedauti 62
gulbis 588
jiinkslu 4
dusas 82
ge/a 549
giimstu 450
juosiu 223
dvaras 168
gelezis 314, 379
guddas 64
juosmud 223
— 693 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Lithuanian)
juosta 223
kelti 352, 475
krekles 572
leidziu 349
juosti 223
kemiras 265
kremuse 620
leju 506
jtires 636
kenciii 413
krepsas 52
/ekiu 323
jurmala 515
keuge 272
kreslas 213
leksnas 352
jus 455
kenkli 270
kretu 509
lemon 538
jus 455
kepii 125
kriausau 549
/enas 475, 588
jQsii 455
keras 362
krieno 185
lengvas 353
jQse 47, 84
kereti 362
krusa 549
lengvus 353
kergti 65
krusu 549
lenkti 62
k( a 456
kerpu 258
krutu 509
lenta 353
kada 456
kersas 69
krutiis 509
/enras 532
kadagys 324
kertu 143
kruva 217
/epn 528
kaimas 622
Keturai 390
kruvinu 71
fevas 356
kaimymas 622
kefuri 401
kukuoti 142
liaudis 248, 416
ka'/ua 123
ketur-kojis 23
kQ/a 268
haupsi 358
kaird 349
ketveri 401
kolas 268
liaupsinti 358
kairys 349
ketvirtas 401
kales 88
liautis 481
kaisti 264
kevalas 134
kuleti 88
li'eju 506
kaiia 252
kiau/e 425
kulnas 142
keku 349
kaisiu 252
kiautas 134, 522
kumele 273
//epa 353
kaklas 640
kiemas 622
kiimste 255
hepsna 514
kalba 90
kiki 352
kuufu 509
//efus 47
ka/e 168
kylu 352
kudlas 442
lieziu 351
kalnas 270
kimstu 284
kdpu 529
liezuvis 594
kalu 549
kinka 220
kuf 456
kga 516
ka/va 270
kinkau 224
kuris 456
ljju 506
kamaros 357
kirmele 649
kuriu 88, 362
/iktas 482
kampas 62
kirminas 649
kurkulai 205
/ikfi 47
kamuoti 451
kirmis 649
kurpe 514
k/npu 528
kanape 265
kirmud 649
kus^s 507
linai 206
kanapes 293
klmis 106
kutinetis 509
linas 206
kanka 284
kirvis 594
kutys 134
/ynas 568
karas 30, 47
klageti 66
kufu 509
Unguoti 62
karbas 52
klausau 262
kuvetis 284
knku 349
karias 30
klenkti 62
kvapas 529
/ipti 527
karsiu 570
klevas 367
kvipti 529
lyse 215
karsti 574
kliavas 367
hole 357
kan/e 273
kkses 413
labas 564
liutynas 160
kas 47, 456
klodas 539
laigyti 323
kufu 43
kasa 570
kloju 539
laistau 528
i/zdas 393
kasulas 260
klote 539
/aizau 351
/okis 564
kataras 456
knabenti 573
laku 352
lobu 564
kati 91
kdk(i)s 457
/akus 323
loju 50
katras 456
kolei 456
laluoti 42
lokys 55
ka'u/a 549
korys 637
Ismka 618
loksnus 157
kaukaras 62
kosiu 133
lapas 568
lopa 209
kaukas 62
kosulys 133
/ape 212
lopas 1 10, 568
kaukys 66
kova 549
laskana 569
/ope 5 1 3
kaukiu 66
kovas 32 1
/asis 47, 497
Idpyti 1 1 0
kaukti 89
krake 441
lasisa 497
/uka 50
kaulas 542
kraujas 71
Lat-upe 639
/ubos 50
Kaunas 284
krauju 217
laukas 83
lugnas 62
kedeti 500
kraupus 490, 523
laukiu 505
/ugod 352
kelena(s) 475
kreciu 509
/auin 81
k/nsls 359
keliu 352
kreklas 441
leidmi 588
ludbas 50
— 694 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Lithuanian)
ludkyti55
mezgii 571
niekoti 646
pekus 23, 48
lupu 567
mezu 613
nytis 571
pelai 104
16 sis 359
midus 271
niumiu 394
pele 387
mieles 160
noras 366, 548
pekas 185
-m 454
miesti 384
fldszs 47, 395
pe/us 104
mageti 3
m/efas441
notere 393
penas 199
magulas 3
mieziai
flove 150
penki 40 1
mamas 184
migla'W , 110
novyti 150
penkiolika 404
maisas 511
miltai 247
flu 397
penkios desimtys 405
makatas 312
mmiu 575
nu-krupes 523
penktas 402
mala 515
minkyti 450, 532
nu-liegti 516
peflfls 265
malas 154
mmti 536
nuodu 454
pern) 199
malda 449
minds 575
fluogas 45
per 581
ma/na 383
mmzu 613
nuoma 564
perdis 194
malnos 383
mirstu 150
perdziu 194
malonus 235
m/rsfu 209
<5 313
pergas 442
malii 247
mirti 47
obuolas 25
periu 549
malzau 381
m/rfzs 150
obuolys 25
perkonas 407
malzyti 381
moju 154
opus 637
Perknnas 407, 582
mama 386
more 47, 385
oras 77
perkdnias 407
manas 454
mudriis 256
ofrus 194
perkonija 582
mandras 348
mudu 454
otu 194
Perkuno pzuolas 582
man? 454
mu/cu 528
oziena 269
per-n-ai 659
maras 1 50
mulkis 532
oz/s 229
persu 33, 369
mare 503
mulvas 69
ozica 229
pesiau 570
mar gas 147
munkii 527
pesu 570
marsas 209
murmenti 388
pa- 42
peteliske 88
marska 64
mus 454
padas 209
petys 539
mastas 44 1
musai 385
padrozti 491
piemuo 198, 268
masalas 312
muse 207
paikas 414
pienas 47, 382
maudyti 108
musia 207
paisyti 581
piesas 414
maudziu 158
musis 207
palvas 642
p/esf/414
mauju 388
miisos 385
pamalis 515
p/etus 208
mausti 158
musp 207
paniabude 371
pieva 200
mazgas 571
mQsp 454
papas 82
pi/ctas 259
mazgoti 160
papijusi 382
p/7/s 49, 210
medus 47, 271
naga 389
parsas 425
p/kas 642
medzias 380
nagas 389
pas 42
pt/nas 214
melas 154-155
naktis 394
pasaka 536
pinai 571
melas 69
namas 192, 281
paskul 43
p/flu 571
meldziu 449
namunahis 371
pastaras 42
pirdis 194
melynas 69
nauda 614
pa-saras 249
pirmas 399
melmenys 353
naujas 393
pa-togus 348
p/rsys 8 1
melmud 353
navas 393
pats 47, 371
pysketi 72
melziu 381
ne 583
pa-6dre 82
pyzc/a 507
menkas 343, 528
ne 395
paustis 251, 469
plakanas 205
menke 205
neivoti 313
pa-velmi 629
plakti 549
menu 575
nendre 481
pa-zasti 254
plantu 539
menuo 385
nepfe 237, 394
pa-zastis 254
p/atus 83, 133
merefi 483
nepuotis 239
pa-zistu 337
plauciai 359
merga 656
neriii (textile prep) 573
peda 595
plautas 431
merkiu 147
neriu (under) 611
pidinu 192
p/ene 268
mes 454
nerove 6 1 1
peduoti 192
plesiu 567
mesa 375
nesu 35
peikti 259
pletoti 539
m^sti 547
niedeti 3 1 3
pekas 23
plevi 269
— 695 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Lithuanian)
pliekti 549
ruosutys 405
skaitau 418
sprugti 323
plokis 549
rupeti 81
skalikas 168
spudeti 47 1
plonas 205
skambus 503
srava 207
pliiskos 570
saitas 362
skatau 323
sraviii 207
pra-parsas 215
sakai 499
s/ce/tu 538
srebiu 175
pra-persa 215
sakau 536
(s)kerdzius 268
srena 260
prasau 33
sa/a 282
skerys 324
sr(i)aumud 486
prte 60
saldus 498
skiaudziu 133
sruoga 1 1 3
pro-anukis 156
sam- 646
skiedra 575
stabaras 442
pudau 528
sapnas 527
skiedziu 144, 382
sfabas 442
puga 72
sapnys 170
s/ciriu 143
stacias 43 1
pQliai 471
sargas 636
skystas 382
stagaras 442
puolu 191
sau/e 556
skobti 503
starinu 547
pupiitis 272
saules dukti 231, 438
skroblas 273
status 431
pural 639
sausas 170
s/cubti 471
steigtis 228
pure 72
savas 412, 455
skubus 47 1
stembti 543
purslas 540
save 455
skuja 80
steneti 582
pusbrolis 84
se'du 522
slabti 255
sfenu 384, 582
puses 428
sedziu 522
slauga 506
stiegiu 134
pusts 428, 500
segti 64
slauge 506
sfogas 489
puves(i)ai 471
seikiu 187
slenku 607
sfo/u 543
seju 534
s/ysfu 527
stomud 431
rainas 537
sekmas 402
s/yvas 246
storas 547
rakinti 270
seAru (follow) 208, 505
sma genes 370
strazdas 582
rakti 270
seicu (say) 536
smaguriauti 566
strena 260
ran/ca 49
se7ena 505
smagiis 566
strujus 335, 609
rasa 158, 638
silinu 141
smakra 107, 251
strujus 335, 609
rata/ 491, 641
se/u 141
smakras 107, 251
stu/cft 547
rafas 491, 641
semenys 505
smegenys 370
stumbras 136
rauda 246
semtt 169
sniega 530
sit 646
raudas 481
semud 505
sniegas 530
sUdyti 560
rauju 567, 570
senas 409
sniegas drimba 170
sudriis 235
raumi 246
seneju 409
sniegti 530
sugft 89
raven 567
senicu 170
snigti 530
sukti 289
razas 575
senmote 239
sninga 530
su/a 323
ret'zft 187
sente ti 418
sodinti 506
sunkiu 556
rembstu 255
septyni 402
solymas 498
surtfu 228
replioti 141
septintas 402
sora 534
sunus 56, 533
rezg(i)u 571
sergti 636
soft's 500
suodziai 522
rezti 81
sergu 516
spaine 208
suo/cft 89
r^zfi 187
seris 354
spandis 444
suolas 431
riaugmi 61
seserenas 392
sparnas 646
sQras 69
rieki 354
sesuo 521
spartas 644
surbiii 175
riekiu 567
sen 47
spauda 284, 471
su-resti 202
rimtt 474
siausti 76
spaudziu 471
su-togti 472
rinda 397
sidabras 314, 518
spausti 284
svageti 89
ro/cta 639
s/e/cfi 187
speju 500
svatne 85, 521
rope 620
stefas 518
spenys 82
svainis 85
ropiena 620
sijdju 518
sped 3, 458
svecias 455
rova 474
si/e 431
spiauju 538
sveikas 235
rudas 47
strgti 516
sptrft 329
svtdu 514
rudeti 468
stutas 573
spleciii 539
svidus 514
rugta/ 491
stuvu 573
splendziu 514
sviestas 382
rogiu 61
skabiis 503
sprageti 394
sv/Vu 88
runicu 516
skaidriis 83
springstu 644
svindu 5 1 4
— 696 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Uthuanian)
saiva 96
sis 458
timsras 147
vakaras 184
saiziis 568
siuras 644
tinge ti 264
va/af 563
saka 80
s/vas 113, 246
tingti 264
valdyti 490
sakalys 538
slakas 523
tingus 264
vadfis 240
saknis 80
slaunis 260
tinklas 574
vandud 636
saltas 112
s/^/cO' 523
find 187
vaps(v)a 636
samas 510
s/i'eti 348
driu 424
vardas 535
sampu 206
sluoju 108
drstas 170
vargas 141
sapa- 206
smulas 273
tolei 457
varli 214
sapai 206
smii/e 273
tranas 395
varmai 649
sapalas 90
smulis 273
trausis 481
varmas 649
sapas 206
so/cti 323
trecias 400
vama 142
sapti 206
sfi/us 475
trimfj 509
varpstS 572
sarka 362
sodas 186
frinu 424, 490
varpstis 572
sarma 287
su/as 441
tiys 400
vartai 199
sarmuo 638
sulinis 441
*ftys desimtys 404
vasara 504
saukiii 90
sun-musi 208
• trisdesimt 404
vaskas 637
saunas 560
suns 47, 168
trisu 198, 509
vedaras 2
sauniis 560
suo 168
tr(i)usis 48 1
vedega 1 12, 471
seiva 96
svendras 22
troba 282
vedekle 346, 369
sekas 620
sventas 493
truneti 490
vedu 346, 369
selpi'u 265
svinas 379
truneti 490
vedu 454
semas 246
svitrus 641
fu 47, 455
veidas 337
sempii 206
tukstantis 405, 560
veizdmi 337
septi 206
fa 457
tdkstantis 405
vejas 643
serdis 262
fada 457
turiu 564
vejii (follow) 208
serfs 252
talka 496
tuscias 179
veju (textile prep) 571
seriu 249
fa/pa 534
freriu 564
ve/d 150
serksnas 287
tamsa 147
velines 151, 607
sermud 638
tankus 516
Odra 411
ve/iu 607
sesi 402
farau 535
udroti 82
Veliuoka 150
sesiasdesimt 405
tariu 535
ugnis 202,203
vedcu 471
sesios desimtys 405
tarmi 535
d/cis 4
vemti 538
sesiure 386
tarpstu 500
ululoti 66
vengti 63
seskas 439
fas 457
ungurys 176
veras 5 1 1
sesfas 402
tauras 135
uodziu 528
verciu 607
sesuras 195
tausytis 475
uoga 63
verdu 88, 125
siaure 644
faufa 288, 417
uolektis 176
vergas 141
siema 622
favas 455
uosis 32
verpiu 572
sienas 240
favf 455
uosta 387, 487
versis 363
sdeu 186
tekti 187
uostas 387, 487
verd 64
silas 537
felcu 49 1
liosye 196
uetusas 654
sim fas 47, 405
telpii 534
uosvis 196
veveris 540
sirdis 262
tempti 187
upe 343, 636
vezi 488
siiys 252
temti 147
ufe r 357
vezu 9 1
sirksnas 287
f^sfi 187
uz- 612
vidus 160
sirmas 246
teterva 217
(uz-)migti 109
viekas 201
sirse 273
tetervas 217
uz-ninkii 61
viekas 493
sirs/ys 272,273
fevas 195
vienas 399
sirsud 272, 27 3
f£'vas 574
vabalas 312
vieptis 607
sirfa 55
tevyne 133
vaboli 312
viesulas 644
sirtas 55
tyla 475
vadinu 535
viesulas 644
sirtva 55
tiles 247
va/ 313
viesyti 622
SifVas 240, 246, 258
tided 471
vaiveris 540
viespatis 193, 348, 622
sirvis 240, 258
timpa 187
vajoju 208
viespatni 371, 622, 642
— 697 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Uthuanian)
viespats 348, 469, 622
yyras 366, 548
zandas 322
ziaunos 175
vievesa 357
virbas 80
zardas 199
zie/na 47, 504
viglas 607
virsus 416
zardis 199
zinoti 47, 337
vigrus 607
virfi 636
zama 180
zioju 653
vykis 63
visas 25
zgsis 236
zimis 236
vykti 25
yystas 644
zaveri 90
zmuo 174, 366
vildeti 264
vystyti 644
zeb/u 175
zuohs 435
vilgau 639
vyris 571, 643
ze/tas 234
zuvis 205
vilkams 48, 221
vobyfi 89
ze/vas 654
zuvy 205
vi/kas 47, 646
votis 650
zema/ 248
zvaigzdi 514
vi//ce 647
voveris 540
zeme 133, 174
zvake 595
vi/na 648
Zemyna 174
zveres 23
vilpisys 212
za/a 43
zengiu 546
zveris 23
vynas 644
zaiias 246
zenfas 85, 533
zvilti 87
\inksna 178
zalga 442
zeriu 514
vzras 523
zambas 594
zeruoti 514
Latvian
Alphabetic order: a, b, c, £, d,
e, g, i, j, k, k, 1, L m, n, p, o, p.
r, i, s, S, t, u, v, z, z
a 313
astotais 403
beigt 81
dalit 143
A6ava 486
astuopi 402
b$ms 56, 107
darii 649
abe/e 25
ass 509
beru 90
darva 598
abe/s 25
airs 194, 359
bgrzs 65
daudz 614
abiem 400
au- 37
bez 646
debess 110
abuoI(i)s 25
augt 248
bibinat 42
deju 506
acs 188
aukla 109
biezs 3
deju 556
Adula 487
auksts 113
bi/uos 198
desimt 403
ailis 508
Auseklis 148, 149
b/ie 57
desimtais 403
a/res 49 1
auss 173
b/aizfi 549
desmitais 403
ais-mirstu 209
aust 148
bleju 70
devipi 403
aica 71
austra 148
b/fstu 7 1
devitais 403
aknas 356
austrums 174
blusa 206
diegt 472
alksnis 17
aut 109
bralis 84
diena 149
alnis 154
auzas 409
briedis 155
diet 208
aludgs 207, 539
avs 510
butt 262
dieveris 84
a/uof 60, 362
avuots 539
burves 109
die vs 230
aluot(ies) 629
az 61
Die vs, Debess revs 231
aius 60
azis 229
cepu 125
diezef 649
a/vs 347
c$rtu 143
dile 82
amu(o)ls 69
balodis 169
cpturtais 401
dirva 237
ap- 391
bals 641
ciesu 413
divi 399
ap-aQsi 387
baits 641
cinksla 270
divipadsmit 404
apse 33
balziens 431
cirmen(i)s 649
dradzi 170
ap-virde 214, 523
barda 251
cirmis 649
dragaju 47 1
ara 77
bargs 22
cirpe 258
drana 109
asara 567
baru 549
cirpu 258
drazu 49 1
asar(i)s 418
bafu 549
drpgns 477
aseris 418
bass 45
cau/a 134
drggs 477
asins 71
bauga 62
cetri 401
druoss 8 1
asmlte 403
b£ga 49 1
dumi 529
ass 509
b£gu 491
da 590
Dupavas 487
— 698 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Latvian)
dudbjs 1 54
greibt 564
/drsu 570
hit 506
dudna 237
gribet 564
kaseju 133
liga 516
duonis 481
gr/Va 391
katrs 456
/iguot 62
duot 224
gruts 264
kauks 62
//gzda 393
dupeties 534
gruzis 160
kaukt 66
/in/ 206
durvis 168
gu/b/s 558
kauls 542
/in/s 568
dzpluonis 312
guovs 47, 134
kauneties 284
lipt (shine) 514
dzfnu 548
kaunigs 284
lipt (slimy) 527
dzefu 175
/e/u/es/ 508
kauns 284
//pu 528
dzerve 140
ieskat 629
/cauf 549
/it 506
dzidrs 83
iesms 537
kladzet 66
lugt 352
dziedat 519
ietere 522
klaju 539
lukuot 505
dzija 569
7eva 654
klausit 262
/uobs 50
dziju 356
ievasa 639
klencet 62
/uops 136
dzimt 115
ilgs 357
/c/avs 367
/uoss 638
dziia 270
7/s 371
knabt 573
lupu 567
dz/re 270
/r 583
/cnau/c/s451
/us/s 359
dzirnus 474
it 583
krpkls 572
dzirties 449
iz 4 1 1
/erf s/s 213
jaudis 248, 416
dz/s/a 569
/crest 509
\egans 523
dzist 188
jaju 228
kreve 7 1
dz/Vs 356
jau 397
kriens 185
madit 154
Jau/a 236
krusa 549
maina 184
ec£sas 434
jauns 655
/cru ves/s 71, 113
tna/s/f 384
ec£t 435
jaust 507
kfaupa 523
ma/ss 5 1 1
gdu 175
jaut 384
/cfaut 217
ma/ze 5 1
eg/e 429
j^ga 209, 362
kukurs 62
ma/ct 450
e/mu 228
jemu 564
kupet 529
ma/a 5 1 5
elka kalns 458
j?rs 511
kufkulis 205
mama 386
e//cs 176
jurmala 515
kurpe 514
mani 454
elksnis 1 1
jura 636
/cusaf 199
marga 477
glkuon(i)s 176
jus 455
/eusZs 507
masalas 3 1 2
erce 357
jusu 455
masts 44 1
erglis 173
juf/s 64
labs 564
mat 154
es454
/afst 349
mate 386
esmu 53
kad?gs 324
laju 50
maudat 108
est 53
kails 12
lamatas 538
maunu 394
fzprs 343
ica/tef 264
lamatas 538
maut 108
ezis 264
kakls 640
/apa 209
mazgat 1 60
eza 343
/ca/ce 9 1
/apa 513
mazgs 571
kalns 270
lapit 110
medus 271
gaju 115
/ca/va 270
Zaps 110
meju 44 1
gals 425
ka\u 549
lapsa 212
mf/i 154, 155
ga/va 45
kajuot 90
/as/s 467
melmepi 353
gamurs 387
kamet 357
Late 639
mf/ns 69
gana 3
kamines 284
lauzt 81
mence 205
garme 263
kampis 62
l?cu 323
menesis 385
gauri 252
kampju 563
lekaju 323, 468
merguot 477
glas(t)it 529
kamuot 451
lemesi 81
mes 454
glaudat 255
kapepe 266
/f ns 475
mezu 6 1 3
glievs 108
kapars 379
/fs/ca 569
mezga 571
gnida 357
/cirba 52
/fzns 352
mezgu 571
grasat 577
kare(s) 637
liegs 353
mezs 380
grebju 563
/cars 214, 357
/ie/et 62
m/ctf 532
grebt 159
/cars 30
//epa 353
miegf 109
— 699 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Latvian)
m'leles 160
peli 104
sa/ca 80
sivs 413, 568
rn'iesa 375
pplns 185
saka\i 538
skabarde 273
miets 441
pelt 536
saitas 80
skabit 503
mietuot 184
pplus 104
sakne 80
skabrs 503
miezi 51
pepava 371
sa/a 282
skaidrs 83
migla 110
perdu 194
sa/ms 542
skaitit 4 18
mfju 184
Pgrkona uozuols 582
s5/s 498
skujas 80
rtiikst 532
Perkuns 582
sa/ts 112
slauna 260
milna 353, 582
pgrkuons 407
sams 510
s/ief 348
milnu 582
Pgrkuons 582
sanef 534
s/i/cr 607
milti 247
Perkuons 582
sapal(i)s 90
s/isf 527
minet 536, 575
perns 654
sapnis 527
slita 441
mirstu 150
pepi 549
sara 534
smadzenes 370
mlzu 613
petit 208
sargs 636
smakrs 107, 251
mudrs 256
piecdesmit 405
sari 252
smedzene 370
mukt 528
piecpadsmit 404
saf/na 287
s/neyu 344
muku 527
piektais 402
sarmulis 638
snaju 571
muddrs 348
piens 382
sa/pi 186
snafe 571
znus 454
pi/s 49, 210
saukt 90
snaujis 571
musu 454
pinu 571
saule 556
snieg 530
musa 207
pirmais 399
saules meita 231, 438
sniegs 530
plzda 507
sauss 170
snigt 530
na£>a 391
place 205
secen 646
spa(n)nis 444
nags 389
plans 205
segt 64
spams 646
nakts 394
plans 205
seja 508
speju 500
nars 573
plausas 359
sejs 508
spert 329
nass 395
plauts 43 1
seks 620
spet 3, 458
nasli 481
p/ene 268
seku 208
sprangat 644
natre 393
pluskas 570
sence 512
stabs 442
nauda 615
pretl 6
septitais 402
stamen 43 1
nauju 89
puga 72
serde 262
sffga 442
nave 150
piiolu 191
sfrg 5 16
steigt(ies) 228
navet 150
pupukis 272
sfrga 516
sfi/r 475
ne 583
pup 639
sermulis 638
straume 486
nesu 35
put 528
sgrsna 287
strazds 582
niekat 646
puvesi 47 1
s£rsns 287
strebju 175
nievat 313
ses/cs 439
stringt 574
n/sf 313
radit 249
sest 522
stumbrs 136
nffs 571
raibs 537
sestais 402
siups 442
nu 397
ramas 474
sesdesmit 405
subrs 136
nudma 564
rapaf 141
sesi 402
suds 187
nuo tarn 457
rasa 158
s^fa 253
sudzet 89
ran 491, 641
sevi 455
sula 323
penif 564
rats 491, 641 ^
sidrabs 518
sumbrs 136
purar 394
raudat 246
siens 240
suns 168
rauds 481
sieva 214, 622
suntena 168
pabalsts 45
rezgef 571
sievs 568
surs 69
pa-duse 26
rfc/a 397
sijit 518
s users 5 1 6
paksis 517
ndams 397
sile 431
sussuris 516
pane 371
riezf 187
simts 405
sutu 228
papis 125
rudzz 491
sirds 262
suvfns 425
pats 371
ru/c/f 159
sima 272
suzu 556
paure 72
sirpis 517
svadzet 89
p?l(a)vas 104
sa/me 622
sirsis 273
svaine 85, 521
pe/e 387
saiva 96
sttsllO, 510
svainis 85
— 700 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Continental Celtic)
svaka 499
tnnu 490
varde 214
Wiles 646
svarpstit 607
tris 400
vargs 141
vilna 648
sveiks 235
trisdesmit 404
varsmis 581
vtns 644
sveju 88
triset 508
vasa 639
vi r pet 572
svess455
trusts 48 1
vasara 504
v/rs 366, 548
sviests 382
tu 455
va'sbs 637
versus 4 1 6
sviests 382
tukstudt(i)s 405
vats 650
vlss 25
svlns 425
tukstuots 561
vavere 540
Wsts 644
sWst 514
tumsa 147
vedekle 346
vitudls 643
svistu 560
turn 564
veders 2
frepj 564
v^dga 112
za/s 246
sis 458
vedu 346, 369
zarna 180
sfauju 133
udens 636
relief 20 1
zavet 90
sjce/f 538
udris 411
veils 150
z?lts 234, 654
s|e/drs 575
uguns 202
v£lku 47 1
zeme 174
sfriedu 382
uddze 530
veins 150
Zemes Mate 174
sjkiedu 144, 382
uoga 63
’ ve/t 607
zence 5 1 2
sjdrf 143
uogle 104
Ve/u laiks 150, 153
zencis 5 1 2
suvu 573
uolekts 176
vemt 538
zlema 505
iiosa 255
vepris 425
zile 407
fa 457
udsis 32
vefdu 88, 125
zinat 337
tallea 496
uosta 487
rergs 141
zirnis 236
tas 457
uosfs 387, 487
vtrpt 572
zlvs 205
tauta 288, 417
uotrs 411
versls 363
znuots 533
tekeju 491
uozu 528
versu 607
zuobs 594
teku 49 1
ute 357
vert 417
zuods 322
terpinat 500
utele 357
vert 64
zuoss 236
teteris 217
uts 357
verties 606
zutis 205
teW 455
uz 612
V£S£ls 198
zuvs 205
tevija 133
reza 488
zvaigzne 514
tevzeme 133
vabals 312
vidus 160
zvfrs 23
tievs 574
vabff 89
viebt 607
zvilnet 87
tfgas 343
vai 313
vlens 399
tilandi 247
vakars 184
viept 607
(zaiz-)migt 109
tit 187
valdit: 490
vtiet (appear) 25
zalga 442
traba 282
valgs 639
vflet (bend) 63
zaunas 175
tremt 508
valgums 639
vilestia 178
tresais 400
vapsene 636
vilgt 639
Celtic
Continental Celtic
anda-bata 70
peXeviov 267
cruppellarii 523
( Galatian , Gallo-Roman,
are- 60
Belenos 267
Gaulish, Ibero-Celtic,
Argantodan 518
belinuntia 267
Danuvius 486
Ligurian )
A rio-man us 213
Bello-uesus 235
decametos 403
asla 236
-briga 269
Dexsiva 271
apavag 384
appavag 384
Aventia 539
bulga 45
drappus 109
dravoca 237
Ala-gabiae 64
bagos 58
* cantos 143
Druentia 486
Ala-teivia 64
bardus 436
Catu-rlA - 201
Drunemeton 248
Alisanos 1 1
bebrinus 57
cavann us 412
dugnonti-io 457
amb- 400
bebru- 57
cintu-gnatos 399
duxttr 147
anam 371
bedo- 159
Coslo- 260
— 701
LANGUAGE INDEX (Continental Celtic)
epo- 274
Umo- 353
Epomeduos 278, 496
Litavi(s) 133
equos 274
Loucetius 513
epKoq 407
lougos 142
Esus 235
Lugenicus 390
eti 215
Lugudeca 390
Gabro-magos 229, 507
Lugus 97, 390
Luguselva 390
gaesum 537
/eAaWJpdv 113
Maglo-rix 344
Giamonios 504
gavidiafg 392
Hercynia silva 407
Marco- 274
marcosior 274
jcapvov 272
Medio-lanum 205
Medu genus 313
Kapvv £ 272
Meduna 313
Koppa 84
xxnn 458
nametl / 403
Kovppi 84
nanto 63
lautro 52
olca 200
Leucetius 513
odareig 436, 493
BRITISH
efem 539
eferin 646
Old British
A(3og 486
gueetic 572
Bibroci 57
guiannuin 504
Brigantia 269
guith 201
Tamesas 147
gwo- 612
Old Welsh [owels]
halou 160
-air 194
dan 24
ada// 25
Aballo 25
dim 53
ad 590
in-helcha 481
agif 170
ion 655
anu 390
it 208
an-utonou 408
ithr 63
aperth 496
Jud- 201
cant 169
coll 260
laun 214
luird 50
dauu 416
deuSeg 404
di 37
Hat 639
di-auc 194
map 656
dou 399
minci 392
duiu-tit 230
modreped 36
Mor-iud 31
eguin 389
penne-locos 343
Toutio-rix 417
petor-ritum 64 1
Tri-corn 31
Petru-cori 30
tri-garanos 140
prenne 598
Puso 415
-uesus 235
rica 215
-v r a/os 490
rifu 229
ver-cobius 211
rifu- 487
vergo-bretus 649
-rix 329
Verucloetius 437
Vesu-avus 235
sedlon 505
Sego-dunum 124
Sego-marus 124
Sego-uesus 235
silaPur 518
Suadeuillus 560
Suadu-rix 560
suexos 402
Vo-corii 3 1
farvos 135
pa 456
cu 622
petguar 401
cuan 412
pimp 98, 401
cuf 622
pimphet 402
Culhwych 425
pui 456
cw456
pymtheg 404
cwm 443
cwrwf 84
reatir 207
cynneu 87
rit 229, 487
chwedl 536
tig 488
trimuceint 404
da/a 424
de 87
uceint 404
decuet 403
dehongli 5 1 9
Middle Welsh [MWels]
deify aw 87
adrawB 472
digoni 362
aeleu 43, 247
dygaf 471
anneir 648
dynat 393
aryan(t) 518
edavW 56
da/a 539
edryS 195
d/awt 247
eis(en) 77
breu 81
el 228
buck 134
enep 188, 191
ewyth(y)r 238, 609
carr 625
clo 272
cord 268
figgit 404
— 702 —
L\NGUAGE INDEX (Welsh)
gan 169
aer 284
bron 561
crab 620
godeith 87
aerofl 63
bru 561
craidd 98, 263
gwascu 471
a/~a/ 25
brych 514
crau (blood) 71, 98
gweint 549
a/a// 25
b/ys 194
crau (gather) 217
gwell 629
afon 486
bryw 264
crib 441
gw(y)chi 636
ail 411
buch 98
erwy'dr 5 1 8
a/arch 558
bugail 268
crydd 514
haer 123
am- 32
byddaf 53
cuan 66
halog 160
amaeth 506
byddar 149
cun 481
hebaf 536
amlwg 505
byw 356
cwd 134
heul 556
amwain 91
cwnmgen 258
huan 556
amynedd 482
each 187
cwthr 507
an- 395
cad 201
cwyr 637
ieith 536
anae// 82,98
cae 200
cyf- 646
ieu 655
angad 61, 272
caefh 90
cyfnither 239, 392
iwd 384
angau 150
ca/nc 80
cyf-rhif391
/were/ 194
aradr 434
cam 143
cymeraf 90
lwerddon 194
arab474
cann 385, 514
cynhaeaf 504
archaf 33
cant (curve) 143
cynnar 174
keiv(y)n 239
arddu 434
cant (numerals) 98, 405
cynyddaf 3
aren 329
canu 519
cyw 560
llacc 523
ariant 641
car 49 1
cyweddaf 346
Wan 200
arfb 55, 98
car 214, 357
Wei 353
arweddu 346
caraf351
chwaer 521
Uory 112
aur 235
cam 272
chwarddiad 345
Uyfn 353
awe/ 644
carwlll
ch warren 650
cau (cavity) 96
chwech 402
mant 107
bach 110
cau (take) 564
chweched 402
moch 533
bad 151
cawdd 259
chwedl 536
mynet 228
ba/ 641
cawr 448, 560
chwegr 386
ballu 549
cefnder 239, 392
chwegrwn 195
nac 20
bara 51, 453
ceiliog 90, 112
chwerfan 607
flaw 403
barcb 453
ceinach 240, 256
chwerfar 607
nawuet 403
bardd 436, 449
ce/wm 444
cbwi 455
bedd 159
celyn(en) 367, 451
chwid 63
ro(d)i 187
bedw 500
cenau 213
chwith 131, 349
ruch(en) 110
bedw(en) 65
cerdd 139, 143,437
chwyf 561
ry 61
begegyr 57
ci 98, 168
chwynnaf 323
be/e 91, 371
cil 42,98, 134
chwythu 72
seith 402
ber 536
c/a wr 431
berth 513
c/edd 131, 159, 348
dadleithiaf 207
ta/awt 594
berwaf 76
clir 108
dail 348
teir 400
b/awd 207
clod 262
danr 594
blif 582
c/ufl 260
dar 598
ye/- 458
b/ydd 532
c/usf 262
darwen 598
ysgawt 508
bod 53
c/yd 112
dawn 98, 185
yf- (pronouns) 458
boddi 160
clywed 262
deg 98, 403
yt- (thus) 583
bo/ 45
cna/7 5 73
dehau 131 , 485
bras 574
cneuen 405
deigr 567
New Welsh [Weis]
brawd 84
coeglO
de/w 143
a 313
bre 269
coegddall 70
derw 598
ae/e/- 590
brefu 24
coel 262
derwen 598
add-iad 472
breuan 474
cog 142
deuddeg 404
a-dref 282
brith 147
colomen 169
dew 147
ae/ 135
broil
colwyn 168
dianc 35
— 703 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Welsh)
dillydd 506
garth 200
haul 556
iliw 113, 246
din 210
gawr 89
hawdd 228
Hu 506
dinas 210
gel 349
heb 646
lludded 43
dlyed 123
gell 654
hedd 505, 522
lluddedic 160
doe 654
gem 98, 322
hedeg 208
//ug 83, 513
dol 618
giau 569
hegl 349
//uyd 64 1
Don 487
gofer 7 6
hel 370
llwyf(en) 178
Don wy 486
gogledd 131, 159
heledd 370
//wyfh 8 1
dor 98, 168
gogrwn 518
heli 448
llydan 98
draen 528
gogryn(u) 518
he/w 564
Llydaw 133
dwfn 154
golchi 639
helyg(en) 643
llyfu 351
dwrgi 411
go/ud 484
hen 98, 409
llyg 387
dy- 43
gor- 412
herw 77
llyngyr 607
dydd 48, 149
gosteg 518
hid/ 518
llysywen 530
dyfnu 556
grawn 236
hir 357
dyn 174, 366
gwae 313
hoed 413
mad 97, 235
dyweddio 346, 369
gwagen 625
hogen 56
maeddu 649
gwam 91, 625
hogi 509
malu 247
eang 39 1
gwas (house) 281
hu- 235
mam 386
eho/ 98, 274
gwas (servant) 506
hud 362
man t 453
echel 39
gwawd 436, 493
hun 527
march 274
edliw(io) 123
gwawr 148
hwch 425
marw 98
edn 646
gwayw 537
hwn 499
mawn 639
eh- 411
gwden 643
hwyad 66
mawr 344
eilion 135
gweddi 98, 449
hy (conquer) 123
medd 271
eilon 135
gweddw 642
hy (good) 235
meddw 271
eirin 63
gweled 505
hynerth 366
medi 258
eithin 237
gweh 650
hynt 488, 637
medel 258
elain 155
gwe//t 240
hysb 170
me/ 271
elm 98, 176
gwerin 268
mellt 353
er 581
gwem 11
ia 287
melyn 69
erch 537, 604
gwest 198
iach 262
mer 194
erthyl 24
gw/n 644
ias 77
merw 142
env 174, 200
gwir 98, 606
ib- 98
merwydd(en) 388
eryr 173
gwisgi 608
ieuanc 98, 656
mewn 380
esgid 522
gw/ad 490
ifanc 656
mt 454
euod 529
gwlan 648
/r 109
md 24, 98
euon 529
gwlydd 142
irraid 109
m/s 385
ewig 510
gwr 366, 548
lurch 155
modreb 385
ewyllys 197
gwraidd 80
modryb 36
ewyn 72
gwregys 224
llachar 5 1 3
modrydaf 98
gures 263
llafasu 8 1
mor 503
/jdV 454
gwyar 439
11am 353
morwyn 63 1
ffer 265
gwydd- 337
llathr 532
mwg 529
ffon 431
gwydd 598
llau 357
mum 391
ffrwd 98
gwynt 72, 643
Haw 255
mwyalch 70
gwys 24
lie 57, 98
muyn (exchange) 184
ga/7 209
lied 83
mwyn (opinion) 410
gafr 229, 507
haeam 314
lledr 269
mynnu 348
gallu 3
haeddu 505
lledu 539
mynych 3
ga/w 89
ha7 504
lief 538
mynydd 270
garni- 98
ha/a/ 499
lli 506
my r (ion) 24
gannaf 5 64
haidd 236
llif 506
mysgu 384
garan 140
ha/en 498
llin 206
garm 89
banner 24, 253
llith 44 1
nai 239, 392
704 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Irish)
nain 386
rhathu 503
trin 547
nant 63
rhawn 98, 252, 570
troed 491
neb 456
rhech 194
trydydd 400
nedd 357
rbeda/491
tu 518
neb 110
rhew 287
f ud 288, 417
neidr 530
rhiain 280, 329
T'udnr417
ner 366
rhif 98, 397
nerth 366
rhith 25
un 399
newydd 98, 393
rhod 98, 491, 640
ni 454
rhudd 481
wy 176
mtb 237, 394
rhwyddhau 485
wyf 228
n/tbta/646
rhwyg 354
wyth 402
noe 74
rhwygo 567
wythfed 403
nudd 571
rhych 215
nyf 530
rhydd 214, 358
ych 135
nyfiaf 530
rhygyngu 546
ymenyn 382
nytb 393
ymwan 549
saeth 78
yn 290
oddf 336
sa/h 387
yngwydd 337
odyn 202
sedd 505, 522
ysbyddad 80
oen 510
seddu 522
ysgwyd 512
oer 113
sefyll 431
ystrew 133
o7478
seithfed 402
ywen 654
oged 434
ser 543
o-han- 24
seren 543
Old Breton [OBret]
onn(en) 32
beuer 57
or-wyr 156
tad 195
cnoch 451
tad-cu 610
guerg 649
pair 443
faen 207
nou 410
par 607
fa/awd 98
staer 207
paraf 362
fagu 518
strouis 539
pawr 198
ta/cb 471
pedair 401
fan 263
Middle Breton [MBret]
pedwar 98, 401
faradr 36
banne 477
pesychaf 133
tar/it 214
caffou 588
peunoeth 394
tarw 98, 135
cann 385, 514
pobiaf 125
taw 475
lech 57
pren 598
fenau 574
louazr 52
pridd 588
fes 263
nt 239, 392
piyd 144, 362
tew 574
Prydain 587
ft 455
New Breton [Bret]
ptyb 649
foddt 378
bezv(en) 65
prynu 185
t ref 282
bro 133
prys 598
in 400
dibri 175
IRISH
abae 486
ad-cobra 529
aba/7 25
ad-con-darc 505
Ogham Irish [Oghamir]
accrann 270
ad-ella 507
cot 458
*ad 260
ad-gnin 336
ad- 590
ad-opair 496
Old Irish [Olr]
ad-agathar 198, 247
adsuidi 506
a 313
ad-aig 170
ad-tluichethar 535
ab 486
ad-ct 418
aed 87
— 705 —
eontr 238, 609
gell 654
gever 533
goalen 607
hauler 253
inn 63
kao 96
kriz 7 1
ma 457
mamm 133
mamvro 133
mao 656
may 457
mell 353
n/z 237, 394
ozac’b 371
pet der 456
saez 78
ster(en) 543
tecbef 49 1
Old Cornish [OCom]
mode re b 36
Middle Cornish
[MCorn]
banne 477
New Cornish [Com]
ca/os 563
degves 403
delk 428
down 154
ewnter 238, 609
frau 534
gins 654
maw 656
mmow 351
mowes 656
noy 239, 392
nytb 237, 394
ryvow 397
why ge ran 195
yorgh 155
aes 352, 548
aes side 62
ag 135
ag a//atd 135
aide 260
atg 135, 287
ail 548
at/e 64, 41 1
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Irish)
ailid 248
ball 71
caech 70
coll (blind) 70
alnches 198
baZZan 444
caid 510
coll (hazel) 260
ainder 648
ball feili 71
cailech 90, 112
colman 169
ainne 486
ball ferda 7 1
cam 563
com- 646
ainm 192, 390
ban 115, 513
cairem 514
con 168
a/'nmm 390, 438
bannae 477
camm 143
con-oi 197
ainmne 482
bard 436, 449
canaid 519
con-sni 3
air- 581
barr 439
cara 214, 357
con-utainc 649
aird 439
bas 151
caraid 357
coraid 448, 560
aire (attempt) 36
bech 57
carr 49 1,625
cos 323
aire (freeman) 213
beirid 56, 90
casar 191
crann 598
airem 397
beithe 65
cath (fight)201
ere 588
ais 39
ben 648
cath (sharpen) 510
ered 587
aite 195
benaid 549
catt 91
creitid 61, 439
iith (fire) 87, 202, 263
beo 356
caur 595
crenaid 185
aith (grain) 237
berbaid 76
ce 458
cn 76
aith- 37
bi 500
cecht 80
crlathar 5 1 8
aithre 195
bibdu 418, 549
ceilid 134
erzeh 441
aitt 487
bir 536
ce/r 637
cride 98, 263
aZ 135
birit 425
cerd 139, 143, 437
cris 224
alias 560
-b/u 53
cesaid 413
cro 217
alt 63
biur 536
cet 98,405
eru 98
am 53
bo 98, 134
cet- 169
cruaid 71
amnair 610
Boand 390
cethair 97, 98, 401
cruim 649
an 443
boc (bend) 62
cethoir 401
cruinn 217
Ana 238, 385
boc (goat) 98, 229
cethri 401
Cruithen 587
anair 60, 159
bodar 149
cetnae 399
cruithnecht 639
anal 82, 98
Bodb 390
cia 456
cruth 362
an-d 458
boingid 62, 81
clar 69
cu 98, 168
anocht 535
bolg 45
cilom 444
Cu 390
ar 284
bolgaid 561
cingid 546
cua 644
ara-chrin 312
boraime 397
ciotan 349
cu (allaid) 168
aram 397
borb 22
cithir 401
cuar 62
arbar 200
both 53
cZar 43 1
cuile 282
arbor 200
braga 64
cZe 131, 159,349
cwZen 168
arcu 33, 468
brathair 84, 479
cleth 441
cuilenn 367, 451
ard 269
brathair mathar 333 , 610
ell 441
cuing 655
ar-folm 564
bran 474
do 272
cuirm 84
argat 518, 641
brecc 514
cloid 607
cul 607,640
art 55,98
breth 2 1 1
doth 262
cuZ 42, 98, 134
aru 329
briathar 158
cZu 192, 437
cumgae 39 1
as-boind 636
Brigantes [Ptolemy] 269
duas 262
cumung 391
as-lena 527, 528
br/git 269
cZu mor 437
cundrad 357
asna 77
bro 474
cnaim 349
at-bail(l) 151
bronnaid 158
cnaip 266
dag-main 184
ateich 187, 188
broon 474
cnocc 45 1
dag-moini 184
afha/r 100, 194
bni 561
enu 405
daig 87
*au 173
bru/d 81
co 456
dair 598
aue 238, 392,521,609
bruid 81
co(a)ir 417
dam 136, 565
aur-drach 538
bruinne 561
cob 3, 211
dam 160, 416
buide 85, 115
coic 98, 100, 401
dam aZZaid 136
bacc 110
buifb 53
colca 405
damnaid 565
baid 115, 151
coiced 402
dan 98, 185
baidid 160
each 457
com fodome 411
Dam/ 487
bairgen 51,453
cacht 90
cotre 443
daro 598
— 706 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Irish)
dasacht 82
du 590
dau 399
du- 43
daur 36, 598
du 174
de 37
dual (use) 211, 614
dech 271
dua/ (textile) 252, 569
dechmad 403
duan 614
deich 98, 403
dub 115
de(i)n 650
duine 174, 366
de/g 424, 428
dun 210
dello 143
denid 556
e 395
der 393
e 399
der 567
ec 150
derb 36
ecath 61, 272
derbrathair 36, 134
ech 98, 274
derbsiur 134
echt 150
derg 115
ega 287
dess 131, 159,271,485
e/sc 604
det 594
e/s(s)e 48 1
d/37
eis(s)i 48 1
dla 98, 149,230
e/a 558
diabul 63, 400
elit 155
d/an 208
emon 130, 153, 608
dlas 400
en 646
dinid 556
enech 188, 191
dlth 150
eo 654
dligid 123
Eochu 390
do 590
ere (color) 113
do- 43
ere (praise) 449
do-alla 534
Eriu 194
doe 26
e/p 511
doe 26
err 88
do-fortad 607
errach 504
do-gair 89
escong 530
do-goa 566
escung 530
doimm 637
esna 77
do-lega 207
es(s) 77
do-lin 506
ess- 411
domain 154
estar 175
do-moinethar 575
efan 209
domun 154
eter 63
domun don 438
don 174
/aei 647
dorus 98, 168
/aig /erb /zfh/r437
do-seinn 3, 561
faiscid 471
do-duchethar 535
faith 436, 453,493
do-tuit 471
/"a/-n- 490
dou 399
/as 179
do-ucci 4
/eb 235
doud 87
fecht 488
doud 87
fedb 642
draigen 528
fedid 346, 369
drech 505
feib 235
droch 49 1 , 640
feidid 346, 368
drui 598
feis 24
feis(s) 198
gairm 89
feith 643
gal 3
fel 43
galar 43
/en 91, 625
gall 89
fer 366, 548
garg 568
ferenn 134
ge/s 236
/erg 208
gel 654
/err 416
gelid 349
/ess 198
gerr 5 1 5
feth 571
gil 349
fiche 404
gzn 98, 322
fichid 201
g/as 115, 246
ficht 201
g/un 336
fid 598
gnafb 337
figid 437, 572
gonaid 549
fil 505
gono nn7 438
fillid 607
gop 175
fin 644
gorf 199
7/r (true) 98, 606
gran 236
fir (water) 636
grian 161
Z/ur 521
gris 263
flaith 490
gruth 451
76 638
gual 87, 104
/oa/d 171
gu/d/d 62, 98, 449
/oca/ 535
guss 566
fochla 131, 159
gu/b 89
fo-cridigedar 224
focull 535
he 399
fodb 112, 471
7o d/ 400
/ar 39 1
foirenn 268
/ar 391
folc 639
ram 314
fol-n- 490
iam 314
fo-long- 62
fasc 100, 604
fo-lud 484
/bar 654
/or- 412
ibid 98, 175
forbrU 188
zee 262
formUchtha 154
-id- 458
for-mUigthe 154
idu 413
fo-ruimi 474
/ /oss 281
fo-sem 539
// 3
/ren 80
/mb (milk) 24, 382
frith 607
imh (numerals) 400
frith 202
/mb- 32
/uan 109
imbliu 391
-/uar 202
/mhu 391
/u/7650
/mm 400
/u/// 650
m 290, 395
gabor 229, 507
inathar 359
inde 654
gabu/ 209
/ngen (nail) 389
gae 537
ingen (niece) 393
gaibid 563
in-greinn- 546
ga/r 515
innocht 394
gair 89
/nsce 535
707 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Irish)
zrar 173
lolg 136
rao 533
da (grandfather) 238
ires(s) 61
lorg 112
mocht 527
da (young) 655
is 53
ZotZz 160
moz'zi (exchange) 184
dac 98, 531, 656
Is 208
lothar 52
mom (wet) 639
dc 656
it 53
luacha(i)r 83
moirb 24
ocZzf 100, 402
ith 208
luacht 83
mor 344
ochtach 428
lth 384
/flag 484
moraid 344
ochtgach 428
Itu 472
luaide 347
mrecht- 147
ochtmad 403
Zuan 513
mruig 77
odb 336
/a 100
ZucZz 387
much 529
oen 12
/ac 523
lucht 81
mug 656
oena 12, 399
Zaeg 136
Lug 97
muz'rz 391
denan 12
laigiu 353
luib 50
muince 392
oeth 61, 408
lainn 157
luid 561
mizz'r 503
07' 510
lam 255
/us 248
mu/re 31, 531
oln 12, 399
Zamazd 81
oirgid 1 58
lan 206, 214
mac(c) 656
na-cZz 20
oirgnech 438
lann 200
mae/ 45
naidm(m) 336
olann 648
Zasazd 513
maidid 638
naiscid 336
Ole 390
/at 100
maige 344
rzar 548
oil 64
lathar 133
main 184
rzasc 428
om 478
lecht 57
maith 97, 235
nathir 530
on nurid 654
legaim 207
mar 344
nathrach 530
dr 235
leicid 348
marb 98
tzau 74
orb(b) 411
leimm 353
marc 274
rzaue 98
orb(b)a 411
Zezss 100
matan 441
ne 169
orbe 4 1 1
Zem ZOO
mathair 98, 385
necZz 456
orcaid 1 58
les 514
me 454
necdt 108, 204, 237, 394
os(s) 135
leth 83
medb 271, 280, 313
Nechtan 203, 204
os- 607
lethaid 539
Medb 313, 390
neimed (bend) 63
lethan 98
meilid 247
neimed (grove) 248
rad- 472
/et/2az- 269
meinic(c) 3
neit 201
raid 490
II 113, 246
meirb 142
nel 110
razd 490
lla (abundant) 3
meithel 258
nem (cloud) 110
rama 408
lla (set) 506
meithledir 258
nem (take) 564
ram(a)e 408
Zzac 547
meZZ 258
ziert 366
rec/it 485
/lac/i 516
me/o 271
m (pronouns) 454
reithid 49 1
lie 506
mend 528
m (not) 395
ren(a)id 185
lie 547
menma 575
nia 239, 392
redd 287
Zzge 57,98
menmae 575
nz'ae 239, 392
rethid 49 1
ligid 351
mennar 155
nigid 108
reiid 287
Zzzd 123
mer 357
no (boat) 74
rz 329
Zz'/z 206
mescaid 384
no (or) 410
rlabach 537
llnaid 201
metal 175
nocht 45
rlathor 207
llnaim 214
ml 385
nol 403
rzcZzf 25
lingid 353, 546
miach 5 1
nolb 493
rig 329
Zzttzu 441
mz'an 410
nomad 403
rlgain 280, 329
Zz'us 259
mzd 271, 313
no-m-beir 100
rzga/7 329
loathar 52
midithir 374
770a 393
rzge 329
loch 343
m/7 271
nuae 393
rigid 187
Zdc/i 83
mzd 23, 98
nuall 89
rim 98, 397
loichet 505
mzZZzd 258
rirnzd 397
Zod 228
m/r 375
o (away) 37
ringid 187
/deg 136
mlicht 381
o (ear) 173
ro- 61
log 484
m/za 648
o (grandfather) 238
ro-bna 158
708
LANGUAGE INDEX (Middle Irish)
ro-cluinethar 262
se/ 63
su- 235
tricho 404
ro-cuala 262
selb 564
suainem 64
friss 40 1
roe 534
selg (release) 481
suan 529
tr/D 400
ro-fetar 337
selg (spleen) 538
suigid 556
trom 451
ro-geinn 98, 564
selige 241
su// 188, 438, 556
tu 455
rogenar 56
sen 98, 409
suth 56
tuaiscert 159
roi 534
seng 63
tuar(a)e 175
ro-icc 35
senmathair 239
ta 468
tuath (favor) 198
ro-laimethar 81
serg 516
tachtaid 518
tuath (people) 288
ron 98, 252,570
semaid 354
taeb 518
631
roth 98, 491, 640
sesc 170
f aid 543
tuilid 475
ruad 481
sesca 405
tain 138
rucht (clothing) 110
set 488,637
tain bo 170
ua 238
rucht (dig) 159
sf 455
tal 38
uachf 113
ruidi 468
sid 62, 152
ta/am 247
uamann 469
sf/ 505
talman 247
uan 510
saeth 413
sthd 448
tana 574
uball 25
saidid 352, 522
sine 82
tanae 574
ubu// 25
saiget 78
sir 357
tanaise 399
ucht 518
saigid 505
-sissedar 542
tar 4
uilen 98, 176
sail 643
siur 37, 393, 521
tarathar 36, 424
uinnius 32
sailech 643
si nr athar 334
farb 98, 135
L/isce 636
sain 24
s/an 236
tart 170
liisse 345, 410
saith 500
s/eg 481
taue 475
ung 530
sal 160
slemon 527
te 263
salach 160
sllasait 546
tech 488
Middle Irish
salann 498
slog 506
teeb- 187, 188
a’ 387
sam 504
sluag 506
techtaid 187, 188
ag 201
samail 499
smech 107
teg 488
am 48 1
samain 646
smiur 194
teichid 491
airech 123
samlith 410
snaid 561
teit 228
airid 434
scaraid 143
snaid 561
-te//a 534
a/ad 43, 247
scafh 508
snath 571
tengae 98, 594
alchaing 272
see 80
snathat 571
teoir 400
a// 548
sceindid 323
snecht(a)e 530
tess 263
anarf 569
sceinnid 323
sned 357
fiagu 228
arathar 434
seel 535
sn/ge 530
ffar 1 59
aur-frach 154
sciad 80
snigid 530
tinaid 158
sciath 512
so- 235
tinnscra 185
bair 264
seith 312
-so/-d 457
tlr 100, 170
bare (press) 450
scochid 323
soc 425
tirim 170
bare (project) 453
scuchaid 323
sochla 438
tiug 574
bem 549
se 402
socht 376, 517
toe 475
Bibraige 57
seek 646
sold 289, 507
toib 518
bileoc 348
sechithir 208
-som 499
f ole 471
b/afb 207
seehf 100, 402
sommae 637
tore 425
bligid 381
sechtmad 402
sonairt 366
traig 49 1
b/osc 8 1
sed 123
sonn 43 1
treb 281
bluigid 38 1
seg 123
sorb 147
tredenus 149
bonn 247
seilche 141
sreb 500
tress 401
bras 194
seinnid 534
sreinnid 530
t re than 504
brega 269
seir 265
sreod 133
tri 400
bres 574
seissed 402
sretb 354
fri 400
bri 269
seisser 402
sruaim 207, 486
triath 504
brig 269
seitid 72
sruth 98
tricha 30 404
bns(s)id 81
— 709 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Middle Irish)
bronnaid 8 1
derg 477
laith 639
tax 475
brosc 81
d/a luain 388
lathach 639
ram 549
buachail 268
drem(m) 564
leithe 516
tamaid 549
dresacht 395
/em 178
tarrach 198, 509
caccaid 187
duil 160
len 549
rechr 516
call 537
duille 348
Ledia 133
teile 178
cais 259
dumach 529
leth-chaech 70
teimen 147
caith 104
hath 64 1
redma 143, 217
cana 213
eicne 371
loch 513
tipra 539
cano 213
eiscid 144
luchtar 50
tlenaid 352
carr 607
en 371
lug 359
to(i)rm 535
casacht 133
enach 371
topar- 539
celtair 537
ere 537, 604
mag- 344
rrena 89
cere 142, 267
ma/de 44 1
rnan 89
cerr 258
/ae 313
maistred 649
trochal 572
cer 143
fair 148
mell 155
trothal 572
cin 123, 358
/eis 654
meng 1 54
mm 543, 582
cintaib 123
fem 11
methas 441
cir 570
7es 252
mide 380
nan 72
cirrid 258
fi 439
muir-dris 169
tnrge 98, 507
c/e 348
/lad 337
mun 108
u/ 251, 469
coim 443
/lam 571
ur 109
comm 258
finna 252
name 198
coll 392
find 252
nar 198
New Irish
corb 52
fobarlb
nenaid 336, 393
aingeal 104
cor ran 258
fofor 76
nes(s) 537
arme 63
cosachl 133
foss 506
net 393
car crainn 371
cosachtach 133
/raig 575
cuinneog 22
crem 620
fras 477
on 124
dobharchu 41 1
crib 285
frem 80
ond 547
da/ 638
crim 620
ore 100, 425
geamh 247
crip 285
gairb-driuch 252
rora rua 540
cro 488
galsid 252
riadaigid 485
mam 386
crothaid 509
gar 442
ruam 567
Mr 380
cru 71
gee 80
rua 540
cua 96
gemel 450
sab 442
ruaimneach 252, 570
cuach 142
gerr 381
samaigid 43 1
seilide 141
cuad 549
glam 247
scingim 142
cuaille 542
goll 70
sc/di 312
Scots Gaelic
cuanna 481
gra/g 217
scoiltid 538
aitheamh 539, 569
cu/re 30
guaire (hair) 252
ser 543
contran 22
cuma 588
guaire (happy) 256
serb 77, 543
earh 5 1 1
s/rid 207
fedrag 540
dar- 323
ilach 394
sidi- 357
Ion 154
dega 357
inad 595
s/acc 549
breach 62, 156
deil 82
ined 595
smid 571
de/a 82
sreng 574
deh 207
/arg/d 352
sridi/f 77
710 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Gothic)
Germanic
EARLY GERMANIC
Early Germanic
-apa 486
Attel 487
Chario- 30
Elz 487
fugal 68
Hadu-nh 201
Harii 31
Hario- 30
Herian 30
M annus 367
*menop- 240
Nehalennia 150
Nerthus 596
Nette 487
Semnones 354
Suabi 354
Weser 207
Wesi 235
Wjfsi 235
Wisu-nh 235
Runic
alu 60, 362
au/a 197
ek(a) 454
HadulaikaR 201
bubu 358
pewaz 491
Alphabetic order: a, b, d,
EAST GERMANIC
Gothic [Goth]
e, f, g, h, hr, i, j, k, 1, m, n, o, p, q,
r, s, t, J), u, w
af 42
akran 63
apnam 654
bi-gitan 564
af-agjan 198, 247
akrs 200, 222
ap-pan 37
bilaibjan 528
afar 42, 515
alan 248
auga-daurd 168
bi-laigdn 351
afara 42
aleina 176
augo 188, 222
bileiban 527, 528
af-hlapan 539
albs 458
auhns 443
bindan 64
af-hapjan 529
*alisa- 1 1
auhsa 135
bi-smeitan 528
af-fvapnan 529
alisna- 37
aukan 222, 248
biugan 62
af-lifnan 528
aljis 64, 411
ausd 173
bi-uhts 4
af-skiuban 471
alls 64
awe pi 510
bi-waibjan 607
af-swairban 607
ams 516
awi-liup 198
bi-windan 607
aggwus 391
ana 612
awistrlH, 510
blandan 147
agis 198, 247
ana-biudan 636
awo 238
bbnds 147
agljan 247
ana-nanpjan 201
azgo 32, 170, 263
bloma 207
agio 247, 413
andbahts 506
bio tan 451
ag/s 43,247
and 238, 386
badi 57, 159
bri/ci/? 8 1
aglus 247
anses 330
bai 400
bropar 84, 221, 222
ahs 237
ansts 198
baidjan 418
brunna 539
ahtau 402
anpar 411
bairan 56, 90, 222
brusts 561
a/va 636
aqizi 38
bairgahei 269
brup-faps 371
aih 270
ara 173
bairgip 268
aiiva- 222
arbi 411
bairhts 513
daddjan 556
aiha-tundi 274
arbi-numja 564
bajops 400
c/ags 87, 149
ainaha 12
arfvazna 78
bala(n)- 641
daigs 629, 649
ainakls 12
arjan 434
balgs 45
dais 618
*am-falps 63
arma-hairts 516
ban/a 548
daug 21 1, 514
ains 399
arms (arm) 26
barizeins 5 1 , 453
dauhtar 147, 222
ains-hun 12
arms (sick) 516
bam 107
dauhts 148
air 173
asans 504
batiza 236
dauns 388
a/rjba 174
asilu-qaimus 474
baurgs 210, 269
daur 168
airzeis 206
asts 80
beidan 418
daiir 222
airzjan 206
at 590
beitan 538
digan 649
00
o
s
V)
atisk 237
bi 32
dis- 25
aiwiski 509
atta 195
bid(j)an 450
dis-tairan 567
aiws 352, 548
at-pinsa 187
bidjan 62
diups 154, 221, 222
aiz 379
apn 228
bi-gairdan 241
diwans 1 50
— 711
LANGUAGE INDEX (Gothic)
doms 222 , 345
fruma 399
greipan 564
hropeigs 449
dreiban 170
frumists 399
grips 546
huhrus 284
driugan 115
/u/a 56
gulp 234
huljan 134
drunjus 395
Ms 214
guma 366
bunda 222, 405
du 590
/unins 202
gund 523
hunds 168
du-ginna 564
dugan 614
ga- 646
gup 231
buns/ 483
dulgs 123
gabaurps 91
-b 20
fra 222, 456
gabei 563
baa/ 287
hairban 607
fadar 195,222
ga-dars 35, 81
haban 222, 563
fvaimei 446
/aban 64
gadeds 345
ha//an 563
tvaiteis 5 1
Zaian 313
ga-drauhts 116
- hafts 90
fran 456
faihu 23
gaggan 88, 546
hahis 255
frar 456
/air- 581
ga-lvatjan 510
haidus 83
Ivarjis 456
fairguni 407
gairda 224
haifsts 194
fras 456
f airbus 407
Gaisa-reix 537
haihs 70
fra/?ar 456
fairina 36
gaitein 229
hails 262
tvapjan 199
fairzna 205
gaits 229
haims 622
hapo 199
falpan 63
ga-kusts 566
hairda 268
frei/a 474
/ana 569
galeipan 228
hairdeis 268
fre/fs 641
fani 371
ga/ga 442
hairto 262
fr/s 456
Zaran 228
gamains 184
hakuls 511
fro 456
/ar/'an 228
gamaurgjan 515
haldan 170
/"au/io 563
ga-motjan 377
hallus 270
iddja 228
Zaur 581
ga-munds 575
ba/s 392
ig/ds 455
/aura 60
ganab 35
hals-agga 392
be 454, 621
faurhtjan 198
ga-naitjan 313
bam/s 62
I'm- 53
faurhts 198
ga-nisan 484
bana 112, 519
in 290
/awai 200
ga-niutan 614
handugs 510
inu 646
/enea 199
gaqumps 115
haijis 30
is 399, 458
fidur-dogs 87
garaidon 397
bads 259
isf 53, 222
fidwor 401
garda 199
haubip 261
ita 458
/yan 258, 313
gards 199, 222 •
hauhs 62
itan 175
filu 3
ga-smeitan 528
bauns 284
0215
filu-faihs 638
gasopjan 500
haurds 571
iusiza 235
Zun/401
gasfs 249
bauri 88
izos 458
fimfta- 402
ga-swogjan 89
haum 272
izwis 455
fimf tiguns 405
gatamjan 565
hausjan 361, 418
finpan 202
ga-tarhjan 505
bavv/ 549
jer 654
fiskon 604
ga-teihan 516
hazjan 536
jiukan 547
/i'sics 604
ga-tewjan 564
heito 264
ju 397
flokan 549
ga-timan 87
heiwa-frauja 214, 622
ju 455
fon 202
gaumjan 418
hepjo 282
juggs 655, 666
/otas 209
gaurs 568
hilpan 265
juk 222, 655
fra- 6 1
gawargeins 141
himins 547
jukuzi 38, 655
fragan 33
ga-wargjan 141
hindana 214
*jut 455
fraihnan 33
ga wigan 91
hleidumei 348
fra-liusan 481
ga-wrisqan 249
hlifan 595
kalbo 6 1 5
fra-lusnan 48 1
gazds 442
hliuma 262
kalds 1 1 3
fram fair-n-in jera 654
g/b/a 260
hlutrans 108
kann 337
frau/a 399
gistra-dagis 654
hneiwan 348
/eara 89
freis 214, 358
giutan 222, 448
hoha 80
karon 89
frijon 358
goljan 89
bors 214
*kaurjds 264
frijonds 358
gops 64
brains 518
/eaum 236
frius 287
graban 159
hrdt 2 1 3
kmnus 222, 322
— 712 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Gothic)
kiusan 566
ma/)a 650
qiman 115
s/k 455
kniu 336
maurgins 147
qind 222, 648
sz/ubr 518
kuna-wida 252
mauman 483
qistjan 1 58
szm/e 4 1 0
kunnan 337
maw/ 656
qipan 535
sinista 409
kustus 566
meins 454
qipu-haftd 90
sz'ns 455
mel 374
qipus 2
sintems 149
laggs 357
mete 69
qius 356
smpsWS, 637
laikan 323
mena 385
sitan 352, 522
/amb 154
mendps 385
raihtis 485
szt/s 503
tend 200
mereins 344
raihts 485
s/u/an 573
lasiws 637
merjan 344
rapjd 397
sz'u/cs 517
tetjan 588
midjis 380
raups 222, 481
skaban 503
lats 588
mi/r 454, 621
re/ran 509
skadus 508
laufs 50
mikils 344
rign 639
skaidan 144
teun 484
milip 271
rim/s 474
ska pis 312
launa-wargs 141
miluks 381
rinnan 388
skauns 4 18
laus 481
m/mz 374
‘ rzqzs 147
skilja 538
lausjan 484
minnists 351
rodjan 472
s/cura (wmdis) 644
leihts 353
mins 401
*rukka 110
slahan 549
leilvan 349, 637
mitan 374
rums 534
slepip 255
lein 206
m/fon 374
sliupan 527
lei tils 43
mip 380
sa 457
sma/s 23
-leipan 151
mizdo 484
sazan 222, 534
snaiws 530
leipu 506
mulda 108
saihs 402
snorjo 573
letan 349
munan 575
saihsta 402
so 457
ligan 352
mundon 348
sa/bs tigum 405
sokjan 505
%rs 57
mundrei 348
sailvan 208, 505
sparwa 534
lisan 222
nadrs 530
sair 413
speiwan 538
liudan 248
nahts 394
sazws 503
spz// 536
/infs 358
namnjan 390, 468
salbon 194
spinnan 571
liugan 352
namo 390
salipwos 282
stazga 228, 488
liuhap 505, 513, 173
nasjan 484
saljan (take) 186, 285, 564
staimo 543
liuta 43
nati 336
saljan (house) 282
stazro 52
ldfa 209
naus 150
sa/t 498
standan 543
/un 481
ne 395
sama 499
sta/?s 43 1
/usfus 157
net 395
samakunja- 192
stautan 471
ne£te 571
samana 646
steigan 228
magan 3
ni 395
sandjan 228
stz/cs 451
magaps 656
n/man 564
satjan 506
sfz/an 543
magus 656
nipjis 290
sajbs 500
stzur 23
maidjan 184
nzu/zs 393
sauhts 517
stomin 431
made 160
nzun 403
sauil 556
straujan 539
maipms 184
niunda 403
sau/s 441
sums 532
ma/an 247
niutan 614
saurga 636
sundro 25
man 575
nota 88
saurgan 636
sunno 556
managei 3
nu 222, 397
sau/zs 76
sun us 533
managjan 3
seipus 357
swaihra 195
manags 3
o 313
se/s 236
swaihro 386
mana-seps 505
Odoacer 112
sibja 354
swaran 535
manna 366
og 198, 247
s/'bun 402
swarts 147
mare/ 503
szdus 143, 455
swe/n 222, 425
mari-saiws 503
pa/da 110
siggwan 519
swibls 88
marka 77
szgzs 123
swiglon 72
marzjan 209
qa/ru 536
sigis-laun 484
swi-kunps 455
mats 639
qens 648
szjun 53
swistar 52 1
— 713 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Gothic)
swumfsl 561
piubi 543
wabsjan 248
witum 222
piubjd 543
wai 313
wipra 25, 193
tagl 252, 569
piubs 543
waiau 72
wiprus 24, 654
tagr 567
piuda 348, 288,417
wai/a wisan 198
w/zon 198
taihswa 271, 485
piudans 348, 371, 417
wa/r 366, 548
wlaiton 505
taihun 403
piudisko 417
wairpan 607
wods 436, 493
taihunda 403
jbius 491
waif 337
wopjan 89
taikns 159
piup 198
waldan 490
wrikan 284, 471
talzjands 397
piwi 491
wa/us 442
wripus 268
tekan 595
pragjan 491
walwjan 607
wulan 264
fewa 564
preis 22 1 , 400
wandus 607
wulfam 48, 221
timrjan 87
pridja 400
wans 179
wulfs 222, 646
tiuhan 47 1
jbrya 400
wargipa 141
wulla 648
triggws 598
/)rins tiguns 404
warjan 134
wulpus 505
triu 598
/?u 222, 455
warmjan 88, 222
wulwo 567
fuggo 222, 594
pugkjan 575
wars 417
wunds 549
tulgus 357
puk455
was 171
tunpus 594
pulan 352
wasjan 109
Crimean Gothic
tuz- 43
pusundi 405, 560
wasjip 468
[CrimGoth]
twaddje 400
wasfi 109
ada 176
twai 399
ubi/s 43
wafo 636
ape/ 25
twalib 482
u/612
waurd 222, 535
bruder 84
twalib-wintrus 404
u far 412
waurkjan 649
*M401
tweifls 63
ufblesan 7 1
waurms 650
fyder 401
tyz222
uf-rakjands 187
waurts 80
*fynf 401
uf-panjan 187
weihan (fight) 20 1
fyuf40\
pagkjan 575
ugkis 454
weihan (sacred) 493
geen 349
pagks 575
Giitwfl 394
weibs (family) 192, 622
go/fz 234
/bahan 518
ulbandus 177
weihs (sacred) 493
i fa 399
pafrh 4
un-agands 198, 247
wein 644
miera 24
pairsjan 170
undard 611
weipan 607
u/ue 403
par 457
uns 454
weis 454
ohte 402
parba 500
un-tila-malsks 532
wens 158
*schnos 148
parbs 500
uraz 135
wepna 336
schuos 148
parf 500
us 612
widuwo 642
stega 228, 404
pata 457
us-gaisips 214
wigs 488
thiine 403
paurban 500
usqiman 151
wiljan 629
thunetua 404
paurfts 500
us-priutan 451
wilwan 567
tua 399
paumus 575
ur 612
winds 72, 222, 643
paurp 282
uz-anan 82
wintrus 349
paursus 170
wz'sau 171
peihan 188
-waddjus 571
wzi 454
peins 455
wagjan 507
wifan 337
WEST GERMANIC
-affa 486, 636
ahto 402
alunsa 37
affo 384
ahtodo 403
ambaht 506
Old High German [OHG]
agiso 247
akl 198, 247
ambahti 506
aba 42
aha 636
a/a 37
amban 39 1
abuh 637
ahhus 38
a/ansa 37
ambar 444
acchus 38
ahir 237
alasna 37
amma 386
achar222
ahom 367
a/biz 641
ampfaro 69
ackar 200
a/isa 39, 516
a// 64
amusla 70
ad(a)ra 359
ahsala 516
a/f 248
an 612
— 714 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old High German)
ana 238, 386
bersich 418
burg 2 10, 269
drz 400
ana -mall 69
betti 57, 159
Burgunt 269
drigil 49 1
ancho 24, 382
bezzir(o) 236
bursf 439
dntt(i)o 400
ankweiz 225
bla 57
buzzan 549
drizzug 404
andar 411
bfbar 57
d rosea- 582
andi 209
bibarin 57
cba/b 615
druoen 490
angi 391
bibeu 198
cba/p 615
du 455
ango 61, 272
bi-driozan 451
cbara 89
dunchen 575
august 413
bigaton 64
charon 89
dunken 575
ano 392,521,610
bi-ginna 564
chinne 222, 322
duuui 574
ano 646
billban 527, 528
chniu 336
durfan 500
anst 198
bil(i)sa 267
chreo-mosido 388, 543
durbf 500
antswebben 527
bintan 64
chumft 115
durftig 500
anut 171
biogan 62
cbuo 134
durh 4
apful 25
biotan 636
durri 170
aran 504
bir(i)hha 65
dagen 518
dusunt 405, 560
araweiz 41 5
(bi)smlzan 528
' dab 489
d we ran 607
arbf 411
bi-telban 159
daub 575
dwingan 45 1
ar-driozan 451
bitten 62, 450
dankon 575
arg 222
bi-ziht 516
darb 500
ebur 425
ar-liotan 248
bizzan 538
daz 457
ega/a 529
arm (arm) 26
blantan 147
decchen 134
eggau 435
arm (sick) 516
biao 64 1
degau 56, 106
eg; 198, 247
aro 173
blasan 71
dehsa 37
egfda 434
ars88
Hat 348
dehsala 38
egj'so 247
aruzzi 379
blazan 70
denkan 575
eg/sou 198, 247
asc 32
blecchen 513
den(n)en 187
ei 176
asca 32, 170,263
blenten 147
deo 49 1
eid 6 1 , 408
aspa 33
blint 147
der 457
eigan 270
ast 80
bllo 347
derren 170
eih 407
atar 194, 359
blozan 451
derren 468
eihb-umd 540
atto 195
bluomo 207
dicchi 574
em 399
atum 82
bluot 207
dicken 187
einak 12
avar 42
bodam 247
die 457
efsca 629
az 590
bok 229
dih 455
eiscon 629
bona 55
dlhsala 508
eit 87
bahhan 125
boron 549
dlhsila 187
eittar 561
balg 45
borsf 439
dil(o) 247
eiz 561
balko 43 1
brehhan 81
din 455
eko-rddo 343
bano 548
b reman 24
dinsan 187
el ho 178
bar 45
brestan 81
dinstar 147
e/ma 176
bam 107
briuwan 76, 199
diob 543
elinbogo 176
barf 25 1
brod 199
diof417, 288
elira 1 1
basa 37
brot 199
dim(-baum) 528
elles 411
bebeu 198
bruu 83
diu 491
ellichor 4 1 1
beit(t)en 418
brunno 539
diuba 543
ellihor 4 1 1
belgan 561
bruoder 84,222
d/uteu 41 7
elmboum 178
belihha 125
brusf 561
diutisc 417
e/o 155,481
bellan 5 1
buan 53
diuwa 491
em/d 392, 521, 610
beraht 65, 513
bungo 3
dolen 352
emf 171
beran 90, 222
buocha 58
donar 582
er 399, 458
berg 269
buog 26
dorf 282
er (early) 173
bergan 268
buoh 58
dom 575
er (metal) 379
berjan 549
buohha 58
douwen 378
era 458
bero 56
buohstap 58
drahsil 572
erda 174
— 715
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old High German)
erila 1 1
fifto 402
funfzug 405
gi-war 41 7
erl 530
fihu 23
fuolen 255
gi-winnan 158
ero 174
filu 3
fuoter 198
gi-zehon 564
erran 434
h/z 569
fuoz 209
g/af 529
essa 170
fimf 401
furben 25
gold 234
ewa 352, 548
fimto 402
furi 581
gomo 366
ewin 352, 548
fincho 201
furt 487
gorag 568
ez 458
findan 202
furuh 215
got 89, 231
ezzan 175
finfzehan 404
furz 194
goum(j)an 418
ezzesc 237
fintan 202
fust 255
goumo 96, 387
ezzisc 237
fior 40 1
graban 159
fiordo 401
ga- 646
grao 514
fadam 539, 569
fir- 61
gabala 209
greifon 564
/ahan 64
fir-gezzan 564
ga/an 89
grlfan 564
fahs 570
firi- 581
ga/go 442
grunzian 249
Mi 185
hrz 194
galla 217
good 523
/a//an 191
/i'sic 604
gan 349
gund- 222
falo 641
fiskon 604
gangan 546
gnomo 387
fandon 202
fiuhta 428
gans 237
gurten 224
/ano 569
fiur 202
garb 563
gurtil(a) 224
far 23
flahs 570
gam 180
far(a)h 425
flehtan 87, 570
gart222, 442
haar 252
/aran 228
fl oh 206
garda 442
hahen 222, 563
far-liosan 481
flouwen 561
garto 199
habuh 191
fam 646
fluoh 205
gast 249
habuk 191
far-wazan 535
fluohhan 549
gafer 80
hachul 511
fasel 507
/o 20.0
ge/>a/ 260
hadara 1 10
Zasfo 204
fdh 200
geinon 653
hadu- 201
Zater 195, 222
/oha 563
geist 214
Hadubrant 201
fathervodil 133
fol 214
ge/z 229
da/er 409
fatureo 195, 335
/o/ma 255
geizln 229
haft 90
/edara 646
folo 56
ge//an 89
hag (fence) 199
fedel-gold 539
/or 581
gelo 654
hag (take) 564
/eh 414
/ora 60
ger 537
hagai 287
Man 259
for(a)ha 407, 428
g(e)rob 490
hahan 255
fehida 259
for(a)ht 198
geron 158
hahsa 323
fehtan 549
for(a)htan 198
gersta 5 1
ha/co 272
feihhan 260
forhanna 604
gesteron 654
halftra 595
feim 208
forscon 33, 468
(ge)swid 85
ha//a 282
/e/268
/orf 229
geturst 81
halm 542
felis 548
/owen 109
gi- 646
ha/s 392
/enna 371
Zragen 33
(gi)beran 56
halt an 170
fereh-eih 407
frahen 33
gibil 260
hamma 349
f ergon 33
fri 214, 358
giburt 91
hana/265
Fergunna 407
Fnja 214, 358, 642
glen 653
handeg 5 1 0
ferjen 228
/rist 583
gifeh 259
hano 519
fer-nefo 1 56
friunt 358
gimeini 184
har(a)m 413
fers(a)na 265
/rosf 287
gi-munt 579
hard 428
fer-wergen 141
/ro (jump) 323
ginah 25
haren 536
fer-wesen 142
/ro (numerals) 399
ginen 653
harmo 638
fer-wuot 493
fruo 173
gi-nesan 484
hasal 260
/erzan 194
/u/is 563
giozzan 222, 448
haso 113, 240, 258
festi 204
/uhf 371
gi-thiuto 198
haz 259
flen 258,313
fulihha 56
giumo 387
he 458
/j/a/fra 88
funden 202
giwahanem 534
he f fan 563
— 716 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old High German)
hehara 323
honida 284
in 290
krahhon 534
heiftig 194
horen 418
inn-ethron 359
kranuh 140
heil 262
horn 272
int-seffen 566
/cuhisi 283
heim 622
hor(r)en 361
io352,548
/cum/t 1 1 5
heit 83
horsf 599
ir 399, 455, 458
kuning 531
-heit 83
houbit 261
ira 458
kunnan 336
heitar 83
houwan 549
z'rran 206
kussen 335
heiz 264
houwe 549
irri 206
/cun' 500
helan 134
hrad 509
irron 206
helfan 265
(h)ref 76
is 287
/aha 209
helid 56
hregil 572
isam 314
/ahan 352
hemera 265
(h)rieuwa 549
zsf 53, 222
lahs 497
her 458
hrind 272
it(a) 215
lamb 154
her 69
hriob 490
ith- 215
/ang 357
herbist 258
(h)ro 7 1
zuwzh 455
lant 200
herd 88
(h)rod 449
iwa 654
/az 588
heri 30
(h)rogan 205
12458
/azan 349
herian 3 1
(h)rogo 205
leech on 351
hersten 88
hros 491
jar 654
/eder 269
herta 268
hroso 71, 112
jehan 536
leffur 356
herza 262
hruojan 384
jesan 77
/egar 57
hewe 549
hruom 449
jiht 536
lehan 638
hinkan 142, 156
hub's 451
joh 222, 655
lehtar 57
hinta 273
humbal 58
ju 397
leid 259
hintana 213
hungar 284
jugund 352
leisa 2 1 5
himi 260
hunt (dog) 168
jung 656
/ezta 228
himi-reba 488
hunt (hundred) 222, 405
leiten 228
hirso 249
huoba 200
kachazzen 344
lemmen 81
hirti 268
huof 272
kallon 89
/enfl 356
hiruz 273
huohhili 80
/ca/o 45
lesen 222
hlun 214, 622
huolan 154
kalt 113
letto 639
hiuwilon cry 66
huon 112
kamb 594
/ewo 356
hl(w)a 214, 622
huor 2 14, 357
/can 336
lezzen 588
hlwiski 214, 622
huora 214, 357
/cara/ 410
lidan 228
hi(V)o 214, 622
huosta 133
karp(f)o 90
ligan 352
hladan 539
humuz 273
karron 395
lihan 349, 638
(h)Ianka 62
hursti 252
ken 428
llht 353
hlinen 348
hurt 571
kerban 143
/in 206
hliodar 534
hut 134, 522
kien 428
lin-boum 367
hliumunt 192
huwo 66, 412
kilbur 615
lind(i) 532
(h)lojan 90
hwa/ 510
kind 107
hnta 353
hlosen 262
(h)waz (pronouns) 222,
kinni 322
Hob 358
Hlot- 262
456
kitzilon 451
liohhan 8 1
hlut 262
(h)waz (sharpen) 510
kiuwan 175
lioht 505, 513
hlut(t)ar 108
(h)wer (pot) 443
klagon 247
/isfa 215
hnlgan 348
(h)wer (pronoun) 456
kleini 83
/ith 506
(h)niz 357
(h)werban 607
klioban 143
huhi 358
(h)nuz 405
hwes 456
kneht 631
huhon 358
hoh 62
(h)wlla 474
/cnio 336
liugan 352
ho/a 268
(h)wiz 641
kol 87
hut 248, 416
hona 284
kolo 87, 104
hutO) 248
honag 271, 637
igil 264
koman 115
/och 62
honang 271
zh 454
korb 52
lochon 352
honen 284
ihilla 287
kom 236
Ion 484
horn 284
imbi 312
/cost 566
/os 481
— 717 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old High German)
lot 347
menni 392
ne 583
quellan 207, 539
loub 50
meres 503
nebul 110
queman 115
louft 50
meriha 274
neb 239, 392
quen 222
bug 513
merren 209
nein 395
quena 648
luchs 359
mefa 484
neizzan 313
questa 80
luhs 359
metu 271
neman 564
quim 474
lunda 356
mez 374
nemnen 390
qu/fj 2
lunga 353
mezzan 374
nerren 484
lungar 353
mezzon 374
nesf 393
raba 620
luogen 505
mih 454
nestila 336
rad 491, 640
/us 357
mihhil 344
nez(z)i 336
ra/o 488
lust 157
miluh 381
nezzila 336, 393
ramak 1 60
luz(z)il 43
min 454
ni 39
ramusia 620
mindil 175
nl 395
raum 382
mad 258
minnisto 351
nidar 169
razi 503
mado 650
mios 385
ni/r 237, 394
rec(c)han 187
maen 258
misken 384
nihhus 108
reda 397
magad 656
mit(i) 380
nio 395
redan 509
magan 3
mitti 380
n/oro 329
ref 52
magar 357 , 574
moraha 620
niozan 614
regan 639
mago 440
mord 150
nun 403
reh 155
mahhon 649
morgan 147
niunte 403
reda 155
maho 440
momen 483
niunto 403
rehhan 471
ma/an 247
mos 385
niuwon 468
reho 155
mana 391
mucka 207
nord 611
reht 485
manag 3
muckazen 394
nord-an 131, 159
reichen 187
mangolon 343
muhhari 154
noz 614
rlhan 567
mann 366
muniwa 205
nu 397, 222
rim 397
mano 285
munt 255
nuska 428
rinnan 388
manot 385
munter 348
mjsf 336
rinta 567
mar(a)g 370
muntii 348
riob 523
marah 274
muoma 386
o6a 612
riozan 246
mar(a)k 370
muor 503
o/an 443
rippa 488
marerz 344
muoten 377
oheim 238, 609
rltan 485
man 503
muoter 222 y 385
ora 173
rlt(e)ra 518
man 344
murgi 515
or(e)huon 363
roa 474
mar/ca 77
murmuron 388
osfan 148, 159
rocko (clothing) 110
maro 142
mus 387, 388
dstar 174
rocko (rye) 49 1
masca 571
ottar 411
rost 2 1 3
mast 441
naba 391
ou 510
rof 222, 481
matara 246
naba-ger 391
ouga 188, 222
roten 468
mawen 394
nabalo 39 1
ouhhdn 222, 248
roz 246
maz 639
nachot 45
ouwi 222, 510
ruoba 620
medela 434
nadala 571
oxa 134
ruodar 408
med 160
naga/ 389
ruota 442
meina 410
nahho 74
pelihha 125
ruowa 474
meinan 410
nahf 394
p/ad 202,487
meis(s)a 511
nahti-gala 89
pfeit 110
sa7500, 566
melchan 381
name 390
pi-gezzan 564
sagen 536
meldon 449
narwo 574
Purgunt 269
sal 282
melo 247
nasa 395
salaha 643
mendon 348
naf 574
quaf 186
sa/ba 194
mengen (small) 343, 528
nat(a)ra 530
quedan 535
salbon 194
mengen (press) 450
na(w)en 571
quek 356
sallg 236
menigl 3
nazza 336
quella 539
salo 1 60
— 718 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old High German)
salz 498
Sigwart 1 24
sprehhan 535
swamp 539
sama 499
s/7i 455
sprengan 284
swarz 147
sami- 253
sihan 448
springan 284
swebal 88
samn 646
silab(a)r 518
spunni 82
swegala 72
samo 499
simble(s) 410
spuon 3, 458, 500
swehur 195
samo 505
simblum 410
spuri-halz 265
swella 43 1
sang 519
sin 418
spuman 329
swei/i 431
sant 490, 499
sfn 455
sfadai 43 1
swerban 607
sar 41 3
Sind 488,637
sfa/472, 506
sweren 650
sarf 517
sindon 488, 637
sfan? 431
swerien 535
sat 500
singan 519
sfan 468, 542
swero 650
sat 505
sinnan (go) 228
stantan 542
swerf 561
sa(w)en 222, 534
sinnan (perceive) 418
step 442
swestar 521
scado 312
sintar 314, 639 *
star 543
swigar 386
scadon 312
sinter 639
staren 547
swigen 518
scalch 531
sioh 517
sfai 43 1
swigur 386
scalk 530
sipp(e)a 354
• steg 228, 488
swilizon 88
scato 508
sifu 143, 455
stehho 442
swimman 561
scehan 323
siuwen 573
stehhon 45 1
swTn 222, 425
scelah 142
sizzan 522
steiga 228, 488
swmgan 63
sceran 143
skalm 74
stelan 543
swizzen 560
sceron 324, 577
slafan 255
stellen 472, 506
s(w)org 636
sceter 575
slab- 523
sfen 542
s(w)orgen 636
schaben 503
slahan 549
stemo 543
swuazo 560
scha/511
slango 607
sfero 52
scioban 471
sleha 246
sticken 45 1
faju 556
sciozan 581
sllmen 527
stlgan 228
tak 149
scirhi 444
slingan 607
sOiien 475
fai 618
self 512
s/io 568
stilli 475
tanna 202
sazan 144
sliofan 527
stior 23
tannan- 555
sedni 418
smal 23
stiura 442
tap far 574
scoub 262
smecchen 566
smiio 442
tat 345
scouwon 418
smecken 566
storah 548
tauwen 150
scudden 509
smelzan 378
stozan 471
feig 629, 649
scuntan 509
smero 194
stranc 574
tenar 255
scur 644
smerzan 490
stredan 77
thau 198
scutilon 509
snefoj 530
strewen 539
t(h)u 222
seuwo 134
snewes 530
stroum 207, 486
thunkon 639
sehan 208, 505
snlwan 530
strouwen 539
tila 82
sehs 402
snuor 573
sfurio 550
00/154, 221, 222
seh(s)to 402
snur(a) 148
su 425
tior 82
seh(s)zug 405
soren 170
sugan 556
tohter 147, 222
selboselbo 62 1
span 431
su/ir 517
tol(a)- 618
selida 282
spar 3
sui 441
tor 222
sellen 285, 564
sparo 534
suiza 498
tou 49 1
senten 228
sped 648
sum 532
foug21 1, 614
serawen 170
spehhan 535
sumar 504
tougah 268
sezzai 505
spehon 505
sunna 556
tougan 268
sezzen 506
spei 536
suntar 25
ioum 529
sibun 402
spinnan 571
sunu 56, 533
tragen 471
sibunto 402
spioz 284
suohhen 505
trahan 567
sld 357
splwan 538
sur 69
ireno 58, 395
sigi 123
spor 265
5waba 354
trestir 170
sigiron 124
sporo 265
swagur 85
tnban 170
sign 123
spra'i 500
swamm 539
triogan 154
— 719 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old High German)
troum 154
wasal 639
wls 337
zimbaron 87
truhtln 116
wat 625
wisant 136
z/n 587
tubila 638
wat 572
wzsf 198
Zio 230
tugan 614
watan 625
wisula 638
ziohan 471
tuht 211,614
wazzar 636
wisunt 136
zlf 161
tumpfilo 154
we 313
wztu 598
ziitaroh 522
tunkal 147
weban 572
witu-fina 442
zittaron 49 1
tuolla 618
we/sa 636
wituwa 642
Z/u 222
luozn 222, 345
weg 488
wizzan 337
zogon 471
tuon 472, 506
wegan 91
wizzo 222
zoradf 505
turi 168
weibon 607
wolf 222, 646
zouwen 349
tusik 82
weif 607
woda 648
zun 210
twerk 258
weiz 337
wort 222
zunga 222, 594
weizzi 5 1
wulpa 647
zuo 590
ubar-sigirdt 124
we/7615
wunsc 158
zur- 43
ubil 43
welk 639
wunf 549
zwa 399
ubir 412
wellen 629
wunta 549
zwe 399
udia 394
wenist 2
wuofan 89
zwei(i)o 400
umbi (around) 32
wer 366, 548
wuoffen 89
zweinzug 404
umbi (numerals)400
werdan 607
wuo/ 150
zwo 399
nn 395
werian 109, 134
wuosti 179
unc 530
wer/c 649
wuot 436, 493
Middle High German
uns/d 454
werna 416
Wuotan 493
[MHG]
untar(i) 63, 61 1
werra 416
wurchen 649
ag 418, 509
untar-jauhta 655
wer(r)en 134
wurm 649
ap falter 25
uoben 649
wesan 171
wurz 80
art 362, 410
uobo 649
wezzen 510
uochsana 516
wibil 312
zagel 252, 569
dade 42
ur- 612
wlc 201
zadar 567
bileite 228
uro 135
wichsila 384
za/on 397
biuchen 58
urochso 135
wlda 643
zam 565
blaejen 70
ustinon 135
widamo 82, 83
zamon 565
bobe 42
ustri 135
widar (year) 24,- 654
zaznot 468
bragen 79
utar 82
wldar (apart) 25, 193
zand 594
b re gen 79
uz 612
widema 346
zanga 68
buchen 58
uzan(a) 612
widemo 83
zarg 564
buoben 82
widoma 346
zedan 403
waen 72
widomo 83
zehanto 403
dehse 37
wafsa 636
wz/an 607
zezga 159
dries 401
wagan 625
wig 201
zeigon 516
waganso 434
wlgan 201
zeihhur 84
eg/e 418, 509
wahhen 550
wigan 1 201
zeiz 5 1 3
ezscd 509
wads 637
wld 493
zeman 87
erqueben 160
wail 50, 567
wlhan (fight) 201
zemmen 565
wa/d 200
wzdan (sacred) 493
zeran 567
getwas 82, 538
wa/e 264
wihhan 607
zerben 607
grabben 563
walm 264, 637
win 644
zes(a)wa 485
gurt 224
waltan 490
winchan 63
zeso 485
wan 179
win/' 358
ze-weiban 607
dafe/e 9 1
wan(a)st 2
wznf 222, 643
ziab 159
heimen 622
war 606
wintan 607
zicki 229
holen 394
wara 417
wint-brawa 252
ziga 229
do/n 394
warg 141
wzr 454
zldan 516
hummen 284
warm 88, 125,222,263
wirbel 607
zimbar 87
hurren 49 1
warza 523
wirunt 136
zimbaren 87
720 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Frisian)
ite-riicken 6 1
talg 207
knappe 63 1
hoek(e) 229, 511
telle 618
konig 531
hoekijn 5 1 1
jouchen 547
terken 477
kupfer 379
hulle 270
jouchen 547
tick 472
/a//en 42
maesche 571
tlen 222
lutter 1 1
ma/s 532
karsch 37
truht 1 16
mann 366, 367
malsch 532
kerben 143
tusfer 82
mensch 366
marren 64
kopf 446
twas 82
ra/e 488
noppe 573
koph 446
ra/e/ 488
osl 80
kutel 2
uover 515
riicken 42
peggell2
schalk 531
rachter 488
lasche 569
rerse 24
schnur 148
spaen 444
fege 352
vfsen 72
see 504
span 444
lecken 323
vut 507
stadt 43 1
farwe 237
leichen 323
steige 228
waghen 625
/erz 156
wa/ 442
stimme 387
wiel 640
ton 527
ware 141
‘ stinkhahn 272
we/ 640
webes 636
New Dutch [Dutch]
mane 343
welben 62
we//e 539
es 237 N
mang 343
welken 142
zaun 199
esch 237
mane 650
we/s 510
zwerg 258
We/ 272, 273
muoze 377
wester 109
kien(spaan) 428
wiht 571
Swiss German
/cui! 604
o 313
/auc/i 618
maa/ 23
ose 255
zac/i 252, 569
miggelen 110
ose 255
za/ 397
Middle Low German
m/sl 1 10
zeche 357
[MLG]
o/cse/ 516
phrengen 644
zec/ce 357
bleken 70
oom 238
zwlden 650
Za/ge 200
roe/ 488
ram 160
zwir 400
ga//e 43
tarwe 237
ratzen 503
helen 4
waas 639
raz 213
New High German
henge 272
zee 504
raze 213
[NHG]
moren 64
nhe 354
angst 391
quese 490
Old Saxon [osax]
rom 160
awwe 238
rap 285
brodar 84
rosche 571
barsch 418
szTc reppen 285
druht-folc 1 1 6
riiegen 490
beide 400
scheren 577
ehu- 222
riiejen 490
brummen 24
schuft 516
gidrog 538
rum 534
buch-ecker 63
smucken 527
gihlun 534
rusche 571
damisach 549
gi-waragean 141
rusen 124
damlicb 549
New Low German
ho/m 220
/linen 509
deutsch 417
[NLG]
hunderod 405
dimlein 528
hupphupp 272
kneo-beda 62
sampt 499
einig 1 2
/clit 179
malsk 532
sanz 499
emige 12
wurt 199
nimidas 248
selken 48 1
/arbe 113, 537
roggo 49 1
si lit 573
/isten 194
Middle Dutch [MDutch]
twithon 650
sliten 527
/rau 358
aert 410
warag 141
snarren 394
frosch 323
dapper 574
span 444
grob 490
dune 210
Frisian [Fris]
sunder 25
hanf 293
grabben 563
indu/ 207
sungen 170
harz 186
grime 595
bres 3 1 1
siirpfeln 175
kiefer 175
harsf 570
brother 84
swade 63
kleinvieh 23, 365
helen 4
em 238
swir 442
knabe 63 1
hil(le) 270
fedena 195, 335
— 721 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Frisian)
fethe 37
moder 385
snore 148
wetma 83
gadra 64
modire 36, 335
sffr 547
witma 83
klay 108
nift 237
swage r 85
luf 349
nimidas 63
ta/cer 84
Alphabetic order: a, ae, b,
Old English [OE]
c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, 1, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, J), 3, u,
w, x, y
a 352
^r 173
beorc 65, 478
breost 561
ac 407
aesc (ash) 32
beorcan 5 1
breowan 76, 199
acsian 629
aesc (ax)38
beorg 269
brop 199
ac-weoma 540
ZZsce 629
beorgan 268
brodor 84, 222
ad 87
aespe 33
beorht 513
bru 188,479
adesa 37
590
beorma 76
brun 85
adese 37
%dm 82
bera 55, 56, 85
brunna 539
agan 270
%(w)2>52, 548
beran 56, 90, 222
brysan 8 1
a/an 248
^wan 509
here 51, 453, 479
bucca 229
a/or 11
ZBwisce 509
berstan 81
burg 269
ambeht 506
38
be-scRan 144
burh 269
amber 444
be-smUan 528
byrst 439
ambiht 506
bacan 125
be-sylcan 48 1
a-merian 514
bale 431
bet(e)ra 236
ca/an 113
ampre 69
ba/ca 43 1
biddan 62, 450
calu 45
an 399
bana 548
bifian 198
camb 594
anfeald 63
bannan 535
bUan 538
cann 336
anga 12
b%dan 418
blandan 479
cea/Z 175
anga 61, 272
bad 641
blandenfeax 147
ceahhettan 344
an/g 12
baer 45
blawan 71
cea/d 113
apa 384
baer-lic 5 1
b/a?c 513
cea/7615
apuldor 25
ba?fr)s418
bbed 348
ceallian 89
ar (metal) 379
bean 55
blgtan 70
cearcian 534
ar (shaft) 508
beard 251
blendan 147
cearian 89
asce 32, 170, 263
beam 56, 107
b/eo 347
cearm 89
a-scelian 538
beatan 548
blind 147
cearu 89
asc/an 629
bece 58
blostma 207
cen 428
atol 259
bedd 57, 159
blotan 45 1
cennan 56
a£ 61,408
begen 400
boc 50, 58
ceorfan 143
(a-)preotan 45 1
(be-)gietan 564
bog 26
ceorl 410
be-ginnan 564
bogan 535
ceorran 395
a?cer 200, 222
behwielfan 62
bo/ca 431
ceosan 566
secern 63
belgan 561
bold 649
ceowan 1 75
^ces 38
belifan 527, 528
bolla 444
cilfor-lamb 6 1 5
^dre (fast) 194
bel(i)g 45
bonian 513
rinn 222, 322
^dre (lung) 359
be//an 5 1
borian 549
citelian 45 1
£e7- 42
be-lyrtan 62
bod 649
citelung 45 1
aefnan 649
benn 548
botm 247
c/^g 108
%g 176
beo (be) 53
braegen 79
c/^ne 83
ael 37
beo (bee) 57
br^es 314
clzensian 83
selflll
beodan 636
bread 199
cleofan 143
aelfsiden 362
beofian 198
brecan 81
cneo(w) 336
^en/d 171
beo for 57
b re gen 79
cneow-gebed 62
<eppe/ 25
beolone 267
bremman 24
cneowian 451
— 722 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old English)
cnlf 45 1
dogor 149
easte 159
faest 204
cnocian 451
d oh tig 21 1
easteme 174
fadm 539, 569
cnucian 451
dohtor 147, 222
eastre 148
fea 200
cnu(w)ian 451
dom 222,345,352
eax 39, 516
fealdan 63
co/a 62, 283
don 472, 506
eax/ 516
fealh 200
col 87, 104
dor 168, 222 .
eegan 434
feallan 191
copor 379
dra7 170
e/han 649
fealu 64 1
com 236
dragan 471
e/re 515
fearh 425
cost 566
dran 58, 395
ege 198, 247
feam 646
cracian 534
dreogan 115
eg(e)le 247, 413
fearr 24
crado/ 480
dn/an 170
egesa 247
feawa 200
cradolas 480
dryhten 116
eg(e)de 434
feax 570
cran 140
dufan 154
eg/an 247
fegan 64
crudan 45 1
dugan 614
eg/e 43
fela 3
cu 134
dun 210
eglian 247
felan 255
cuman 115
duru 168
e/cor 411
feld 205
cuml 450
dw^s 82
e//es 64, 411
fell 268
cum u/ 450
dweorg 258
ellicor 411
felt 569
cunnan 336
dy/arz 154
e/m 78, 178
fenn 371
cwelan 549
dyh tig 614
eln 176
feogan 258
cwellan 549
dyne 534
elnboga- 176
feoh 23
cwerz 648
dynian 534
ened 171
feohtan 549
cwene 222, 648
dyrst 8 1
erzge 391
feon 258, 313
cweom 474
dysig 82
emg 12
feorh 407
cwedan 535
eofor 425
feortan 194
cwi'c 356
ea 636
eoh 222, 274
7eor£>a 40 1
cwidu 500
eacian 222, 248
eo/h 178
feower 40 1
cwield 549
ead 572
eom 53
feder 646
cwild 549
Eadwacer 112
eorl 530
ficol 260
cwip 2
ea/ora 42
eorre 206
fiersin 265
cwudu 500
eage 188, 222
eorsian 206
/zersn 265
cyning 530
ea/zfa 402
eorde 174
7/740 1
-cynn 192
eahteda 403
eow455
7/7a/de 88
cyssan 335
eahtoda 403
eowu 222, 510
flfta 402
cyst 566
ea/ 37
Erce, eorpan modor 174
fiftene 404
ea/d 247
erian 434
fiftig 405
dag 649
ealdop 74
esa 330
filmen 269
da/c 424,428
eald-werig 141
esf 198
fine 201
dariarz 270
ealgian 458
efan 175
findan 202
d^d 345
ealh 458
firgen- 407
da?g 149
ea// 64
7acen 260
first 583
d^e/ 618
eall-ana 12
fag 414
7/sc 604
daerst(e) 170
ea/o/? 60
fa/i (color) 113, 414
fiscian 604
deag 614
ea/u 60
fah (hate) 259
fisting 72
deagol 268
earn 238, 609
7am 208
/7eah 206
dear 80
eanian 5 1 1
fana 569
flean 567
deaw 491
ear 237
fandian 202
/7eax 570
de/fan 159
eard 410
faran 228
fleohtan 570
dell 618
eare 173
7aru 229
//eos 570
delu 82
earg 222
/adu 37
flocan 549
deog 268
ear/z 78
faeder 195, 222
flob 205
deop 154, 221,222
earm (sick) 516
fasdera 195, 238, 335
//or 205
deor 82
earm (arm) 26
fsederedel 133
fid wan 561
deorc 477
earn 173
/a*ge 113, 414
fneosan 82
die 87,472
ears 88
fes/ 507
foddor 198
— 723
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old English)
fo/a 56
gasf 214
god 64
haes(e)l 260
folc 417
gaf 229
gold 234
haest 194
folde 133, 438
ggstan 214
gonia 96, 387
has wen 246
(olde, flra modor 174
ge- 646
gorst 547
he 458
folm 255
ge 455
gos 236
heafoc 191
fon 64
gealga 442
grafan 159
heafod 261
for 581
geada 43, 217
grapian 564
dead 62
ford 222,487
gear 654
gr^g 5 14
dea/a 268
fore 60
geard 199, 222
graeppian 564
heal dan 170
for-gietan 564
gea/Ti 180
greof 379
dead 270, 282
forht 198
gebyrd 9 1
grz/na 595
healm 542
for-leosan 481
ge-collen-ferhp 539
grindan 247
heals 392
fom(e) 604
ge-daefte 1 39
gnpan 564
dean 284
forsc 323
ge-diegan 614
grunnian 249
hearm 413
forst 287
ge-dreag 115
guma 366
heador 282f
forwost 399
gefaran 228
gund 523
headu- 201
fot 208
gefetan 192
guplll
Headulac 201
fodor 198
gehaep 3
gycer 655
heawan 549
fox 563
gehlid 441
gy dig 231
hebban 563
frea 399
geleod 416
gyrdan 224
hecen 229, 511
freo 214, 358
gelyndu 356
gyrdel 224
decg 1 99
freod 214, 358
gemgne 184
deda 270
freo nama 438
ge-met 374
habban 222, 564
de/an 134
freond 358
gemot 377
haca 272
helan 154
Frig 2 14, 358
ge-mynd 575
hacele 511
de/ma 595
frigan 358
ge-naetan 313
had 83
helpan 265
frige 642
geneah 35
dador 83
hemed 134
frogga 323
ge-nesan 484
dafo/a 261
hengist 222
frosc 323
geoc 38, 222, 655
hafud 261
denn 1 1 2
frum 399
geoht 655
daga (fence) 199
heord 268
fruma 399
geolu 654
daga (take) 564
heordan 570
fuht 371
geong 655, 656
hagol 287
heorot 273
fu/i (full) 214
geostra 654
dad 262, 479
heorte 262
full (pot) 443
geotan 222, 448
ham 134
dere 30
fundian 202
gesele 282
dam 622
Herewulf 3 1
furh 215
(gejsweor 392, 521, 609
dama 134
herian 536
furh-wudu 407, 428
geswirga 392, 521, 609
hamm 349
hete 259
fyr- 581
ge-swope 582
hamor 547
hieg 549
fyr 202
ge-piede 198
dan 510, 641
hielfe 595
fyrest 399
gewaed 625
dar 69
hlenp(o) 284
fyrhtan 198
gewegan 201
dara 240, 256
hieran 361,418
fyrhto 198
gicel(a) 287
darad 428
hierde 268
fyrs 639
giellan 89
dara/? 428
hierstan 88
fyrst 399
gieman 418
dasu 113, 240
higian 194
fyst 255
g/erd 442
dar 264
hig(e)ra 323
/yxe 563
gieman 158
hawian 418
dind 273
fyxen 563
giesf 249
haefer 229, 507
hmdema 213
g/nan 653
d<=efr 90
di'w 113, 246
ga/o/ 209
ginian 653
dade 56
d/vvan 214, 622
ga/an 89
gist 77
haelftre 595
hiwcup 214, 622
gan 349
git 455
hseman 622
d/vven 214, 622
gangan 546
g/^ed 529
haenep 265, 293
hi wise 214, 622
ganian 653
g/eam 255
dan-252
hiw-rzeden 214, 622
gar 537
g/eo 255
haerfest 258, 504
hladan 539
garleac 537
god 89, 231
deem 539
d/ec 207
724 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old English)
hlence 62
hundnigontig 404
/a can 323
locian 505
hleodor 534
hundred 397, 404, 405
iagu (lake) 343
to/l 10, 568
hi in 367
hund(red) 222
/agu (lie) 352
tos 481
hlinc 62
hundseofontig 404
/ah 352
lot 43
hlinian 348
hundteontig^O 4
lamb 154
/ox 359
Hlop- 262
hungor 284
land 200
/u/ian 358
hlop 539
hunig 271, 637
lang 357
lufu 358
hlowan 89
huntwelftig 404
lapian 352
lundlaga 356
hlud 262
humitu 273
/a'/? 259
lungen 353
hlut(t)or 108
hus(e)l 493
laeccan 564
lungre 353
hlynn 534
hwa 456
/^dan 228
lus 357
hlynnan 534
hwael 510
*laempi-halt 255
/nsf 157
hlynnian 534
456
laen 638
lyft 349
hlyst 262
hw^s 510
/ah 588
lynd 356
hlystan 262
hwsest 82
tefan 349
hnlgan 348
hwaet (pronouns) 222, 456
/eac 537
macian 649
hnitu 357
hwah (sharp) 510
• dead 347
madma fela 185
hnocc 451
hwzete 51
leaf 50
magan 3
hnutu 405
hwaeder 456
leah 513
mago 656
hoc 272
h we alf 62
/ean 484
ma/ 160
hdf272
hwelp 615
leas 48 1
man 575
hoh 270
hweogol 640
leador 52
man 4 1 0
hoi 1 54
hweohl 640
/eax 497
manig 3
holen 451
hweol 640
leccan 207
mann 366
holian 154
hweorfan 607
leger 57
manu 391
holm 270
hwer 443
lemian 8 1
mattoc 434
/ion 255
hwettan 510
lemphealt 255
mada 650
hor 214, 357
hwil 474
lendenu 356
madum 184
hore 214, 357
hwff 641
/eod 248, 416
max 571
horn 272
hwosan 133, 518
leodan 248
mawan 258
hors 358,491
hwosta 133
/eode 248
m^d 258
hramsa 620
hyd 134, 522
leof 358
maedere 246
hrade 509
hydan 268
leogan 352
maeg(e)r 357
hraeg/ 572
hy/444
leoht (light of weight) 353
maeg(e)p 656
hraen 539
hy 11 270
leoht (shine) 505, 513
m^/ (black) 69
bream 89
hynan 284
leoma 513
m^/ (contend) 124
hreade-mus 509
hyrdel 571
leon 349
mael (measure) 374
hreaw 71
hymet(u) 273
/esan 222
maenan 410
hreo/490, 523
hyrst 598
/eftan 588
msran 344
hreol 572
/eder 269
m^re 344
hreowan 549
ic 456
liccian 352
maescre 571
hreran 384
ler/a 4 1 1
began 352
m;csf 44 1
hrep 449
ier/e 41 1
lleg 513
maest-lon 62
hridder 518
iewan 509
/idan 228
m^/? (harvest) 258
hrider 5 1 8
igil 262
lide 532
rn^/? (measure) 374
hrif 76
in 290
hm 527
me 454
*hrifeling 514
inc 455
/in 206
mearc 77
hroc 68, 142
inch 455
lind 353
mearg 370
hrof 488
is 53,222
linen 206
mearh 274
hrosf 213
is 287
lippa 255, 356
mearu 142
hudenian 509
Ise(r)n 314
/ira 323
mec 454
hun 560
if 458
/isle 2 1 5
med 484
hund (dog) 168
iw 654
loc 62
me lean 381
hund (numerals) 405
loee 62
tneld(i)an 449
hundaendlaeftig 404
ju 397
loccian 352
meltan 378
/
725 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old English)
melu 247
naca 74
osf 80
sa/a 285
mene 392
nacod 45
ofor411
salu 160
mengan 450
na/eia 39 1
6der411
sazzze 499
menigu 3
nafo-gar 391
oxa 135
-samne 646
meodo 271
na/u 391
oxn 516
sand 490
meolc 381
nazna 390
sang 519
meord 484
n5?d/ 571
pad 110
sar 375, 413
meos 385
n^dre 530
paep 202, 487
sawan 222, 534
meotod 374
nzege/ 389
s^ 503
mere 503
naesc 269, 570
ra 155, 537
saed 500
metan 374
ne 395
ra/ia 155
saed 505
metan 377
neaht 394
raw 354
sael 282
mete 638
nearu 573
r^ca/i 187
szl 236
metian 374
neaf 614
raedan 2>91
s«//z 282
micel 344
nefa 239, 392
raefter 488
saep 500
znzcga 613
nemnan 390
ra?t 503
scafan 503
micgem 180
ne(o)- 150
r%w 354
scadian 312
mid 380
neotan 614
read 222,481
sceadu 508
midd 380
neowe 393
ream 382
sceaf 2 62
mierce 147
nerian 484
reccan 187
sceaft-ld 62
miere 274
nesf 393
-red 397
scealc 531
mierran 209
netel 336
reg(e)n 639
sceap 5 1 1
znzgan 613
nefe/e 393
regnian 639
sceard 143
mildeawlll
nett 336
rendan 567
sceam 186
milisc 271
nicor 108
*reofan 81
sceade 312
mimorian 483
nifol 110
reon 488
sceawian 418
min 454
nift 237, 394
reotan 246
sceo 134
miscian 384
nigon 403
resc(e) 571
sceofan 47 1
znzsf 110
nigoda 403
ribb 488
sceolh 142
mip 380
nihte-gale 89
rldan 485
sceon 323
mipl 175
niman 564
rifeling 514
sceotan 58 1
modor 222, 385
nider 169
ri/if 485
sold 512
modrige 36, 335
nz'we 393
rim 397
sciene 418
mohpe 650
norp 131, 159, 611
rind(e) 567
scieran 143
molda 261
nos tie 336
rinnan 388
scudan 509
molde 108
nosu 395
ris(c) 571
scufan 471
znona 385
nowend 74
rzd 207
scur 644
monap 385
nu 222, 397
rocc 110
seuwa 134
znor 503
nytt 614
rocettan 6 1
scyndan 509
more 620
rod 442
se 457
morgen 147
ofen 443
rofen 81
sealf 1 94
morp 150
o/er 41 2
romig 160
sealfian 194
morn 620
o/er 515
rof 80
- sealh 643
znos 385
ofnet 443
rodor 405
sealma 431
moppe 650
of-spring 156
row 474
sealt 498
znuga 262
oga 198
rowan 490
sear 170
munan 575
oht 150
rudian 468
secan 505
mund 255
on 612
rum 534
secg 115, 208
muman 483
onleon 638
ryge 491
seegan 536
‘m us 387
or- 612
zyman 534
secge-gescere 324
my eg 207
or 77
sefa 566
znyne 205
ora 77
sac/a 362
seld 282
myrge 5 1 5
ortgeard 199
sadol 479
sele 282
os 330
sadolas 479
sellan 285, 564
na 395
os/e 70
sagu 38
selma 43 1
— 726 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old English)
sendan 228
smoca 529
stillan 475
swito/ 514
sengan 170
smugan 527
sfille 475
swi/) 130, 485
seo 457
snaw 530
sfirc 23
swidre 131, 485
seoc 517
sner 573
stip 391
swogan 89
seod 573
sniwan 530
sto/n 442
swor 392, 521, 609
seofon 402, 403
snod 571
store 548
s/I 441
seolfor 314, 518
snoru 148
stream 207, 486
s/7/ 431
seon 208, 505
sol (dirt) 160
streng 574
seodan 76
sol (juice) 323
streowian 539
tac(e)n 159
seowian 573
sorg 636
stunian 582
facor 84
sell 505
sorgian 636
styri(g)a 550
falu 397
set tan 506
sot 522
su 425
tarn 565
sex tig 405
sop 606
sucan 556
tang(e) 68
sibb 354
sodian 606
sugu 425
targe 564
sid 357
spadu 431
sulh 47 1
f^can 159
-siden 362
spann 444
sum 532
taeg(e)l 252, 569
sidu 143, 455
spanu 82
'sumor 504
tsehher 567
siex 402
spaer3
sundor 25
tad 397
siexfa 402
spearca 539
sunne 556
f^tan 513
sigan 448
spearwa 534
sunu 56, 533
teagor 567
sige 123
specan 536
sOr 69
tear 567
Sigeweard 124
spell 536
swamm 539
tearflian 607
sigor 123
spinnan 571
swan 534
tegeda 403
sigorian 124
spittan 538
swancor 63
tellan 397
sigde 38
splwan 538
swat 560
temian 565
simbel 410
spon 43 1
swadian 63
teohhian 564
simble(s) 410
spor 265
sw£tan 560
teon (pull) 471, 564
sind 53
spora 265
sweart 147
teon (show) 5 1 6
sinder 639
spowan 3, 458, 500
swebban 527
teorian 343
singan 519
sprecan 533
swefan 527
teoru 598
sin-hiwan 410
sprengan 284
swefian 527
feoda 403
sin-nihte 410
springan 284
swell 88
teran 567
siofoda 402
spura 265
swe/h 527
feter 522
siofpa 402
spure 265
swegan 89
ticcen 229
sittan 522
spuman 329
sweger 386
ticia 357
si/) 488, 637
staca 442
swehor 195
fid 161
sidian 488, 637
standan 542
swelan 88
fiegan 471
slah 246
starian 547
sweor 442
tien 403
slzpan 255
stadol 43 1
sweor 195
fig 159
sleac 523
stad" 442
sweorc 147
Tig 222
slean 549
stager 488
sweorcan 147
tlh 159
sleow 568
sfa?r 543
sweord 561
tiht 516
slidan 527
steall 472, 506
sweorfan 607
fima 161
she fan 527
sfede431
sweostor 52 1
timber 87
sliefe 527
stela 472, 506
swerian 535
timbr(i)an 87
slim 527
sfelan 543
swefe 560
fin 587
slingan 607
stellan 472, 506
swic 154
77w231
sliw 568
stemn 431
swican 154
Tiwesdseg 231
slupan 527
stenan 384, 582
swic(i)an 154
to 590
sma?c 566
sfeor (animal) 23
swigian 518
togaedere 64
smad 23
sfeor (post) 442
swimman 561
togian 47 1 , 468
smzras 107, 251
steorra 543
swin 222, 425
to-lucan 8 1
smeocan 529
stice 451
swingan 63
for- 43
smeortan 490
stician 451
swmn 534
for/)t 505
smeoru 194
sfigan 228
swinsian 534
top 594
— 727 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old English)
trem 491
prawan 490
wsefan 607
wie/m 264, 637
treow 598
£rarit 89
Wce/s 636
wielwan 607
tU 399
pr£gan 491
wsegn 625
wiergan 141
tulge 357
pr&stan 572
wad 150, 567
wifel 3 1 2
tun 210
pridda 400
wael-cyrige 150
wig (appear) 25
tunge 222, 594
prle 22 1 , 400
wiSpn 336
wig (fight) 201
tunge-prum 569
prittig 404
w<eps 636
wlgan 201
twa 399
pros(t)le 582
w^r 417
wlgend 201
twaelf 404
prowian 490
wseter 636
wlh 25
twegen 400
prum 569
we 454
wiht 91, 395
twegentig 404
prysce 582
wea/d 201
win 644
f wengan 451
222,455
wealdan 490
wmcian 63
twentig 404
punian 582
weallan 264
wind 72,222,643
twz- 400
punor 582
wearg 141
windan 607
twi-fete 400
purfan 500
wearm 88, 125, 222, 263
wine 1 58
purh 4
weam 268
wlpian 607
paccian 595
pusend 405, 560
wearr 416
wzs 337
pane 575
pwang 45 1
wearte 214, 523
wisnian 142
pancian 575
pweran 607
weax 637
wist 198
pawian 378
pyle 450
webbian 572
wit 454
488
pyncan 575
weegan 507
witan 337
/>z£r457
pynne 187, 574
weddian 369
witom 222
/>a?f457
£yrre 170
Wedens-daeg 493
wituma 82, 83
pe455
weding 493
wider 193
pearf 500
Oder 82
weg 488
wider- 25
£eaw 198
u/e- 612
wegan 91
widig 643, 571
peccan 134
G/ite 394
welig 643
wlatian 505
pefian 263
un- 395
weoce 572
wlltan 505
pegn 56, 106
unc 454
weoh 25, 493
wod 436, 493
pel 247
uncet 454
weorc 649
Woden 493
pencan 575
under 611
weomian 142
wo/ 1 50
penian 187
upp(e) 612
weorpan 607
word 222, 535
peod 288,417
ur 135
we(o)send 136
word eras ft wad437
peod-cyning 417
urzg 636
we(o)sule 638
wor/i 199
peoden 371, 417
Gs 454
weotoma 83
wos 639
peodisc 417
usic 454
weotuma 346
wr^/i 268
543
uf 612
wepan 89
wrecan 284, 471
jbeow 49 1
Qian 612
wer 366, 548
wuldor 505
perh 4
werian (clothe) 109
Wulf 390
pic 455
wa 313
werian (cover) 1 34
wulflll , 646
piece 574
wadan 625
wesa 198
wull(e) 648
piegian 187
wafian 607
wesan 171, 198
wund 549
pledan 417
wa/u 442
wesle 638
wylm 637
plefe-feoh 543
wan 179
west 159, 184
wyrean 649
pille 247
wancol 63
wesfe 179
wyrm 650
pin 455
wanian 179
weder 24
wyri 80
pinan 160
wape 607
wzcan 607
wyscan 158
Jbfei 508
war 643
wzcca 493
plxl 187
warn 417
wicce 493
y/e/ 43
polian 352
wase 207, 439
wzee 63
y/er 5 1 5
pom 575
war 337
wzee 178
ymb(e) 32
£osf 179
wawan 72
wieg 9 1 , 488
ymhe 312
pracian 214
waecnan 550
widu 598
ysle 87
prafian 89
wa?d 625
widuwe 642
/jrag 491
572
wieldan 490
— 728
LANGUAGE INDEX (New English)
Middle English [me]
axle 39, 516
bright 513
deacon 362
bab(e)len 542
bristle 25 1 , 439
deed 345
blund(e)ren 147
babble 42,542
bronze 379
deep 154
cuccu 142
baby 42
broth 199
deer 82
cunin 258
bairn 56, 107
brother 84
dell 618
hamp(e)ren 451
bafte 125
brow 188
delve 149
hu/en 66
ba/ft 43 1
brown 85
dew 491
hummen 284
ball 641
bruise 81
die 647
meneu 205
ban 535
buc/c 229
dike 87, 472
micher 1 54
banshee 152
bursf 81
d/n 534
mire 24
bare 45
butter 382
dive 154
nere 329
bar/c 51
buy 186
dizzy 82
noppe 573
barley 51,453
do 472, 506
rip 52
barrow 269
calf 615
doom 345, 352
scateren 500
bass 418
ca// 89
door 168
shud(e)ren 509
bazar 185
callow 45
dough 629, 649
smilen 344
be 53
can 337
doughty 211
snoren 394
bean 55
car
do wel 638
tal(u)gh 207
bear (mammal) 55, 85
care 89
down 388
fare 237
bear (carry) 56, 90
carve 143
down(s) 210
thries 40 1
beard 252
cave 96
drag 471
waggen 507
beat 549
chamber 620
draw 471
welken 639
beaver 57, 159
chew 175
dree 115
yu/en 394
bed 159
chin 322
drive 170
bee 57
choose 56
drone 58, 395
New English [ne]
beech 58
chur/ 410
drove 170
a 399
begin 564
cinder 639
drudge 115
acorn 63
belly 45
c/ay 108
dump 154
acre 200
berserk 56
c/ean 83
dune 210
acrid 367
better 236
cleanse 83
dwarf 258
adder 530
bid 62, 450
cleave 143
adze 37
birch 65
coal 104
ear (ear) 173
after 42
bite 538
cold 113
ear (ear of grain) 237
a// 247
b/acft 513
comb 594
ear (plow) 434
a/der 1 1
b/ade 348
come 115
ear/ 530
a/e 60, 362
bleat 70
copper 379
earth 174
a// 64
blind 147
corn 7, 236
Easter 148
a/one 12
blossom 207
courf 199
eastern 174
am 53
b/ow 71
cove 62, 283
eat 175
an 399
blunder 147
cow 1 34
egg 176
anger 41 3
boar 135
cows 583
eight 402
any 12
boob 82
crack 534
eighth 403
ape 384
book 50, 58
cradle 479
elbow 176
app/e 25
bore 549
crane 140
elf 177
arm 26
borough 269
crow 68
elk 178
arrow 78
bottom 247
crowd 451
ell 176
arse 88
bough 26
elm 178
ash 32, 263
bow/ 444
daddy 36, 610
else 64, 417
ask 629
brain 79
daft 139
erne 238, 609
ass 88
brass 314
da/e 618
eme(e) 173
af 590
bread 199
dapper 574
evil 43
auger 391
brea/c 8 1
dare 80
ewe 510
Australia 174
breast 56 1
dark 477
eye 188
awl 37
brew 76, 199
daughter 147
ax 38
bridegroom 366
day 149
fall 191
— 729 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (New English)
fallow (field) 200
fallow (white) 641
fane 569
fare 228
farrow 425
fart 194
fast 204
father 195
fathom 539, 569
fauna 647
feather 646
fee 23
fee/ 255
fell 268
felt 569
fen 371
fern 646
few 200
fickle 260
field 205
fifteen 404
fifth 402
fifty 405
fight 549
filly 56
film 269
finch 201
find 202
fir 407, 428
fire 202
first 399
fish 604
fist 255
five 401
flax 570
flay 567
flea 206
//eece 570
//oat 561
floor 205
flow 561
foal 56
foam 208
fodder 198
foe 259
fold 63
folk 417
foot 208
for 581
ford 229, 487
fore 60
forget 564
foulemart 638
foumart 638
four 401
fourth 401
hate 259
is 53
fox 563
have 563
if 457
free 214, 358
have to 270
friend 358
haw 199
jowl 175
fright 198
hawh 191
judge 345
frog 323
hawthorn 199
frost 287
hay 549
hi// 549
full 214
haze/ 260
/cm 192, 330
furrow 215
he 458
kine 583
furze 639
head 261
king 330, 530
hear 361, 418
hiss 335
ga// 217
heart 262
knee 336
gallow 442
heave 563
knife 451
gang 622
hedge 199
knight 631
garden 199
heel 270
knock 451
garhc 537
helm 595
ghost 214
help 268
/ade 539
giddy 231
hemlock 425
/air 57
gird 199, 224
hemp 265
lamb 154
girdle 224
hen 112
land 200
g/ve 563
herd 268
lap 352
g/ad 529
heron 268
latch 564
g/ee 255
hew 549
lather 52
go 349
hide 134, 268
law 352
goaf 229
high 62
/azy 637
god 89, 231
hind 273
/ea 513
go/d 234
hive 444
/each 207
good 64
hoar 69
/ead (go) 228
goose 236
hog 425
/ead (metal) 347
grab 563
hold 170
leaf 50
grave 159
holly 45 1
leak 207
gray 5 14
home 622
lean 348
grind 247
hone 510, 641
leather 269
gripe 564
honey 271, 637
let 349, 588
grit 379
-hood 83
hch 351
grope 564
hoof 272
he (recline) 352
grunt 249
hook 272
lie (deceive) 352
guest 249
horn 272
light (light of weight)353
gum 96
hornet 273
light (shine) 505, 513
gums 387
horse 491
hghts 353
hot 264
lime 353, 527
hackle 511
hound 168
/men 206
haft 90
how/ 66
hnh 62
hai/ 287
hue 246
lip 255
hair 252
hum 284
lire 323
hale 262
hundred 405
hsf 215
hall 270, 282
hunger 284
hsfen 262
halter 595
hurdle 571
lithe 536
ham 349
loan 349, 638
hang 255
/454
/oath 259
hap 211
ice 287
lock 62
hare 240, 258
icicle 287
long 357
harm 413
icon 25
look 505
hart 273
in 290
/oose 48 1
harvest 258, 504
iron 314
/oof 484
— 730 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (New English)
loud 262
mother 385
paradise 152, 628, 649
sad 500
louse 357
mould 108
path 202
saddle 479
love 358
mourn 483
peg 112
saddles 479
low (call) 90
mouse 387
pismire 24
sale 285
low (lie) 352
mow 258
punch 402
sallow 160
lung 353
murk 147
saif 498
lust 157
quean 648
sa/ve 194
lynx 360
nadder 530
queen 648
same 499
nail 389
quell 549
samel 499
ma 386
naked 45
quern 474
sand 490
machine 3
name 390
quick 356
sap 500
madder 246
nap 573
quoth 535
saw 38
maid(en) 655
narrow 574
say 536
make 649
nave 74, 391
rafter 488
scathe 3 1 2
man 366
navel 391
rail 572
scatter 500
mane 391
ne 395
rain 639
score 143
many 3
neat 614
ramson 620
scrape 143
mar 209
needle 571
rat 503
scythe 38
mare 274
nest 393
raw 71
sea 503
marrow 370
net 336
reach 187
sear 170
mast 441
nether 169
ream 382
see 208, 505
mattock 434
nettle 336, 393
reck 187
seed 505
may 3
new 393
red 481
seek 505
me 454
night 394
reef 488
seethe 76
mead 271
nine 403
reel 572
sell 285, 564
meadow 258
ninth 403
rend 567
send 228
meager 574
nit 357
rhyme 397
set 506
mea/ (black) 69
nix 108
rib 488
seven 402
mea/ (grind) 247
nixie 108
rid 471
seventh 402
mean (exchange) 184
north 611
ridder 518
sew 571
mean (opinion) 410
nose 395
ride 485
shadow 508
meat 638
now 391
ridge 42
shave 503
meecher 154
nut 405
rift 8 1
sheaf 262
meet 377
right 130, 485
shear 143
meld 449
oak 407
rime 397
sheen 418
melt 378
oar 508
rind 567
sheep 511
mere 503
oath 6 1 , 408
roe (deer) 155, 537
shit 144
mesh 571
offspring 156
roe (fish) 205
shoot 581
mete 374
old 248
shove 471
mickle 344
on 612
rood 442
show 418
mid 380
one 399
roo/488
shower 644
m/dge 207
ooze 207
rook 142
shudder 509
mildew 271
opium 500
room 534
sib 354
mi/k 38 1
orchard 199
roost 213
sick 5 1 7
mine 454
ore 379
root (branch) 80
si// 431
minnow 205
other 411
root (grieve) 246
si./ver 314, 518
mist 110
otter 411
rough 490
sing 5 1 9
mole 160
out 612
rout 246
sister 52 1
month 385
oven 443
row (line) 354
sit 522
moon 385
over 4 12
row (oar) 490
six 402
moor 64, 503
own 270
rudder
sixth 402
moot 377
ox 135
rue 549
sixty 405
more 620
run 388
skill 538
moss 385
panic grass 383
rush 571
slack 423
moth 650
pap 82
rye 491
slay 549
731
LANGUAGE INDEX (New English)
sleep 255
still 475
thorough 4
wax 637
sleeve 527
stitch 451
thou 455
wa/ 488
slide 527
storlc 548
thousand 405, 560
we 454
slime 527
stream 207, 486
three 400
weald 201
sling 607
strew 539
thrice 401
weapon 336
sloe 246
string 574
throw 490
wear 109
small 23
stud/ 47 1
thrum 569
Wear 207
smart 490
sturgeon 550
thrush 582
weasel 638
smear 194
such 556
thunder 582
web 572
smile 344
sugar 547
tide 161
wed 369
smoke 529
sullow 471
timber 87
weeds 572
snarl 394
summer 504
tin 587
weep 89
snood 571
sunder 225
fire 343
weevil 312
snore 394
swan 534
to 590
weigh 9 1
snow 530
swarm 516
together 64
weight 9 1
some 532
swart 147
token 159
well 539
son 56, 533
swathe 63
tong(s) 68
werewolf 366, 548
song 519
swear 535
tongue 594
west 184
sooey 425
sweat 560
tooth 594
wether 24
soot 522
sweep 582
tow 471
whale 5 1 0
soothe 606
sweet 560
town 199, 210
wharve 607
soothsayer 606
sweetmart 638
tree 598
what 454
sore 375, 413
swim 561
true 598
wheat 5 1
sorrow 636
swine 425
twain 400
wheel 640
sough 89
sword 561
twelve 404
wheeze 82
sour 69
s/e 448
twenty 404
whelp 615
sow (pig) 425
two 399
where 456
sow (seed) 89,534
tail 252,569
whet 510
spade 43 1
tahe 224
udder 82
whether 456
spare 3
talk 397
un 395
while 474
spark 539
fallow 207
uncle 609
white 64 1
sparrow 534
fame 565
under 611
who 456
speak 535
far 598
us 454
whole 262
spell 536
tare 237
whore 214, 357
spew 535
teach 159
viscous 384
wick 572
spin 571
fear (cry) 567
vixen 563
widow 642
spit 538
fear (rip) 567
widower 642
spoon 431
ten 403
wade 625
wield 490
spoor 265
thane 56, 106, 107
wag 507
willow 643
spouse 351
thank 575
wagon 91, 625
wilt 142
spring 284
that 457
wain 625
wind (blow) 72, 643
sprinkle 539
thatch 134, 489
walce 550
wind (turn) 607
spurn 329
thaw 378
wale 442
wine 644
sfa/7 442
thee 455
wan 179
wink 63
stair 488
there 457
wane 179
wipe 607
stall 472, 506
t/iic/c 574
ware (perceive) 417
wise 337
stand 543
thief 543
ware (wind) 644
wisent 136
star 543
thin 187, 574
warm 88, 125, 263
wish 158
stare 547
thine 455
wart 214, 523
wit 337
starling 543
thinlc 575
wa// 41 7
witch 493
stead 43 1
third 400
wasp 636
wither 193
steal 543
thirty 404
waste 179
withershms 193
steer (animal) 23
thole 352
wafer 636
withy 571
steer (post) 442
thong 45 1
wave 607
wold 201
stick ^5\
thorn 237, 575
waver 312
wolf 646
— 732 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Norse)
wood 436, 493
wound 549
yawn 653
y ester 654
woods 642
wreak 284, 471
ye 455
yew 654
wool 648
wych 178
yean 511
yoke 655
word 65, 535
wych-elm 178
year 654
you 455
word-smith 437
yearn 158
young 655, 656
work 649
yard (fence) 199
yeast 77
yowl 394
worm 649
yard (post) 442
yell 89
worry 141
yam 180
yellow 654
NORTH GERMANIC
Old Norse [ON]
Alphabetic order:
a, a, b, d, a, e, e, f, g, h, i, I,j,k, 1,
m, n, o, 6, p, q, r, s, t, u, Q, v,
x, y, y, J>, ae, p, 0 , oe
a/42
auga 188, 222, 418
beida 418
blunda 147
afar- 42
augr 418
belgja 561
b/y 347
a/i 238
auka 222, 248
belgr 45
bolginn 561
agi 198, 247
aurr 636
belja 5 1
bolli 444
aka 170
ausa 169
ben 548
bora 549
akam 63
austr 159, 174
bera 56, 90, 222
borg 269
akr 200, 222
ax (ax) 38
berg 269
Borgundarholmr 269
a/a 248
ax (grain) 237
berya 549
bom 247
a//r 177
berkja 5 1
bogr 26
allr 64
a 636
berr 45
bok 58
a/mr 78, 178
adr (fast) 194
berserkr 56
bon 535
air 37
adr (lung) 359
betri 236
brag] 199
ama 413
ai 609
bzd/a 62, 449
bragr 452
ambari 506
ar (early) 173
bz/a 198
braud 199
amma 386
ar (shaft) 508
binda 64
bresfa 81
angi 61, 272
ar (year) 654
bingr 3
br/a 514
angr 413
asir 330
bzfa 538
b/josf 561
annarr 411
ass 515
bjalki 43 1
brod 199
apaldr 25
ast 198
b/arg 269
brodir 84, 222
api 384
aria 402
bjarga 268
brunnr 539
apr 69
atti 403
bjartr 65, 513
brun 188
ardr 434
bjoda 636
broedrungr 133
argrlll, 508
haka 125
bjorr 57
bu/c/cr 229
aril 73
bak-lengja 62
bjprk 65
bumba 395
arinn 170
bani 548
bjpm 55, 85
burdr 91
armr (arm) 26
banna 535
b/ad 348
burst 439
armr (sick) 516
bard 251
b/a/ca 549
by 57
arsSS
bariri 249
blanda 147
arta 268
bam 56, 106
b/ar 641
da 345
as/ca 32, 170,263
barr 5 1,453
blasa 7 1
c/agr 149
as/cr 32
*Barrfind 152
blekkja 549
da/r 618
at 590
baun 55
blmdr 147
dapr
atall 259
baufa 549
bllstra 71
daug 614
arii 195
badir 400
blomstr 207
daunn 388
audna 572
bedr 57, 159
biota 451
dalkr 428
— 733 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Noise)
deigr 629, 649
embaetti 506
fjpdr 646
/yr 581
deyja 150
enm 209
//p/513
fyrstr 399
dilkr 82
epli 25
fjQl- 3
fyrr 202
djupr 154, 222
er/i 411
//p/d meidma 185
fer 570
ddmr222
ergi 508
fj<pr 407
dottir 147, 222
epa 434
fjQrdr 229, 487
g- 646
dpgg4 91
ero 53
Fjprgyn 407, 582
gaddr 442
drafl70
erta 439
fjuka 72
ga/7 260
draga 471
es (be) 53,222
//agna 567
ga/a 89
draugr 154, 538
es (numerals) 399
//a (flat) 205
galgi 442
draumr 1 54
eta 175
/7a (tear) 567
ga// 217, 654
drak 226
eykr 655
fleiri 3
galli 43
dregg 170
eyra 173
/7etta 570
gan 653
drifa 170
/7ey 74
ganga 546
drag 471
er455
deydr 43 1
gardar 152, 199, 222
drott 116
flosa 570
gardr 199
drottinn 116
fadir 195, 222
flokinn 549
gam 180
drygja 115
fadmr 539, 569
/nysa 82
gatpr 24
duga 614
/a/da 63
fold 438
gaumr 4 18
dufa 154
Ma 191
foli 56
gaurr 568
dunn 388
/a/ma 255
/o//c417
ga 418
dvergr 258
fair 185
for 215 .
gas 236
dynr 534
fara 228
for- 581
gata 564
dyrr 168
/am 24
forkr 442
geirr 537
dyja 388
fastr 204
/ors 540
geiska- 214
d/r 82, 222
fatfr 143
/oss 540
geiska- fullr 2 1 4
daela 618
(ax 570
/Pa 563
geit 229
d0kkr 147
fa (attempt) 36
/Pdr 198
gelgja 442
dcegn 149
fa (bind) 64
fotr 209
gesfr 249
dcegr 149
fa (paint) 414
/p/r 641
geta 564
dee/ 618
far 200
/pr 229
geyma 418
fa runar 414
frauki 323
gfrna 158
efna 649
fe/ 63
frar 323
g/na 653
efni 649
/e// 548
frer 287
g/a//a 89
egg 176
felma 255
frest 583
gjam 158
eidr 61, 408
fen 371
/reta 194
gjota 222, 448
e/ga 270
ferja 228
fretr 194
gjtplnar 356
eik 407
fet 595
Freyr 399
g/prd 224
eikinn 388
/eta 192
frii 214, 358
g/adr 529
einardr 4 10
fe 23
Frigg 2 14, 358,642
glaumr 255
einfaldr 63
fimm 40 1
// 7 a 358
gl? 255
e/nga 12
fimm tiger 405
froskr 323
gnif 357
einir 481
finnan 404
frost 287
god 89,231
einn 399
fimti 402
frum-burdr 399
go/a 89
e/r 319
finna 202
Fysa 72
godr 64
e/sa 506
fiska 604
fraendi 358
gomr 387
e/c454
/is/cr 604
frpr 287
gra/a 159
e/dcya 12
flfrildi 88
Fud- 507
Grani 390
e/c/a 343
fisall
full 443
grapa 564
eld-gygr 268
fjall (hide) 268
fullr 2 14
grar 514
e/g/ar 113
//a// (stone) 548
funi 202
greipa 564
e/gr 178
//a 258, 313
/ura 407, 428
gnpa 564
e//ar 41 1
//ord 654
furr 202
grotti 247
elmr 178
fjordi 40 1
fyl 56
grundr 575
em 53
fjorir 40 1
/y//a 56
grunr 575
— 734 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Norse)
gud 89,222,548
hemja 451
hrosti 549
idrar 179
gull 234
her/ 240, 256
hro7488
igu// 264
gulr 654
herja 3 1
hrot 213
innr 1 79
gumi 366
Herjann 3 1 , 348
hrutr 272
if 455
gunnr 222, 548
Herjolfr 3 1
hrygna 205
gymbr 24
herma 449
hraell 572
i ga?r 654
gyrda 224
herr 30
hrpnn 539
Isam 314
gyrdill 224
hestr222
hrcera 384
fss 287
gpm 180
hey 549
(hug-2 stcedr 43 1
gce/a 89
heyra 418
hulfr 451
jaki 287
he/a 112
humarr 512
jor 222, 274
haddr 570
hind 273
hunang 271, 637
jugr 82
hadna 91
hirdir 268
hundr 168
jpfurr 425
ha/a 222, 563
hjala 90
hundrad 222, 405
jp/cu// 287
hafr 229
hja/pa 265
hungr 284
jprd 174
hagi (fence) 199
hjam 287
hurd 571
hagi (take) 563
hjarsi 260
hud 134, 522
kafa 160
hag/ 287
h/arta 262
hu/r444
ha/a 113
haki 272
hjon 214, 622
hunn 560
kalfr 615
ha/da 170
hjun 214, 622
hus/ 493
kail 89
hali 537
hjprd 268
hvalr 510
kalla 89
hallr 270
hjprtr 273
hvar 456
kambr 594
halmr 542
hlada 539
hvass 510
kann 336
hair 56
hlakka 66
hvat222, 456
karl 152, 410
hals 392
h/aun 260
hvafr 510
karr 252
hampr 266
hlekkjast 62
hva(r) 456
kerskr 37
hamr 134
hlekkr 62
hvarr 456
/dnn 222, 322
hams 134
hlid 441
hveiti 51
kitla 451
hanga 255
h/usf 262
hvel 640
kjosa 566
hannarr 510
hlusta 262
hvelfa 62
kljufa 143
happ 3, 211
hlynr 367
hvelpr 615
hnei/451
haptr
*hnafa 573
hverfa 607
kne 336
harfr 258
hnlga 348
hvema 443
knlfr 451
harmr 41 3
hnot 405
hverr (pot) 443, 446
knyja 451
hasl 260
hnof 5 73
hverr (pronouns) 456
kofi 62, 283
ha tr 259
hnuka 451
hvel 640
ho/ 87, 104
haufud 261
holmi 270
hvild 474
kolla 261
hauhr 191
holmr 270
hv7fr641
kollr 261
haull 268
horfa 607
hv*esa 82
koma 115
ha' 620
horn 272
hvpnn 22
kona 222
had 284
horr 574
hylja 134
kom 236
ha-mot 270
hofr 272
hyrr 88
hosfr 566
har (bend) 62
ho/ 154
hyski 214, 622
hras 175
har (branch) 80
horr 2 14, 357
ha?// 220
kunna 336
har (fish) 20 5
hosfa 133
hpd 201
hvada 500
har (hair) 252
host; 133
hpfud 26\
hveda 535
hefja 563
hradr 509
hpggva 549
kvefja 160
heid 83
hrapa 285
hpkull 511
hve/sa 490
he/dr 83
hraustr 509
hp// 282 ,283
kveita 158
heill 262
hrar 71
hpm 349
Kveldulfr 390
he/ma 622
hriflingr 5 1 4
hpss 240
hvem 474
heimr 622
hrip 52
hce/a 154
hvidr 2
he/n 510, 641
hijufr 490, 523
hcena 112
hvjhr 356
heipt 194
hrogn 205
hvasfr 80
heitr 264
hross 49 1
idr 179
kvaen 648
— 735
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Norse)
k(v)oefa 160
Id 249
mjpk 344
niundi 403
kyssa 335
lofi 209
mjpl 247
m 395
kyr 134
lund 356
Mjpllnir 353, 582
mu 403
ksera 395
lundr 200
mjptudr 374
njol 1 10
kgr 89
lunga 353
molka 381
njota 614
lurkr 112
mord 550
nokkui 74
lag 57
70s 357
moma 142
nordr 131, 159, 61 1
lamb 154
/yng 62
mos/ 385
nor 74
land 200
/y/'a 481
motti 650
nof 336
langr 357
lpg 352
mod/r 222, 385
nott 394
/asmn 637
lpgr 343
mot 377
nu 222
/afr 588
mugga 527
ny/cr 108
/audr 52
madkr 650
muna 575
nyt 614
/aun 484
madr 366
mund 255
nyr 393
/a uss 481
madra 246
munda 348
nyra 329
/ax 497
magr 357, 574
mura 514
np/391
/agr 352
ma/a 247
mugi 262
nprva- 573
7a/i 638
man 575
mus 387
nps 395
/afa 349
mangr 3
mylkja 381
/ed/a 639
mannr 366
myrginn 147
o/612
/edr 269
marr (horse) 274
myrkr 147
ofn 443
leggr 323
marr (sea) 503
my 207
ok 222, 655
7ei(5a 228
matr 638
myrr 385
okkr 454
leidi 151
maurr 24
mama 344
ord 222
leidr 259
mal 124
mamr 344
or/ca 649
/ez/a 527, 528
manadr 385
mpn 39 1
ormr 649
/ez/ra 323
mani 385
mpndull 547
orri 363
leiptr 5 1 4
med 380
mprk 77
oss 454
7e/fa 505
mega 3
mpskvi 571
otr 41 1
/e/ta 207
meidmar 184, 185
mceta 377
ox/ 135
lekr 207
me/dr 441
/em/a 81
mez'ss 511
nadr 530
o (water) 636
7eng/a 62
me//a 378
nadra 530
o (not) 395
7esa 222
me/3 392
/ia/arr 39 1
Od/nn 493
/ef/a 588
mengi 3
nafli 391
Odinulfr 390
/eygr 513
mengja 450
nafn 390
odr 436, 493
lettr 353
merdr 64
nag/ 389
ogn 198, 247
lidinn 228, 151
mergr 370
nakinn 45
0/7 515
lind 353
merja 142
naut 614
on 646
lid 506
merr 274
naufr 614
or 612
7/da 228
met 374
na 35
oss (king) 330
/zm 527
mefa 374
nal 571
oss (mouth) 387
Uta 505
meyrr 147
nar 1 50
otta 394
7/a 349, 638
me/ 175
nefi 239, 392
ljodr 248
midr 380
zie/ha 390
raki 639
ljomi 5 1 3
mz/t 454
//ez 395
raptr 488
//os 505
mikil fraegd 437
ziema 564
raudi 379
ljotrAl
mikill 344
nenna 201
raudr 222, 481
7/0/7-358
minnstr 351
nest 336
rauta 246
ljuga 352
mzsfr 110
ne 395
ra 155
logi 513
mzga 613
nidr 169
ra/ 488
lokka 352
mm 454
niflheimr 110
regn 639
lokkr 62
mjolk 381
237, 394
re/ca 284, 471
losna 481
mjukr527
niund 403
rekja 187
/osfz 157
mjpdr 27 \
niunde 403
ref fa 485
— 736 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Norse)
retti 485
sex 402
snivenn 530
stpdull 43 1
rettr 485
sex z/ger 405
snor 148
sumar 504
rif 488
sett! 402
snua 571
sumr 532
rinna 388
sida 362
sn/r 530
sundr 25
rida 485
sidarr 455
snoggr 510
sunna 556
rifa 567
sidr 143
snoeri 573
sunnu . hvel 438
rim 397
s/gr 123
so/a 527
sunr 56, 533
rjufa 81
sigra 124
sorg 636
so 455
rjumi 382
Sigurdr 124
sorfa 147
sOd 573
roskinn 249
s/7/r 5 1 8
sorn 147
sQl(a) 441
ro 474
s/ndr 639
sortna 147
sarr 69
roa 490
sinn 488, 637
so/7 582
svada 63
roda 442
sinna 488, 637
so/ 556
svagla 89
rodr 408
sinni 488, 637
so/ 522
svalar 431
rofa 620
sitja 522
spadi 43 1
svamla 561
rot 80
sid 357
sparm 444
svangr 63
rugr 49 1
siga 448
sparr 3, 458
svar/r 147
rum 534
sjau 402
sparm 43 1
svaf 582
rymja 488
sjaund 402
speni 82
svefjan 527
/yja 567, 570
sja 208, 505
sperna 329
sve/h 527
rQgg 252
sjo 402
spinna 571
sverd 56 1
rpggr 252
sjoda 76
spjall 536
sv^er/a 607
rokkr 147
sjodr 573
spjof 284
sverja 535
rceda 472
sjondi 402
spor 265
sw/f 154
s(j)uga 556
spraka 394
sv/7i 85
sadr 500
sju/cr 517
sprengja 284
sv/77 43 1
safi 500, 566
s/cada 312
springa 284
svi(m)ma 561
sala 285
skadi 312
sproga 284
svikja 154
salr 282
skafa 503
spyja 538
svikva 154
sa/z 498
skagi 3 23
spaetr 648
svT/7 222, 425
samfedra 195, 499
skakkr 142, 156
spprr 534
sv^rra 386
sazn/ 499
s/carn 186
s/adr 431
svpppr 539
samkund 1 15
skauf 262
sfa/r 442
sy/7431
samr 499
s/cera 143
s/a//r 442, 472, 506
symja 561
sandr 499
s/cd 538
standa 542
syngja 5 1 9
sannr 606
skilja 538
stari 543
syngva 5 1 9
sa (sow) 222, 534
sklta 143
starr 547
syrg/'a 636
sa (pronouns) 457
skjalgr 142
s/a urr 442
sysOr 521
sad 505
skjol 1 34
s/a n/a 471
systkmabarn 133
said 518
skjota 581
stela 543
systrungr 1 33
sarr 41 3
s/cor 143
stig 228, 488
syja 573
sefi 566
skrapa 143
stilla 475
syr 42 5
seggr 115, 208
skufa 471
stinnr 391
srell 236
segja 536
s^ufr 262
stiga 228, 488
sp/r 160
seid 362
s/cur 644
stjaki 442
spngr 5 1 9
se/dr 362
skynda 509
stjama 543
see fa 527
sel 282
skyfa 471
'stjQlr 472, 566
to
£
*-<
oc
selja (exchange) 186, 208,
s/cp/m 561
storkr 548
soekja 505
285
slakr 523
straumr 207, 486
sce/r 560
selja (willow) 643
sla 549
s/ra 539
scevar mdr 203
sem 499
s/i'm 527
strengr 574
sem/a 472
slyngva 607
sZO/r 442
tafn 496
senda 228
small 23
stynja 582
tagl 252
setja 506
smekkr 566
stynr 384
taka 595
setr 505
smjpr 194
styrja 550
/a/ 397
— 737 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Norse)
tala 397
/?en/a 187
tamr 565
jberra 170
targa 564
jbex/a 38
tag 252
/?ey/a 378
tar 567
pel 382
teigr 159, 516
pidurr 217
teitr 513
/>igg/a 187,188
telgja 143
pil(i) 247
tern] a 565
pin 455
teygja 47 1
£fs/ 187, 508
tea 516
jbjar/ca 214
timbr 87
pjod 417
fin 587
pjodann 417
titra 491
pjod-kon ungr 417
fiuna 403
pjdfr 543
tld 161
pjorr 135
tlmi 161
£o/a 352
tlu 403
pom 575
tiunda 403
porp 282
tivar 230
porr 582
tjara 598
jbre/a 89
fya 516
pridi 400
tyoa 471
prid tiger 404
toga 471
prlr 400
toginn 471
/?/yofa 451
tolf 404
/>ra?/7 49 1
topt 206
prpstr 582
for- 43
pula 450
tord-yfill 312
pulr 450
tottogo 404
pungr 264
fre 598
jbunnr 574
fro 598
£ur/a 500
tryggr 598
purft 500
frp/109
purr 170
funga 222, 594
pu 222, 455
fva 399
pus(h)und 405, 560
tveggja 400
pvinga 451
fveir 399
pykkr
fygg/a 175
pylja 450
7yr 222,230
/}yda 417
tQng 68
pydr 1 98
tpnn 594
pyfi 543
ppkk 575
pak 489
pakka 575
ulirlll , 646
pambr 187
Ulfr&O
par 457
umb 32
pari 500
und (strike) 549
pat 457
und (under) 611
jba drlfr sneer 170
undir 611
£eg/a 510
ungr 656
/)egn 56, 107
upp 612
pekja 134
urd 134
pekkja 575
us// 87
pel 247
urr 135
u 395
V7gg488
Gr 636
vilja 629
Grar 135
vmda 607
Gf 612
vindr 72, 222
Gfan 612
v;nr 1 58
vad 625
vinsfri 349
vfsinn 142
vada 625
visna 142
vagn 625
visf 198, 281
va/c/ca 63
visundr 136
vakna 550
vit 454
va/da 490
vita 337
Valhalla 567
vitnir 23, 647
val-hpll 150, 153
vitom 222
Valkyrie 567
vidir 571, 643
val-kyrja 150
tri/a 607
va/r 150, 153, 567
vig 201
vangsni 434
vfg/a 493
vanr 179
vlkja 63, 607
vargr 141
vlkva 607
van 417
vi 1 607
varmr88, 125, 222, 263
vfss 337
varr 417
v*err 606
varfa 513
vpkr 639
vafn 636
vqIIt 200
vax 637
vp/r 442
vad 572
v<pndr607
vapn 336
vpndull 607
vapnaddmr 201
vas 639
ydr 455
vafr 636
yd(v)ar 45 5
vaffa 534
y/u-412
vedr 24, 654
ygg-drasill 278
ve/a 572
ykkr 455
vega 91, 201
ylgr 647
veggr 571
y//a 264
vegr 488
y/r 264
vei 313
yrkja 649
vei/a 607
ysja 87
veig 201
veipa 607
y/a 394
veipr 607
F/rnr 129, 130, 153, 608
veisa 439
yr 654
veif 337
ve//a 264
a? 352, 548
verda 607
a?dr 359
ve/ya 109, 134
«g/r 636
verk 649
222, 511
verr 366, 548
a?s 255
vesa 171
a?sfr 330
ve 493
a?vi 352, 548
ver 454
veff 91
pngr 391
w'dr (tree) 598
pnn 504
vidr (apart) 25,193
pr (arrow) 78
— 738 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Greek)
pr (shaft) 508
psp 33
orr 650
cepa 89
Qrdugr 269
qxI 5 1 6
0x38
cetr 403
prn 173
pxu// 39
Old Danish [ODan]
drynjan 395
bringe 155
Old Swedish [OS wed]
aalde 74
ekkill 12
brund 155
Id 359
olde 74
elgur 113
g/ors 90
sw/ri 392, 609
wrath 268
hlekkja 62
harr 69
thyster 475
hvoma 175
kvas 80
den kill 122
New Danish [Danish]
/ep/'a 352
iakka 323
aborre 418, 509
rama-legr 160
mua 149
New Swedish [Swed]
kvas 80
stirtla 52
ok/a 74
aborre 418
musk 385
vmstr 2
os 639
a/a 87
os 639
visla 638
ru 570
J//e 74
aer 367
0kkr 225
smila 344
brinde 155
tasa 343
gars 90
New Icelandic [Nice]
Norwegian [Norw]
vmstr 2
linda 200
ami 413
abhor 4 18
fvara 607
bide 444
au/ 96
Greek
fysr 475
ure 135
Mycenaean [Myc]
i-po-no 443
pa-we-a 2 (= parweha ) 109
to-ko-so-wo-ko 78, 655
a-ko-so-ne 39
i-qo 274
pe-ki-ti-ra 2 570
*tri- 400
a-ni-ja 481
jo- 20
pe-re-ke-we 37
tu-ka-te 148
a-ni-jo-ko 481
ka-ko 379
Pe-re-wa 2 358
wa-na-ka 329, 330, 419
A-no-qo-ta 438
ka-na-pe-u 573
po-ro 56
we-a 2 -no (= wehanos ) 109
a-pe-ne-wo 245
-ka-ra-olr] 272
po-ti-ni-ja 371, 642
we-pe-za 402
a-qi-ja 38
ka-si-ko-no 362
pte-re-wa 178
we-re-ne-ja 5 1 1
a-qi-ti-ta 437
ke-ra 272
-qe 20
wi-ri-no 135
a-ro-u-ra 200
ke-ra-jo 272
Qe-ta-ra-je-u 390
wo-ka 625, 627
a^-wo 234
ki-ti-je-si 490
qe-to- 444
wo-no- 644
de-ki-si-wo 271, 485
ki-ti-ne-na ko-to-na 490
qe-to-ro-pi 40 1
wo- wo 215
de-ku-tu-wo-ko 393
ki-wo 442
qe-to-ro-po-(d)- 23
za-we-fe
do-e-ro 179
ko-te-re 348
qe-to-ro-po-pi 401, 469
du-ru-to-mo 598
ko-to-na 622
qo-u- 134
Greek [GrkI
dwo 399
ko-wo 656
qo-u-ko-ro 268
a- 242
e-me 399
ku-mi-no 243
ra-e-ja 547
aatog 500
e-ne-wo pe-za 403
ku-ru-so 234
ra-wa-ke-ta 3 1
afiig 202
e-ra-pi-ja 154
la-wa-ge-ta 419
ra-wi-ja-ja 3 1
ayea 509
e-re-pa 177
me- wh/o 401
re-wo-te-re-jo 108
ayeipto 35, 217
e-ri-ka 643
mo-ri-wo-do 347
ri-jo 210
ayeAq 194
e-ri-nu 232
o-ni-ti-ja-pi 173
sa-sa-ma 243
’Ay/fc 509
E-u-me-ne 438
o-no 185
su-qo-ta 425
ayiog 493, 509
i-je-ro- 312
o-no- 34
te-mi 77
ayxrog 272
i-ju 533
o-pi 391
ti-ri-po 400
dyjajAoq 515
— 739 —
UNGUAGE INDEX (Greek)
ayvog 509
dx77v 535
-apdopai 169
avrAov 169
ayvVpi 538
VlKDcd) 386
dpavpog 147
avvpi 3
dyopG 35
aicpcov 547
apdo) 258
avvco 3
dyopGvopoi 35
dx:o£ 262
dpPpoaid 494
avcoya 535
ayopavopog 35
ocKocrrri 237
apppoxog 150, 494
a^rvp 38
dyog 348
dx:oufi)418
apeXyco 381
d£a)v 39, 245, 516
dyog 509
aKpazog 384
Qpevai 500
dop 561
aypT] 284
ocKpoTioXig 210
apepyco 258
dog 457
aypog 200
airriig 394
dpevaacrOai 388
doooeo) 1 1 5
ay%co 64
otKVpog 360
apr? 169, 443
aira^ 4 1 0
ayo) 170
aAai'va) 629
dppag 386
dK£iX£(D 536
aycov 201
aAa£ 176
app£ 454
drc£XrfKa 568
aycovioi 6 eo ( 201
dXdopai
app£g 454
dm£Xog 650
adeX(p(e)rj 134
aXanadvog 528
dpvog 511
an £ paco 207
a8eX(pe6q 84, 133, 134,
cdUa 88, 560
apoppog 147
ocKEppog 515
615
aAeicrov 506
dpog 532
dnEtparo 548
c z8eX(p6i g 646
dXehpg 259
apog 457
dnrjvri 245
aSrjv 225
dAtJCTpUCOV 112
apTtvlg 261, 451
AmScov 636
aSu a] 336, 393
ct/le^a) 458
apvvopai 388
dniov 433
aSvEJtrig 438
dXeopai 629
dpvvco 388
dnXoog 63
aedvov 83
aXevpai 629
dp<pr]v 392
anXovg 410
deipo) 64
aAed) 247
dpypv 39 1
arco 42
aeXioi 85
aAiva) 527, 528
ap<pi 32, 400
dnodidpaoKO) 49 1
aeXXa 644
dXi£ 237
dpyiXvKrf 513
dnoXavco 484
oce^co 248
dAiraiVft) 259
apipinoXog 506
aKopvoooj 527
aerpa 436
dXnpog 259
aptpopevg 444
dno-nccKKog an-kyKovog
aerpov 436
aAi<paAo<; 353
ap<pa> 400
156
a^opai 170
dAia? 178
ap<S$ 532
anozicng 123
a^opai 242, 650
aXXopai 323
av458
dnvf)g 191
dfjcn 72
aAAo^ 64, 411
d(v)~ 395
dpa 583
aOepi^ct) 611
aApa 458
ava 612
apd 536
aOpag 607
aXonog 259
avdeSvog 346
apdopai 450, 536
aid 239
aXog 442
avdOripa 345
dpapicnca) 362
aiyiXcoy 407 , 409
aAo^og 57, 642, 646
avaXrog 248
dpyrjg 641
aiyuTriog 469
dAs 242, 498
dvdpoKprjrog 450
apyog 1 94
aieXovpog 638
dXvdoipog 60
dvdpoKTaow 549
’ Apyog 439
ai£Tog66, 67, 173
dAvKTTO- 81
avdpog 548
* apyog 548
ai'Oopai 87
aXvKTonedr] 81
dvSpo(povrog 438
apyvpiov 518
ai0og 87
dXvGKca 629
avepog 82
apyvpog 518, 641
a 706) 87
aAufl) 60, 362,629
av£v 646
apdig 439
aipcoSia 375, 413
aApavio 484
dv£\\na 237
ap7] 450
Gti'vvpai 186, 224
«A<jo77 484
aveif/iog 157, 239, 392,
AprfiXvKog 390
af£ 229
aX(pi 51
393
apiOpog 397
aipai 491
aXcpira 51
dv77p 174, 366, 546, 596
dpioxov 173
aicra 224
aXcpita XevKa 51
av6og 207
dpKEco 270
aiaOavopai 418
aApog 641
dvOpr\vr\ 58
apKog 270
aiaxog 509
aXd)7rri^ 212
dvia 481
apKTog 55
ai rag 197
aAawroc; 212
avia 4 13
apov 481
afrpn 537
apa410
avmTog 108
aporpov 434
aicov 352, 548
Apa^cov 367
avvi'g 238, 386
apovpa 200
aKapva 367
apaOog 499
dvr a 60
dpoio 434
aKOLOTog 367
apaA<5i5va> 242
avri 60, 209
ccpTiT] 5 1 7
dtKeopai 262
dpaXog 532
dvnp&Xog 124
apGTjv 363, 477
d)cei)ft)418
apatga 625
avr io£ 60
apn3<; 362, 410
d)C77 510
apa^a 245, 625
dvzX£(o 169
dptvo) 362, 410
— 740 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Greek)
apva 405
pav pav 5 1
yaX£t] 387, 521
ypu£ 160
dpxoq 508
pati^cQ 5 1
yaAig 52 1
yuaAov 62
daKT}0r)q 3 1 2
pdico 194
yaAowg 521
yvpvoq 45
aonaXoq 510
p£X6vij 312, 425
yaA(wg, 521
yuvr) 648
aoTaKoq 77
p£Xx£poq 550
yapppoq 85, 369, 533
yuy/623, 624
daxep(pr\q 543
/feAriW242
yapiopai 369
ycovia 336
d(JT£po7cri 543
/faro- 354
yapico 369
acmfjp 543
pfjpa 115
yavvpai 256
SaEipa 567
dcrrpayaAog 77
pfjcrcra 160
yapyapa 217
Sapp 84
dxap 37
piG 158
yappiaco 89
5m<5aAAG) 143
ax£p 25
pid(o 158
yaaxpp 175
SaiSvGGEGOai 471
axEppcov 77
Pipavxi 115
yaupog 256
SaivVpi 161
axEpoq 253
pipXoq 50
yiyova 56
8aiopai 160, 416
cmfft) 418
pioq 78
yepco 450
<5ai'a) 87
dxpaxxoq 572
Pioq 356
yeveaig 56
<5ctKVft) 68
dxp£KTfq 572
pXaSvq 532
y£V£X£ipa 386
SaKpv 567
arra 195
pXfjpa 582
' y£V£X(op 195
SaKpVpa 567
auya£ft) 514
pXrixdopai 70
yevvaco 56
SaKpvov 567
ai)y7]514
pXixxco 271
yevog 192, 531
SapaXpq 136
auAa£ 471
pXoavp - 624
ye vug 322
Sapvaco 565
auAog 96
pXoavpcoTTiq 624
yEpavoq 140
Sdpvppi 565
avoq 170
j3Auco 207
y£povGiCc 409 ,410
<5a/ravSvG> 496
avq 173
■/3Au£» 207
yepwv 152, 248, 409
8anavr) 496
dvxpfj 436
pX(o0poq 261
yEvopai 566
<5a7T£<5ov 206
avxriv 392
poXipoq 347
yeuft) 566
8apdxai 237
avo) 1 69
poppoq 395
yrjOico 256
8apaxov 237
acpEvoq 637
PopPvXp 395
yfjpaq 248
8dp7XT] 607
d(p6ixov 438
/fopa 175
yrjpOGKCO 248
<5cr<rug 574
d(pV£ioq 637
Popiaq 270
y/ 7 pug 89, 449
-<5e 590
atppo- 358
BovKaxioq 134
yiyvopai 56
5£aTo 149, 513
d(ppo8txrf 358
PovKoXoq 268
yiyvokncoj 337
<5£<Sa£ 567
a<pp6g477
povq 134, 242
yXdyoq 381
8i8opKa 505
’Axepcov 343
povxvpoq 382
yAaivoi 83
^eeAog 5 1 3
axOopai 247
ppaicccva 620
yAaKTo<payog 381
<5£i&y 198
a^Aijg 477
ppaxdvav 607
yAaKYuvreg 381
8£iKvvp£voq 271
ayvp 237
Ppaxvq 515
yAfvo- 367
Seikvvpi 516
axwpai 247
Ppiypa 79
yAoiog 108
Seipog 270
axopai 198
pp£(poq 615
yAuKug 560
<5£?<7a 490
198, 247
Pp£Xpa 79
yAuyxy 143
Sera 242, 403
ay/ 42
Pp£XPoq 79
yAfikrcra 575
Seicaxoq 403
Pp£XO) 477
yA%eg 575
SEKopai 271, 564
P apd^co 42
Ppovxr\cnov 379
yA&^fg 575
<5£'AAi0£g312, 425
f laiva) 115
ppoxoq 1 50
yva0og 322
AeXXoi 539
paixp 110
Ppoxp 477
yvcbpa 518
8£X(pvq 242, 615
paKxpov 112
ppoxoq 64
yvftkrig 337
8e:paq 87
PaXavEvq 207
pvaq 412
yvcoGxpp 337
SEppXdq 650
/JaAavog407
pvpXoq 50
yvajTog 337
SspEXmq 650
0aAAa> 582
PvOoq 154
yo8aco 535
8£pa) 87
pappaivco 542
pvKxrjq 284
yopcpoq 594
8£v8pov 598
pdnxco 160
pvXXa 88
yovu 242, 336
8£%ioq 485
Pdppapoq 542
yopyog 568
SEtqixEpoq 271, 485
papvq 264
yairfoxoq 507
ypavq 248, 410
8£opai 343
paaiXivq 330, 346, 348
yaAa 381, 382
ypd(p(o 143
8£pypa 505
Paoiq 115
yaAaKrrog 38 1
ypaft) 175
Sipp 39 1
paGKco 115, 468
yaAaog 521
ypufco 249
-SipKEXoq 623
— 741 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Greek)
SepKopai 505
8oA(poq 615
eSpaOov 526
eAikt} 643
Sepco 567
Sopog 192, 281, 283
eSpav 491
£Ajco£ 523
Secmorriq 192, 281, 283,
dova£ 481
£da> 175
eAkco 471
371
SopKov 175
££455
eAAog 154
Sevkei 471
dopu 598
eeSva 346
eApaxa 431
Sevopai 343
doDAog 179
EEIKOGI 404
e'Aog 371
Sevxepog 399
Soxptog 523
iepcrri 477
eA;to£ 194
Secpco 550
Soxpog 523
e(f)£pv- 134
eAvxpov 9 1
Sexopai 271, 564
SpaKcava 169
e^opai 522
k'Acop 564
deco 64
SpaKog 505
eQccvov 147
£p£ 454
8(f)i- 400
S(f)ig 400
Spaiccov 169, 505
£0£l 471
epeye 454
dpap£iv491
£0og 143, 354, 455,631
epeco 538
Sfjpog 161, 416
Spavoq 649
£0pig 91, 471
epopxev 1 50
Stiv 349
8pd£ 564
£idog 337
£po£ 454
8r\vea 567
Spanavov 9
eike 25
Epniq 3 1 2
Sripov 27, 357
Spaacopai 564
£tVo£ 25
ev 290
Sripoq 357
Spaxpri 564
ElKOGl 404
ev 399
Sid 25
Spaco 649
£i)a» 63, 607
evayrig 509
SiaSrjpa 267
Spenavov 567
eIkcov 25
eva(f)xog 403
diafrovEO) 362
Spenco 567
£iVa>g 25
evdxtjp 522
SiSacovog 362
Sprjorrjp 649
eiAeco 607
evccdAo^ 96
SiaXog 149
Spopoq 49 1
eiAtj 88, 232
£vd£A£^77g 357
SioKpacraeiv 595
Apvaxocpvfjg 598
ei Aiov eg 85
evSiog 149
didacrxra) 567
dp£>g 598
eipaSeg 571
Evdov 290
SiSovzi 240
Svvaxoi' 416
eipi 53
eveyKEiv 35
SiSovoi 240
8vo-Kcri-8eKa 404
£ipi 228
eveAog 154
SiScopi 224
dva- 43
eivdxepeg 522
EVT] 411
Siepai 208
<5v(TK>l£7fe 438
eittov 535
evi" 290
difa 229
Svapevrig 28 1 , 438
£zprjv 117, 362
£vi 53
dix:£zv 393
duo; 399
£i poo (speak) 535
evvecc 403
dimo 159
da) 192, 193,281
ei'poo (line) 354
evvekco 536
diK77 159, 346, 516
daidera 404
eig 399
evvVpi 109
dixAzdfg 441
ddUo£ 179
eig 290
evog 654
SiKpoog 273
Scopov 185, 242
eiodvra 209
evog 409
Siktvov 393
Sooxop kdcov 438
EKaxoppr] 134, 137
EVTEpOV 179
AivSpvpe 598
Scoxcop 224
ekccxov 242, 405, 410
EVT l 53
drvfa) 208
EKToq 402
evvSpiq 411
Aioyevrjg 576
e455
"Ekxcop 124
EVV7TVIOV 170
AiOKAfjg 438
£ap 7 1
EKVpG 386
evvpev 394
8(opai 208
efiSopaxog 402
EKvpog 195, 386
£V(D7TT) 191
diog 230
efiSofiog 402
£ica)V 629
e£ 402
<5t7rAa£400
EyKoveco 362
eAa 88
e<?41 1
di/cAoog 63
eyicuog 560
eAdrri 324
E^riKOvra 405
dnrAog 400
EyjomYg) 522
eAccwo) 228
EOIKE 25
SiTtovq 400
Eypr\yopa 37
e'Aa(pog 154
eoiKcog 25
Smovq XEXpdnovq 649
eyxeAvg 176
eAacppoq ^53
eop 133, 393, 521
-drn; 358
Eyxempcopog 344
eAaxvg $53
eopeq 157
dio) 208
ffaoc 537
eA ea 558
ETtapixoi 397
8pq)rj 283
£yd)(V,) 454
eAeyxco 70
EKEiyoo 388
Spcbq 283, 565
eSavov 208
eAeiv 564
etceoov XEicxoveg 436
doio£ 400
&dvov 82, 83
eAeAi^co 323
£7Tl 1 16, 391
Sokeco 564
eSovzeg 594
EAevOepiog 354
En-i xdp 260
SoXixaicov 352, 439, 548
£do£ 505,522
eAevOepoq 214, 248, 416
emKOVpog 49 1
doAi^og 357
eSoxo 62 1
eAe(pag 177
EKIOV 175
doAog 397
fdptf 505
eAt] 88, 232
£7ri opovxca 417
— 742 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Greek)
Ejtioy/opai 158
evOeveo) 3, 484
ejimXo(p)og 269
EvOEvrig 3
emGGcoxpa 245
ev6t]veq) 484
enofiai 208
£m7T7rog439
EKopovxai 696
EvicXErig 390, 438
enoq 535
EVKxog 449
Enog eitteiv 438
EVpEVEO) 198
k'jroy/ 272
EvpEvijg 438, 469
knxd 242, 402
Evp£vr\ g 438
151, 450
£t)vig 179
epa 174
Evvvxjxog 571
k' papai 197
EVpEia xOcov 438
ipaco 197
EVpiGKCO 202
k'pyov 649
EvpvESrig 438
£p8co 649
Evpvg 83
£p£^og 147
EVg 235
£p£t tea* 354, 567
EtiGGEXjUOg 43 1
EpElTKO 567
£v%opai 449
epenxopai 564
£\>Xog 449
£phrig 408, 490
£u<y 87
EpEXflOV 408
£(pE7T0) 151, 450
ipEvyopai 61
£<pripaiov 209
ip£(pco 488
E(pVv 53
Epfjpog 161, 474
EXiSva 529
EplvVg 232
££ivo£ 264
ipivvo) 388
££i£ 176, 529
ipmvai 567
EXVpog 124
£pi(pog 511
££W 124
kpKavri 108, 629
£ i/Aft) 88
EpKog 109, 629
£<yg (pronouns) 457
t'pKog oSovxcov 108
£<wg(dawn) 148
k'ppa 416, 442
£pKO) 141
(f)avaKEg 329
k'pGri 477
(p)dva£329,330, 348
£pGT}V 477
(p)dvaGGa 329
Epvyyavco 6 1
(p)apr\v 511
ipvOpog 115, 242, 246,
(f)apvog 511
481
(f)aGxv 281, 378
k'pvpai 134
(p)iap 504
EpvGiTceXag 268
(p)ElK(O 193
ipmdiog 268
(p)EKxog 402
EpCOJ] 474
(p)EXxctvog 529
Eg- 242
(p)sppa 109
EGKEpOg 184
(p)e£ 402
EGXl 53
(p)EGx(a 109
ecrriS (clothe) 109
(p)EGXpa 109
EGxia (dwell) 171,281
(p)Exr\g 455
'EgxiS 171
(p)sxog 654
k'xaXov 24
(p)EXexco 9 1
exeXov 24
(p)iKaxi 404
EXEpog 253
-(p)iKEg 192
exi 215
(f)o412
k'xpayov 175
(p)oSaco 535
EvdaipovEg 416
(p)oiKog 622
£U0£V£ia 484
(p)opQog 269
(f)d^og 625,627
f]v(a 481
(p)pTvog 135
77 VIOV 481
rfvioxog 481
f£iai 236
ijvvGxpov 2
f Evyvvpi 64, 655
r\nap 356
Z£u naxEp 195
i)n£5avog 637
Z£t)g 149
tfrcEipog 5 1 5
Z£ug Tcaxrip 230, 438
77 /riog 64, 116
f ££0 77
" Hpa 362
^r/xpog 312
r/pcog 362
fop,? 155
rjoOai 522
fuyov 242, 245, 655
77 TOP 359
fupp 84, 384
tjrpov 359
224
77££<o 89
fft)v77 224
77^7789
ft ovvvpi 224
89
£ok>v 23
Tjtog 148
fwoTog 224
’Hd>g 148
fc5ct) 356
Oaipog 508
p457
daXapog 6 1 8
rf 457
OdAccrrcr 503
7?535
0aAA<y 348
rf /377 209, 362
Oavaxog 147, 361
TjyEopai 505
OapGog 8 1
ijSopai 566
davvov 647
77&>V77 566
Oeeiov 82, 103
ijSvEJirjg 438
OeiS 36, 37
r]8vg 560
0£tv<w 548
’HeXiov-.-gkokov 438
0£tog 609, 610
piXiog 556
0£Ag> 629
Tjipiog 173
6£pa 345
77 (p)& 410
Ospig 345
Tj(p)iQ£(p)og 642
Osvap 255
tjOeco 518
Osog 231
77#pog 518
Oeogetzxcop 650
7700^455
OEppog 125, 242, 263
rji'Kavog 519
OipGog 35, 81
77 Ka 523
0£<7ig 345
riXaivco 629
OEGaaaOai 449
TjAacrTCft) 629
OcGipaxog 23 1
rj'Atog 556
6ext)p 141
77 A tou TcujcAog 438
0£w 49 1
f]Xog 442
OrjXvg 82
rjXvOov 228
9rjviov 382
TjXvGiov 7ie8wv 150
&fjp 23
’ HXvgiov keSiov 153
OrfGaxo 556
77Auatog 200
OvrfGKO) 147
r\pap81 , 149
9vr]x6g 147
rjpaxog 149
OoXog 6 1 8
r\p£ag 454
doog 49 1
77p£tg 454
dopog 323
rifiEpa 149
Oovpog 323
77 / 21 - 253
OpOGGO) 170
T7pog457
dpaGvg 8 1
— 743
LANGUAGE INDEX (Greek)
Oprfveco 395
i'opKog 155
Qpfjvog 58, 395
tog (bow) 78
Spr]oao6ai 270
iog (numerals) 399
OpiviG 644
iog (poison) 439
0pi£ 252
iox£capa 438
Opvov 48 1
mvog 443
OpatvaE, 58, 395
iKK£ig 633
OpacrKO) 323
injt£V(Q 277
Ovydvqp 148, 393
iK7toi...dpyo{ 439
dvyazrip Aiog 149, 231,
firorog 51, 274
438
injcorrig 274, 277
Overai 466
i'opKog 155
Ovio) 82
£209, 548
Bvpog 529
foXO) 25
Ovv£(o 388
lOTTfpi 542
OvpG 168, 242
z err i a 171
Ovpiq 168
7ar ia 171
0i)<» 103, 388
iaxiov 356
Ocog 647
124
Trea 571, 643
fa 399
izvg 571
iaivco 262
iv£o) 394
iaopai 262, 376
ixap 158
iGzpoq 262, 376
iax£(o 89
ixOvg 205
ia^o) 89
myzcavog 284
iSi<o 560
Ka(y)xd£(0 344
u5p<wv 237
KaSog 444
zbpai 208
Kcri 621
i£pa£ 191
KaiaSag 96
’iEpanvz/dva 247
Koriazag 96
i£p£vg 313
Kaivog 213
lEpEVOJ 313
zcaift) 88
fcpov pivoq 312, 438
zrax-a/lov 224
i£pO£ 261, 312, 314, 493
KCCKKaCD 187
i£co 522
KaXapog 542
it] pi 582
KaXico 90
idayEvrjg 458
kyzAt) 268
iOapog 471
KaXr)Z(op 90
tOvg 228
/caATS282
tOvco 228
zcaAAzW 56
hcav£ 0 ) 187
zcaAb<; 56
hcdvo) 187
kocXtu] 444
i'lacoq 274
K:aA7ri£ 444
iKpaivco 448
mAkra 134
iKpa^co 448
KapapG 620
iKzivog 335
Kapapoq 265
final 87
Kapaar]V£g 510
iXdoKopai 236
Kappapig 512
rAbg233, 371
Kap(p)apog 5 1 2
fv 458
Kapvo) 588
iva<y 506
KOipKT] 62
384
KapKZCD 62
356
Kavdapog 385, 514
iov0o£ 252
KccvOog 143
KavOvXri 523
KEpKoq 267
Kavvapig 266, 293
KEpvai 272
KavvaOpov 607
KECTKEOV 570
K-a^vog 529
KEvdavco 268
Kcazog 200
kevOco 268
Kanpog 138, 229, 507
KEipaXrj 260
Koutzco 563
KrjPog 259
zcapa 260, 272
tcfjSoq 259
Kapapa 260
K7]K10) 323
Kap5iG 242, 263
zajAa 537
Kd.pT] 260
KTjAeet) 154
KapKaipO) 449
zajAp 268
KapKivog 512
K-prrog (field) 200
KapnaXipog 607
Kf]noq (monkey) 384
Kapnog 258, 607
zaj£ 66
/capraAAog 571
Kpp 262
rapu{ 436
KTfpiov 637
Kapfpog 53
KTjpog 637
KaooizEpog 588
KTipvXog 246
Kaaatco 573
Kt]p\)]q 436
ram 169
KT](pr]v 58
Kara 169
KTvito 506
Kazapfog 450
Kipaipoq 69
Kavat; 249
KipKog 191
xrauAbc 542, 620
Kipvrjpi 384
Kavpa 88
Kippoq 69
fcavvog 284
Kicraa 323
Kavpog 284
zarra 323
Kavxaopai 90
kixGvco 349
myAa^et) 287
KixXrf 89, 582
KaxXt]^ 287
KiyXi^a) 582
K£yK£i 284
zabzv 29, 442
KsSpoq 324
KXayycodrfq 66
K£ipai 352
zcAa£a> 66
KEipCO 143
zcAsa dvSpcov 438
KEicroa 323
KX£(f)oq 192
K£KT]V£g 323
KXE(f)o) 262
jce/Uoc; 544
zcAfiaz 272
rcA^s 170
KXeiq 272
/f£AAc£ 70
kA£o<; 438
zarAAeo 170
zcA£ 0 £ aipOizov 192, 437
KEpaq 272
kA,£o<; £i)pi) 437
rcvog 179
zcAfog KataOectOai 437
Ksvzavpoq 103
KA£7rrft) 438, 595
KEVZECt) 1 10, 510
kXt]5t]v 90
KEVZpCOV 110
KXr\0pa 1 1
KEpai^co 3 1 2
KXrfOpr] 1 1
KEpapog 108
kXt] ig 272
Kspdvvvpi 108
KXppovopog 564
KEpaoq 272
KXrjpoq 43 1
KEpaq 272
zcAfvw 348
KEpaooq 106
KrAira 44 1
KsppEpoq 265
zcAbvzg 260
KEpdoq 139, 143, 437
zcAufft) 108
KEpKiq 572
kXvOi poi 438
— 744 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Greek)
KXvzog 262
-KfirjTog 450
KvGKog 271, 637
KvGpct 349
KvoKpevg 573
Kvatpog 573
Kvacpo) 573
KvrjKog 271
frvTjK:o^ 271 , 637
icvwri 245 , 349,627
kvv^ov 45 1
ktoot 512
Koyxog 512
koeco 418
Korig 45 1
Koirjg 451
KoiXog 96
icoiAt; 262
Koipaopai 622
jroiva 240
Koivog 646
Koipavog 30, 242, 348,
371
Koipo- 30
kokkvJ; 142
KoXa ^ 154
koXeco 170
KoXXa 4
KoXoiog 32 1
KoXnog 62
KT 0 A 7 T 0 ft) 62
KoXvpfiog 68 , 169
koXcqvt] 270
mtaovog 270
KopecD 588
KoviSog 357
fcovig 32
tcovig 357
jcooi 96
Konpog 186
Kopat; 66 , 142,362
Kopevvvpi 249
Kop(f)og 656
jcopflug 268
Kopig 312
Kopvdog 273
KOpVKTQ) 273
Kopvcpr\ 273
Kopcbvri 142
Koocnxpog 70
Kotog 22
kozvXt] 283
Kovpog 249
koxXt]^ 287
icd^Aog 512
KOXCDVTj 88
Koy/ixog 70
KpCaxzog 260
Kpayycov 272
KpavEia 106
Kpaviov 260
Kpavva 539
Kpavog 106
Kpecc 7 1
Kpdag 71
KpEKCO 572
Kpip(p)vov 620
Kpr\vrj 539
Kprprig 514
Kpi 5 1
KplOrj 5 1 , 52
Kpi Aeuvov 5 1
Kptvco 518
/cprdg (chick-pea) 106
Krprdg(cow) 138
Kpoaivcj 549
KpoxaXT] 547
KpOKT} 547
KpoKKai 547
Kpoicvg 572
Kpop(p)vov 620
Kpd£ 572
Kpoaoai 44 1
Kpovvog 539
Kpovco 7 1 , 549
KpVpog 112
Kpvog 71, 112
KpVKTQ) (cover) 134
KpVKio) (gather) 217
Kpvoxaivopai 112
KpvazaXXog 112
Kpcomov 258
Kxaopai 490
KZEOLVOC 490
KZEIVE 0(piv 438
KZEIVO) 549
KT£i<; 570
KTif©87, 171,490
Kziaig 622
Kzovog 549
xrdavog 379
xrdap 96
jri3<5og 361,418
icufty 560
KvOcodrig 187
jcukAg: 245, 640
xwAog 627, 640
Krujcvog 514, 558
jo3Ai£ 444
KrdAAa 168
KVjlpT] 443
Kvplvov 243
jcovapma 208
jcdvag apyovg 439
Krdvsg dpyoi 194
kvveco 335
fcuvog 168
»o;og 560
fcuTTfAAov 444
Kvnpivog 90
Kvnpog 379
KVpiog 448, 493, 560
KVpTT) 571
tcvpxia 571
Kvpzog 571
K-ucr0og 507
'fa7adg42, 507
xwog 522
kvcov 168
KCOKVG) 66
Kcoprj 622
KU>pog 45 1
Kwva 428
kcoveiov 428, 510
xwvog 428, 510, 641
Xaag 547
Aayapog 523
X&yhag 3 1
Xa(f)og 3 1 , 63 1
A aC'Opai 564
Xai(f)og 349
Aaico 123
XaKi^co 568
Acting 568
Aaorog 343
AaAdft) 42
AaAog 42
A ctfipavo) 564
Xapia 538
A apnea 513
Xapvpog 538
Aavog 448
Xanxco 352
Xapog 249, 474
Xdori) 158
Aara£ 639
Xoupvpov 564
Adyft) 242
Acts 3 1,484
A Eifia) 35 1
Aeipa^ 527
XEipa ^ 529
XEipcov 527
A£mw»242,349,637
XEipov 316
Xeixco 351
Xekocvt] 444
AsVto 352
AeVrpov 57
AdAoiTra 637
A^TTfij 568
XEvyaXeog 8 1 , 247
A£UK-og 83, 115, 246, 513
Xevggcj 505
Xexetou 352
Xsxog 57
Adcov 23, 284
XrjdEiv 588
Xri'iri 3 1
Xrf i^opai 31
A rjKaco 323, 468
Xrjvog 648
Xr\vog 448
Xi^ei 434
XlKEpTl^O) 323
XiKfiouo 646
Xikvov 646
XiXawfiai 158
XivEvg 568
AiVov 206
Xutapog 528
Aig 356
A o(5og 255
Ao£Tpov 52
Aoi<5op£<y 434
Xoiyog 516
Aoizrog 482
XoiZEVCO 228
Aoi T 77 228
Aopdog 62, 156
Aodft) 108
Xotpvig 513
Aayog 57
Auyi^ft) 62
At>y£ 360
Auyog 62
Auypog 247
Avtcoopyog 31
AvKog 390, 646
XvKog idEiv 150
AvKO(povzrig 3 1 , 390
Xvpa 160
Xv7rza 358
Ad<jcra 31, 647
Aurog 48 1
Aurpov 48 1
Xvzpoopai 481
Xvxvog 513
Xvco 481
— 745 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Greek)
Xcok T] 110
peXmaa 57, 271
pvaaopai 527
viG(G)opai 484
Xanoq 110
peXoq 353
pvGXov 508
vi(pa 530
X coy 1 10
pepvrjpai 575
34
VKpaq 530
pepova 575
pcoXeco 124
VKpExoq 530
f. tayyavEia 154
/xdvog 575
pcoXico 124
voprf 564
payyavov 1 54
/z£vog 77t3 438
pmXoq 124
vopoq 564
payqvai 649
pEvco 482
p&vvlq 12
vvKza d(f)£Ga 171, 281
payiq 649
pepipva 483
pcopoq
vvptpTj 148, 369
pa8aa> 639
peppaipco 483
vv(v) 397
paBviai 175
peppiq 64
vaicrj 269, 570
vv£ 242, 394
fiaivT] 205
peo(a)oq 380
vcnco^ 269, 570
vnog 148
paivopai 575
/i£T« 380
vaiccmAraw 570
vco 454
Malpa 514
^77 395
va*Ta570
vcoKap 150
paKESvoq 361, 574
ppSopai 374
vatcvpiov 269
vcoXEpEq 81
paxoq 574
Mfj8oq 262, 374
vavvrf 386
vcopaco 564
paicpoq 357, 574
pfjKoq 357, 574
vdaow 570
vojzov
pdicrpa 649
prjK(ov 440
vcri3g 74
pGiccov 440
pfjXov (animal) 23
v£aA77£ 248
^aivo) 570
paXaKoq 532
pi]Xov (apple) 25
VEaco 468
£aviov 570
paXBr] 108
/X 77 V 385
Ate'da 487, 488
^£vog 224
pappr] 386
pfjviyi l 375
NeScov 487
tqspov 170
pavSpa 199
Mrjxrjp Oecov 195
ve(f)oq 393
h lpoq 170
pavBavco 348
pT^TTfp 242, 385
VEiatoq 313
£ vXivoq 44 1
pavziq 575
pfjnq 374
v£ix:o£ 6 1
tijuAov' 441
paw 528
pr]zpvia36, 335
veioQev 313
646
papaivco 142
pr\zpcoq 36, 335, 610
v£iog 393
%vpov 478, 510
papp 255
prixavp 3
vsipoq 611
lino 44 1,478, 510
paptXr\ 514
W 3
VEl(p£l 530
pappaipco 514
pia 399
VEKiap 150, 495
6 457
papzvq 483
piaivco 160
V£KU£ 150
6457
pdaaco 450
pipixpoq 394
VEpEGiq 564
oa 63
pGcrrjp 385
pipvco 482
VEpEzcop 564
oap 521
paziq 236
/nv60<w351
VEpoq (bend) 63
6 y 66 aro£ 403
paxavG 9
piwcopioq 351
v££tog (grove) 248
oy8o(f)oq 403
paxopai 630
piayco 384
v£po) 224, 564
oyKoq (bend) 61, 272
v&xoq 3
piadoq 484
viopai 484
o/jco^ (give) 224, 441
pe 454
pvfjpa 575
VEoitxpai 237, 394
oypoq 434
peyaipco 344
poXifloq 347
V£7to<5£<; 239
oSEpoq 2
/ifya KrAeog 437
poXv(58oq 347
VEp0EV 611
66 £t>co 228
peyaXri 3
povoq 12
vEpzEpoq 159, 174, 611
o 6 og 228
^£yas 344
popea 388
VEvpov 96, 568, 571
68vvi] 4 1 3
pedopai 374
poppvpco 388
vevco 394
666cracr0ai 259
pe(f)(o)v 401
popov 388
V£(p£Xri 110
’06i)crcr£6g 259
PeBekq) 151, 450
popoq 150
v£(poq 110
68c6v 594
peOv 271
popzoq 150, 366
V£(ppoq 329
6(F) iq 242, 510
peiSiaco 345
poaxoq 336
V£G) 57 i
o'fog 80
peipat; 631, 656
juu 394
V7po£ 74
offi) 528
peXaivo) 69
394
vfjpa 571
508
peXaq 115, 69, 246
/uua 207
vppizoq 397
016 a 337
peXdopai 378
pvKoq 149
vfjGiq 571
oidfto 561
MeXeaypoq 112
pvK(ov 262
vffGGa 171
OiSinovq 56 1
peXeoq 155
pvXoLGaaBai 108
vvj(pco 175
oiSpa 561
271
pvXri 247
vi)X(o 561
oiriiov 508
psXiyXcoGGoq 438
pvppoq 247
108
ol(f)oq 12
peXivrf 383
pvq 242, 387, 388
vikXov 646
01^/77 520
— 746
LANGUAGE INDEX (Greek)
oikeco 622
oi.Kia 192
ohcoq 193, 284
olpoq 487, 520
oivri 12
oivonorr\p 175
oivoq (alone) 12
ofvo£ (wine) 644
oi'opai 506
olaoq 571
oiarpoq 22
OIZOq 61 , 408
ofipco 508
OKxaKvripoq 627
okt« 402
oAiyo<; 242, 516
’OXl^CQV 1 1
oXioQaivco 527
oXXvpi 158
oXoyivoq 80
oXoq 262
opfipoq 477
opEixpa 613
dpeixa) 110, 613
opixXri 110, 242
op pa 188
opvvpi (king) 330
opvvpi (swear) 560
opoyvioq 192
opondzpioq 84
bpondratp 195, 499
opopyvvpai 646
opoq 499
opoaai 560
o/urvrj 637
6pq>aX6q 391
opq>r} 519
ovap 170
oveiSi^co 313
oveiSoq 313
oveipoq 170
ovopa 192, 390
ovopa^co 390
ovopai 124
ovopaivco 390, 468
ovopdxvluToc; 192, 437
ovoparoOerriq 390
ovoq 34
’OvvpaKXerjq 437
ovi>^ 389
o^iva 434
o^v- 32
o£u77 32
oW 63
dm 623
wnov 500
d;rT7r£d6) 505
okigOev 391
omg 499
OKZoq 88
OKVIQ) 507
oncona 505
oKtbpri 504
opdft) 417
opydo) 208
opyd 208
opiyco 187
opEi 417
opEKToq 485
opOoq 249
opOoq opEixzi 439
opOoq arrival 439
opOpoq 249
optvo) 388
opKocvT] 108, 629
oppiKaq 24
dpviq 142, 173
opvVpi 506
opvtkn 468
opopoq 415
opoq 207
opo£ 215
opoiprj 488
opoipoq 488
oppoq 88
opr t>£474
opvaaco 159
op(pavoq 411
opxeopai 508
opxiq 242, 507
bpX 0 S 354
oq 455, 457
ocrog 457
ocrcre 188, 242
dcxraxrdg 77
oariov 77
d(T^){5$ 77
ocryo<; 336
orspoq 457
drpUvflj 607
oval 313
ovSapoq 532
ovOap 82
ouAtj 567, 650
odAov 388
Ovpavoq 65
ovpEco 477
odpoi 215
ovpov 215
odpog (furrow) 215
ovpoq (perceive) 417
ovq 173
oipEXXo) 29
o<pi<j 529
otpvig 434
oippvq 188, 361,479
oxoq 9 1 , 242
naXapr] 255
/Mv 415
n&vQ 569
navayriq 509
navSapdrcop 565
Kavia 198
navog415
FJaovi 415
ndnna 195
napd 60
KapadEiaoq 628
napai 60
KapbaXiq 356, 415
Kaaaco 509
7cdax<v 413
itardvr} 443, 444
7tar£(D 202, 487
nazpp 195, 242
ndroq 202, 487
itarpiG 37
narpioq 195
7tarpiq 133
Kazpvioq 335, 609
7tdrpo>q 335, 609
navpoq 200
naxvq 3
keSt] 8 1
7redov 595
KEiOopai 418
keWco 418
7T£ipa 36
KEipro 185, 228
KEiapa 64
7rex:og 570
kekteod 570
7TEKYW 570
7teA- 548
TzbXayoq 205
7r£Aap7o^ 548
tteAejcu^ 37
KEXirvoq 642
itsXXa (pot) 443
KEXXa (stone) 548
TceXXopdiprjg 269
niXpa 269
7T£/lft) 607
nepnd^o) 401
KEpJtE 40 1
nEpjtroq 402
KEpKO) 40 1
7r£v0epo<; 64, 196
KEvOoq 4 1 3
KEVopai 571
KEVZE 40 1
TiEvrEKaibExa 404
KEvrrfKovraq 405
tt£0£ 242, 507
KEnXoq 63
nEKrpia 125
KETUVKa 175
KEpG 185
nipavdE 185
KEpdcv 228
KEpdopai 194
K£ppv 185
KEpl 581
KEplEGZl 229
KEpKTj 604
KEpKvoq 113, 537
KEpVTjpi 185
riEpOElpOVT} 5 1
KEpVGl 654
KEGGO) 125
KEGVpEq 40 1
KEzaXov 539
KErapai 208
KEravvvpi 539
KEropai 208
-7i£zpa 247
KErrapEq 40 1
KEvOopai 636
TtEVKTf 428, 500
KEipvE oipiv 438
;rEi/n£ 125
jrpyvvpi 64
KTjXiKoq 457
Ttfjpa 258, 313, 413
569
jrrfviov 569
7T77 VO£ 569
nprsa 104
7tr\xvq 26
Trfap 194
7ri££a) 451
nTEipa 194
nTEipav apovpav 1 94
niEpia 194
Tri'flog 444
mXoq 251, 569
nipnXripi 201 , 417
Kipjzpripi 72
7n va£ 442
— 747 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Greek)
ntvco 175
nooiq (drink) 175
Kvpoi Kai KplOri 52
opEvvvpi 188
nhtoq 66
jzocnq (master) 371
7ivpdq 639
cm 455
niooa 500
noaoq 456
jnwyiwv 251, 469
ad 455
Tthviyii 539
noooq 456
KcoXsopai 607
OEpopai 650
mxvpov 104
noxapoq 208
kcoXeco 185
OEipa 564
mxvq 428
Kozdopai 208
7T(3Ao^ 56
creift) 509
7tt(ov 194
KOXEopai 208
Trivet) 175
(TfAig 43 1
nXa^co 549
noxEpoq 456
7Tft)g 209
OEXpa 431
nXat; 205
noxi 6
K(oxaopai 208
ZePeXt] 232
[JXdxaia 133
noxpoq 208
n&v 198
credftj 506
nXdxoq 83
Koxvia 371, 642
or)odpr\ 243
nXaxvq 83
7rovq 209
pdfiSoq 80
crf/TE^ 458
nXe(f)a) 561
TtpaKVov 113, 537
payoq 63
crryaiy 5 1 8
ttXekco 570
npEiia 358
pddapvoq 80
oidripoq 3 1 4
kXevimdv 359
KpETTCO 25
p&dit; 80
criffti 72
TiXijyrj 549
nprjOco 72
papvoq 80
olpoq 63
nXrfOtq 417
*npiapai 185
p&E, 63
oicd^co 142, 156
nXr\oo(o 549
npivoq 598
pdnx(D 572
OKaioq 349
nXiooopai 546
;rpo 61
panvq 620
OKCcipa) 324
nXixaq 546
;rpo£yyovo£ 156
pd(pavoq 620
aKdAAw 538
nXoiov 74
KpopoXri 515
pcupiq 572
oKaXoif/ 375, 376
nXovq 74
KpoKannoq 156
pd(pvq 620
oicappoq 143
7ZVECO 82
7rpo£ 6
pa*i£ 575
OKaxoq 186
/roa 200
KpooGvr\q 198
pGxoq 575
OKESavvvpi 500
koQeco 449
Kpo(rr]vr\q 198
pEyEvq 572
OTcd/log (crooked) 142
7ro0og 62, 449
KpOOCOKOV 191
psyKco 530
cncdAog (fir) 202
TTOlffi) 87
npoxEpoq 399
piypa 572
OKEKXopai 505
Koir\xr\q 437
jtpoxi 6
pdfco 113, 572, 649
cnaff 508
7roi?a/lo£ 414
/rpft)/ 174
p£7Ttt> 608
OKiSapoq 575
Koiprjv 198, 268
KpcoKxoq 24
pEvpa 486
OKiSvripi 500
KOlVTj 123
npcbxoq 399
pdft) 207
OKipov 508
7roiog 457
nxdpvvpai 133
priyEvq 572
oKoioq 508
7toio£457
nxiXaq 178
priyvVpi 81
cncoAiog 202
7rdK:o<; 570
tixeXecc 178
pfjyoq 572
OKonoq 505
noXioq 642
nxEpva 265
pr/pa 535
OKOpGCKl^CO 66
/rdAig 210
KXEpov 646
piyo£ 113
cnroro^ 508
^roAAafag 3
Tiziooco 581
pi fa 80
(ncordcu 508
ttoAo£ 607, 640
7rrd/U£ 210
piov 210
cricdAaf 168
TTO/lTOg 441
Kxvco 538
poyEvq 572
OKvXoq 1 34
noXvnoiKiXoq 538
7Txcopa 191
poOoq 77
cnrijTog 134, 522
noXvq 3
Kxcoxoq 192
popof 649
OKcdXoq 442
noXvcovvpoq 438
nv- 456
poog 207
OKCop 186
7Tovto£ 202, 487
nx>yr\ 72
pOTXTj 608
<jpi/laf 655
nopeiv 229
7tvypri 451
pO(p£0) 1 £5
opivQoq 375, 376
nopevopai 229
FlvSva 247
pcoyoq 63
opvpiq 194
Kopevco 185, 229
nvQpriv 247
pcodioq 268
opUxco 529
/ropig 24
7rd0co 528
p«f 63
oo(5eg) 650
KopvapEV 185
/ruAiyyeg 251, 469
pcbopai 207
oopcpoq 539
TZOpVT] 185
;rdv<5af 247
oopoq 564
nopoq 185, 229
nvvSdvopai 636
odtcMoq 522
ZcxpoKXrjq 390
jiopxalq 24
7rdvvog 507
aaog 560
onddri 431
jzopxiq 24
7n)o£ 471
oapddvioq 345
OKCcipa) 329
7top(ptipco 76
Kvp 202
oapdd^co 345
onapaoiov 534, 543
7rog 42
nvpyoq 210
crapf 425
onapyava 644
7rdcr07] 507
nvpr\v 639
oapoai 625
onapy(o 644
— 748 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Greek)
cmapzov 644
(7uv 646
ZEpva^ 575
Gndpzoq 644
crug 425
ZEpTropai 500
GKEipa 644
G(paviov 431
ZEpKO) 500
ojteipov 644
G(papay£opai 394
zspGopai 170
GTZElpQ) 500
G(pEvSovr) 528
zepvq 490
GKEvSopai 351
cr<pf]v 431
zepifnq 500
gtcevSo) 351
G(pvpov 265
XEGGapdfioioq 134
GKEppa 500
<r<p<y 455
T£<7<7ap£g401
GTtEpxopai 285
gxi^co 144
TEtayrav 595
GTtEpXO) 285
arapa 560
Tezapzicov 390
cTTreu&t) 284, 471
cr<ug 560
zezapzoq 401
omyyoq 20 1
zezpeiv 35
<77T/la>xv« 538
zaypa 472
zszopEq 40 1
gkXt\v 538
Tff/og 348, 472 ’
ZEzpdnovq 23, 469
GKoXia 269
ra( y r)og457
ZEZpazoq 40 1
GTtOpPt 500
TaAdcram 352
XEXpacov 217
cr^oudT] 284, 471
zapoq 457
‘ zezzcx 195
Gzayvcbv 207
zava(f)oq 574
zizzapa 40 1
Graeco 207
zavvOpi^ 574
zEzzapsq 40 1
crravuft) 542
tavurai 574
TEvzapidao 417
GzccGiq 43 1
mvuft) 187
TEvzianXoq 417
orarog 43 1
zappEco 214
zevx(o 211, 614
Gzavpoq 442
zappvGGCO 509
zexYH 38
Grim 488
zdpjzrj 607
z£<ppa 87
(G)zeyoq 488
tdcGGCO 472
TErag 457
GTEyCD 134
rara 195
Tptfrj 37
GTEipa 52
rarog 187
Tpflig 36, 37
GTEIXCO 228
zavpoq 137, 138
rpx-ra 378
cxraUcu472, 506
raipog 243
zzfXia 247
Gzsvoq 39 1
T£ 20
vqXtKoq 457
crrevft>384, 582
zEyyco 639
TT7pog457
GTspEoq 547
TE/og 488
xrixdopai 543
GZEpECO 543
zeOvrfKa 147
zt\vgit] o8oq 543
GVEpKpog 52
ZEipEa 543
Tiyptg 356
Gzepopai 543
Teipra 424, 490
zidr\pi 472, 506
GZEVZOCl 449
z£i X oq 87, 576,628, 629,
xiKZopai 56
GtriXri 442
649
XIKZCQ 107
Gzrjpcov 431
ZEKpap 25
Tivra 123
Gzrfviov 81
TEKflCOp 25
rig 242, 456
gz(^o) 451
TEKVOV 107
Ttcrig 123
Gtixeq 228, 488
TeVtCDV 139
ZIZpCOGKCO 424
GTixog 228, 488
repfi 35
rift) 123, 198
crroiyog 228, 488
ZEpEVEa 509
to 457
oralog 506
TEvayog 343
Toi^og 628, 629
crropa 387
xEvQprjVT) 58
zopoq 462
orovog 384
zevvei 582
Topog462
Gzopvvpt 539
zEpapva 282
tove 583
orpayyog 574
TEpea 543
zot > o(f)opyoq 655
GTpsvyopai 588
zEpEpva 282
xo%ov 78, 654, 655
GzpovOoq 582
TEpszpov 36, 424
Tocrog457
Gzpcbpa 57
zipOpov 229
tou 456
0TU7rog 442
zEprjv 490
zpavriq 229
cru 455
ZEppoc 77, 229
zpavoq 229
GVpcozriq 425
ZEppioEiq 569
zpEiq 400
owov 316, 433
ZEppcov 229
xpepco 509
— 749 —
zp£K(o 607
rpexco 49 1
rpec o 198, 509
rpi'a 400
TplGKOVTOC 404
t piKEtpaXog 581
z pig 401
xpizazoq 400, 402
zpizoq 242, 400
Tptzcov god 504
xpix&(f)TKeq 622
t popog 509
XpOKT] 607
rpox iq 49 1
r poxog 49 1 , 640
z pva) 490
xparycj 1 7 5
xpconao) 607
r pcoxoco) 49 1
n5 455
Toy^avci) 211, 614
xvpfioq 242
TDpdg 382
Tvpzaioq 401
rvpxn 424
TUipog 638
rvxri 614
7u*7/211
d- 612
byvqq 235
oypog 639
vSazoq 636
udepog 2
odpa 4 1 1
v5poq 4 1 1
vSayp 636
vei 477
DErog 477
uipv 644
mug 56, 533
uAao) 50, 66
vpiaq 455
dpEig 455
vprjv 573
dpp£ 455
uppeg 455
vpvEco 520
upvog 520
d/rap 527
VTTEp 412
vnrfvr] 395
mryog 527
otto 6 1 2
upa<f; 5 1 6
LANGUAGE INDEX (Greek)
vg425
(pXtpQ) 549
^avog 653
Xpcopoc 1 13
vgkvQcx 187
(pXiSaco 71
653
Xvr pa 444
VGfitvr] 201, 507
(pXoico 561
£ao£ 96
2Wp« 133, 534
VGTEpa 2
<pA6£ 513
653
Xcopig 534
vGTpog 2
<pAt><5c«y 561
£cet)vo£ 96
Xcopi^co 534
ixpaivco 572
<pAufft> 561
Xe(f)oa 448
Xcopog
(pofieco 491
187
(payelv 161
<jo6/fo<;491
^eiAog 356
i//aiw490
(paypog 510
(poipog 514
X£ipa 242, 504
y/apaOog 499
(paidipog 83
<povo£ 242, 548
Xeipcov 504
i f/appog 490, 499
(paidpog 83
cpopKog 514
X&ip 254
y/ap 543
(paivopai 513
(poppog 109
*£ipa£ 187
y/cko 490
(paivco 513
(popog 91
Xeipag opeyvvg 187
y/iipag 394
(paxog 55
(ppaKTog 450
Xeipcov 515
y/vXXa 206
(paXayt; 431
(ppaGGco 450
^eAfdwv 89
Wd 82
(paXppig 125
(ppdrpp 84
XeXXioi 405
72
(paXxrfg 43 1
(ppaxpia 84, 242
XeXXog 356
(paXXoq 7 1
(ppeap 539
XeXvvri 595
£» 313
(paXog 64 1
<pp77v 575
XeXtivjj 356, 591
a>0££y 471
(papai 109
(ppr\rr\p 84
XeXvg 595
o)iov 176
(pappaxov 262
(ppprcop 84, 479
^eo<rag 351
coKeeg mnoi 274, 439
(papog 109
(ppoveco 575
X&pa 351
194
(papoco 549
(ppovzig 575
XpXioi 405
aiAorptfvov' 176
(papGai 549
(pptryco 125
Xpv 236
(oXevtj 176
(papv(y)% 249
(ppVvTj 85
xnp 264
coXrca 47 1
(paGig (light) 352
(ppvvog 85
277P a 534
<yAAov 176
</>acrtg (speak) 535
(jtruAAov 348
654
( bpoTtXdmj 5 1 6
< pepopai 491
(pvopai 53
X9(bv 174, 232
cbpog 478
(peidopai 538
<pt5cra 72
jyfAioi 405
copog 516
(peperpov 356
(pvGig 53
Xipaipa 24
covEopai 185
(peppa 9 1
(pvzov 53
Xipapog 504
cbvog 185
<p£p<w 56, 90, 479
53
xXevrj 256
(opa 4 1 7
(pevyco 62, 206
125
^Aftjpo<; 115, 246, 654
d)poq 654
<jt>777og 58
(pcp^co 125
Xodavov 187
cbptopai 488
(priprj 535
(pcovv\ 535
XoSizevco 187
cog 173
(pppi 535
<pc6p 91
Xor\ 496
coteiXt) 650
(ppvTf 623
352
Xoipog 425
(oy/ 188
<pfjpov 5 1
^oAd 217
(pOeipopai 207
£aio£ 537
XoXog 217, 654
New Greek [NGrk]
(pOeipco 207
Xcripco 158
XOvSpog 247
Eivai 53
(pOivo) 150, 158
XaiTTj 252
XOpSrf 180
yapco 369
(pOiGig 1 50
^aAafa 287
£OpTO£ 199
ypapovva 273
riiXinnovKoXig 576
*aAi£ 287
Xpico 595
GKOTCOVCO 508
ipXeypa 513
^aA/cog 314, 379
*poS 113
va/ine 511
cpXeyo) 513
Xapai 248
^popog 582
<joAect) 561
jyavdavG) 564
XpVGog 234
— 750
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Indie]
Indo-Aryan
OLDER INDIC
aika-vartana 399
na-wartana 403
satta-wartanna 402
ma-ri-ia-an-nu 630
pa-an-za 306
ii-e-ra 306
MlTANNIC [Mitanni]
mani-(nni) 391
panza-wartanna 401
wa-ar-ta-an-na 306
ai-ka 306
na-wa 306
papru- 85
-wartanna 306, 607
Old Indic [Olnd]
Alphabetic order:
a, a, b, bb, c, ch, d, e, g, gh, b.
i, I, j, jb, k, kh, l, m, n, o, p, r, i,
s, $, 5, t, th, u, a, v, y
a- 305
akka 386
antar 63
arsati 207
a-bhi 400
akra- 367
antardha- 151
arsas- 523
abhicara- 506
alcsa- 39, 516
' anti 60, 209
aruna- 155, 481
abhi-stana- 384
aksi 188, 304, 305
antra- 179
arus- 650
abhi-ta- 32
aksu- 393
anu 612
arusa- 155, 481
abhra- 477
aktu- 394
anu- 247, 528
arya- (freeman) 213, 450
abhut 53
alatam 87
(anu) krosati 90
arya- (other) 41 1
adanam 208
ali- 439
anukta- 535
as/- 561
adga- 336
a/pa- 528
anya'- 411
a-si-n-va- 500
admi 175
amatram 330, 443
apa 42
asfk 1 1
adri- 547
amba 386
apa-citi- 123
asman 454
a-dya 594
amhas- 391, 413
apanc- 159
asmi 53
adhara- 611
amhu- 391
apara- 42,514
asnas 7 1
adhas 611
amla- 69
apas 636
a-snih-at 530
adhat 472, 506
amlti (swear) 330, 560
apas- 649
asta- 484
adhi-raja- 329
amlti (pain) 413
a'pafyam 42 , 156
ast/ 53, 305
adhvanlt 147
amlva 413
Apam Napat 203
asthi 77, 83
agaram 35
amfta- 494, 495
ap/ 116
asthnas 77
agni- 202
amsa- 516
api 391
asu- 330
Agni- 202
amsa- 224, 441
api-vat- 436, 493
asura- 330
agnigfha- 263
a(n)~ 395
apnas- 637
asya 458
agha- 43, 247
ana- 411
apsas- 353
asyati 581
aghala- 43
ana- 87
apuvayate 637
asyas 458
aghra 413
anakti 24
apv3 637
astama- 403
a/ia'm 454
an-ala- 248
ara- 362
astau 402
a'hann ahim 438, 529, 570
an-ahita 595
aram 213
asta 402
ahar 149
a(n)cati 61, 272
ara-mati 213
asman- (sharp) 509
ahi- 529
anda- 70, 176
a'-ray-a- 638
asman- (stone) 288, 547
ahi- 135
andha- 70
arbha- 411
asnoti 35
ahiyaka- 582
andhas- 207
arcatl 449
as'ri- 509
ahnas 1 49
angara- 104
argha- 484
asru- 567
aha- 235
aiighri- 389
ar/i- 484
as'va- 274
aja- (goat) 229
a'ni/a- 82
arhant- 484
asvamedha- 278, 313
aja- (leader) 348
amti 82
arl- (freeman) 213
asvattha- 278
ajati 170, 305
anlka- 191
an- (other) 411
asvayuja- 278
aja 229
anjas- 24, 382
an tar- 490
asVa- 274
ajika 229
anka- 272
antra- 408
as'vah asavah 274
ajinam 269
a'ri/ca- 272
arju-na- 641
asvayati 277
a/lra- 194
aiikas- 6 1
ar/ta- 449
a-tanakti 5 1 6
ajman- 116, 170
ahkura- 515
arma- 207, 539
atas 37
ajra- 200, 295
a'nta- 209
armaka- 539
a tati 228, 654
— 751 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Indie)
ati 215
asu- 194
ati-kurva- 45
Asvakayana 558
atireka- 482
asvavsya- 439
ati-vfddhaprapitamaha-
ata 168
156
ati- 171
atharvan- 202
atman- 82
ava 37
avaya- 175
avas- 197
avayos 454
avasam 175
avam 454
avata - 539
ayu- 352, 548
ava/a- 539
ayuna 352
ava// 197
iyuni 352
avesan 207
ayus- 352, 548
a' vi- (favor) 197
avi- (sheep) 510
bababa-karoti 42
avika 510
babhasti (blow) 72
avisyant- 175
babhasti (rub) 490
avocam 535
babhru- 57, 85
avocama. . . vaca- 438
badhira- 149
avfka- 646
badhnati 64
avjta- 629
bah/- 646
ayam 399, 458
bahu- 3
ay as- 379
bahu- 26
a 313
ba'/am 305, 550
balbala-karoti 542
agas- 509
bambhara- 395
agaram 35
bamhate 3
a/7- 201
bamhayate 3
ajimaj- 201
bandhu- 64, 196
a/cuvafe418
barbara- 542
akutam 418
barhis- 45
akhu- 375, 376
barsva- 388
a/u- 620
bidhate 62
alukam 620
bibMya 198
ama- 478
bibheti 198
a-mna- 575
bindu- 477
a/nra- 25
bodhati 636
amrataka- 25
bodhayati 516
anda'- 507
bradhna- 642
an/ra- 179
brahman- 451
ap- 486, 636
braviti 535
apas 636
brahmanyam 451
ap/- 64, 116
bfhant- 269
apitvam 64, 116
bfhatf 269
apnoti 563
bfmhati 210
apyam 64, 116
budhna- 247
ara 37
bukka- 229
are/a- 511
bukkati 284
arya- 213, 304
buli- 88
a/yah 450, 536
as- 387, 487
bhadra- 236
asa- 32, 170, 263
bhaga- 161, 211
a-sad- 228
bhajati 161
asat- 53
bhanakti 81
a'sfe 522
bhaiiga- 266
bhara- 91
carkarti 449
-bhara- 91
carman- 522
bharati 56, 90, 494
card- 443
bharitra- 356
cas(e 25
bharman- 91
catasras 40 1
bhartar- 84
caffa- 283
bharuja- 91
catura- 401
bharujl 371
caturtha- 401
bhasati 5 1
catuspad- 23, 401 , 469
bhavati 53
catuspadam. . dvipadam
bhavitram 649
439
bhayate 198
catvara- 401
bhalam 209, 641
catvara- 401
bhanda- 71
caurikaka- 321
bhand- 513
cay ate 123
bhas- 352, 513
cayafi 123
bhasa- 623
cakana 358
bhasati 513
camati 175
bhasa- 5 1
cattra- 309
bhasa te 535
cay ah 198
bhati- 352, 513
cefah 418
bhibheti 198
dketati 4 1 8
bhinadmi 538
ciketi 4 1 8
bhitta- 538
cmoti (build) 87
bhramara- 24
cinoti (perceive) 418
bhrajate 513
cindn (quiet) 475
bhrasate 514
cira- 475
bhratar- 84, 479
c/sa- 323
bhrata 305
df 4 1 8
bhratfvya- 392
c/fra- 83
bhratfyam 84
cbdah 581
bhrinanti 1 58
cyavate 506
bhrQ- 188, 479
bhfjjati 125
chagala- 5 1 1
bhpiati 549
chdga- 5 1 1
bhfsti- 251, 439
chaya- 508
bhfti- 9 1
chidra- 575
bhujati 62
chidram 575
bhunakti 614
chyati 144
bhuiikte 614
bhurati 76
dabhnoti 258, 528
bhurvani- 76
dadarsa 505
bho- 53
dadati 224
bhdmi- mata 174
dadru- 522
bhurja- 65, 478
dadruka- 522
Bhutamsa 390
dadhati 472, 506
bhdti- 53
dadhi 382
ca 20, 304, 305
dahah 87
daksati 564
cahra- 625, 640
daksma- 131, 159, 271,
canas- 358
485
candati 514
dalati 143
candra- 514
dama- 192, 281, 283
candra'-mas 385
damayati 565
ca'rah 607
damayati 468
— 752 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Indie)
damitar- 565
dirghata 357
dhanayad 49 1
dam-pad- 192, 281, 283,
dirghayu- 352, 439, 548
dhanus 78, 202
371
d/yad 208
dhanvanas 202
damsas- 567
dogdhi 614
dhanvad 486, 491
damuna- 371
dohad 614
dhaud- 491
damya - 136
dos- 26
dhavate 491
dan/- 594
dosa- 343
dhayad 556
darsata- 623
dramad 491
dhiman- 345, 346
dasra- 567
drapsa - 109
dhana- 305
dasyati 343
Dravanti 486
dhanas 237
dasyu- 179, 531
draghayati 357
dhanyam 237
dasa 304, 305, 403
drapi - 109
dharayad 270
dasama- 403
drad (run) 491
dhara 323
dasasydd 271
drad (sleep) 526 *
dharu- 82
dasad 68
drogha- 538
dhatar - 141
dasa- 252, 569
droh 598
dhavad 491
da' van 349
dru- 598
• dhisa 231
davayad 349
druhyad 1 54
dhisana- 231
da/ad 416
drunah 598
Dhisana- 23 1
dam 192, 281
dfbhad 607
dhisnya- 231
ddman- 261
dfhyad 64
-dhid- 345
damyad 565
d/nad 143, 567
dhrajad 226
da'na 185
dfsd- 505
dhranad 395
Danu 487
duhitar - 148
dhraj- 226
danu- 486
duhita divah 149, 231,
dhrogha - 1 54
ddru 305,598
438
dhfsu- 8 1
dasa- 179
duhita sQryasya 23 1 , 438
dhfsnod 35, 81
Dasa 581
dunoti 87
dhfsti- 81
dasd 564
durmanas 281, 438
dhunati 388
dasad 564
duvas- 650
dhur- 508
dasnod 271, 564
duvasyati 650
dhura- 508
da'far- 224
dus- 43
dhurya- 508
datd vasunam 438
dura- 349, 357
dhuli- (dirt) 160
ddd 161, 416
dQrva- 237
dhuli- (move) 388
deha- 649
duta- 349
dhuma- 529
dehf 628, 649
dvaya- 400
dhunoti 388
dehmi 649
dva 399
dhurd- 258, 424
desa'- (country) 133, 159
dvaram 168
dhorvad 258, 424
de£a- (show) 346, 516
dvaras 168
dhvanad 534
desayad 516
dvarau 168
dhvanaya- 147
deva- 230, 536
dve 399
dhvarati 258, 424
devar- 84
dvesd 198
dhvanta - 147
Devasravas- 438
dvi- 400
dina-m 149
dv/~ 400
eda- 229
disd- 346, 516
dvi-pad- 400
ed-bhis 229
d/s'- 159
dvi-pad-catus-pad- 649
edha- 87
disad 516
dvita- 400
e/ad 388
disa- 159, 346, 516
dvita 399
e/ca- 306, 399
did- 416
dvitiya- 399, 400
ema- 487
diVam 149
d(u)va-dasa 404
ena- 12
divasa - 149
dyad (bind) 64
enas- 312
diva 149
dyad (divide) 161
era/ra 49 1
d/vya- 230
Dyaus pitar 195
esad 506, 629
dfdeti 149, 513
dyaus pita 230, 438
(e-)tavat 457
dirgha- 305, 357
dyauh 149
ed 228
— 753 —
eva 12
evdra 2 1 3
gabhastm- 563
gacchad 115, 468
gadad 535
gadhya- 64
galad 207
gal(0- 539
ga(m)bhira- 160
gandharva- 103
garbha- 615
gardabha- 33
gardabhi- 33
gardha- 158
garjad 534
garuda- 140
gad- 1 1 5
gau- 134
gav- 305
gavya- 134
gavya- 134
gahate 625
gaman- 1 1 5
gad 519
gdtha - 519
gay ati 519
giram dha- 436
girati 175
gin- 387, 521
giri- 270
gm-bhraj- 81
girika- 387, 521
grid- 648
godhuma- 639
gola- 62
gosatam 135, 137
Govinda- 390
grasate 175
grastar- 175
grdvan- 474
grlvi 39 1
gfbhndti 564
gfdhyati 158
gfha- 199
gfhati 247
gpidti 449
guda- 179
gula- 407
guna- 252
guru- 264
guvad 186
gQhati 268, 361
gur/a- 449
gutha- 186
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Indie)
ghana- 3
Ira 233
jataka- 533
kapatl 563
gharghara- 24
is- 262
jati- 56
kapl- 384
gharma- 125, 263
isanyati 506
jlgati 115
kapota 169
ghase-ajra- 284
isayati 262
jihma- 523
hapjth- 229, 507
ghnanti 305
isayati 312
jihva 594
karam-bha- 84
ghora- 568
isira- 262, 312
jiniti 158
karata- 66, 142
ghramsa- 263
isirena ... manasa 312, 438
jirna- 236
karava- 142
ghfta- 382
Is-kfti- 262, 376
j/iyati 248
kardama- 186
isnati 506
71/a- 305, 356
karhi 456
hadana- 187
isu- 78
jtvati 356
karkara- 512
hadati 187
Isu-hasta- 438
jmah 174
karkata- 512
hala- 435
/sfaica 108
jman 248
harofi 362
hamsa- 66, 236
ifara- 458
jnata- 337
karpara- 444
hanti 305, 548
Iti 458, 583
jnatar- 337
karttar- 571
harm- 322
id- 312
jnu-badh- 62
kars- 574
harafi 564
ittham 458
josati 566
has/a 456
hari- 654
ittha 458
juhoti 448
hasafi 570
harsa- 547
iva 12
jusafe 566
has'a- 439
harsate 547
i/am 399, 458
justi- 566
hasas- 323
harsati 547
lyarti 506
jurna- 236
kasika- 439
haryati 158
jQryati 248
hafa-571
hasfa- 254
iha*- 158
jva/afi 87
katamba- 451
ha/a- 90
Ihate 158
j/aia- 87
katara- 456
havate 89
Iksate 505
j/a (bow) 78
kati 456
ha/a- 274
Irma- 26
j/a' (destroy) 158
haufi 66, 321
heda- 214
isa 508
Jyamagha- 390
ha vi- 361, 418, 451
heman 504
i"se 270
ha 456
hemanta- 504
jhasa- 90
kalkuda- 362
hesas- 537
jaghana- 88
ha'ma- 357
hima- 305
jahati 349
ha'd 456
kama-duha 2 1 1
h/ra- 180
jajana 56
icada' 456
kamayati 357
hira 180
jaluka- 349
hah 304, 305
hana- 70
hiranyam 234
jambha- 305, 594
ha/cafe 284
kancana- 271, 637
homan- 351
jamhas- 546
ka(k)khati 344
kafici- 224
hotar 351, 448
ja'na- 133
kaksa- 323
haru- 436
hofra- 351
janapada- 133
kal- 70
has 456
hrasati 515
janas- 192
kala-hamsa- 66, 67
kasate 133
hfd- 61 , 263,305
ja'naii 56
kalasa- 444
ha'safe 25
hfdaya- 263
jangha 88
kalayati 170
kayamana- 357
hurara- 140
jam- 648
hai/a- 56
hehara- 70
hva- 89
janitar- 195
kalyina- 56
kesara- 252
h/a- 654
janitri 386
kam 646
hes'a- 252
jarant- 248, 409
kamalam 265
hefu- 83
ibha- 176
jara's- 248
kamana- 357
kevala- 12
iccha 629
jarate 140
kamatha- 512
kevata- 96
icchafi 629
jarati 248
kamra- 357
hihi- 323
Ida 232, 233
jasate 188
kanaka- 271
hma- 523
idam 399, 458
jasuri- 284
kancate 224
hirafi 507
iha 458
jafu 500
kancuka- 224
kiratasin- 140
da* 232
jagarti 37
kanlna- 213
klam(y)ati 588
//a* 232
jamatar- 85, 369, 533
kanj- 156
klanta- 588
indhe 87
jana'fi 337
kanka- 268
klesa- 413
Indra 561, 581
jani- 648
kankala- 270
klisyate 413
Indu- (rain) 477
janu 305, 336
kantha 110
kloman- 359
Indu- (swell) 561
jara- 369
kapala- 261
hoha- 66
— 754 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Indie)
kokila- 142
kukkuta- 112
/uuan' 481
mastaka- 80
kokuyate 66
kuksi- 507
luncati 159
mastiska- 80
kopayati 529
kumbha- 443
mastulunga- 80
kravis- 71
kumbhi- 443
macate 450
masaka- 312
kray a- 185
kusakutha- 362
mad- 281, 313
man- 575
knnati 185
/cut/- 571
mada- 639
matkuna- 650
krudayati 71,
kuthara- 336
madati 639
matya- 434
krura- 71, 304, 305
/cu 456
madhu 271, 281, 313, 496
mathayati 547
kfkara- 142
kudayati 88
madhujihva- 438
mathna- 547
kfka-vaku- 267
Adia- 42
madhv-ad- 55
mathnati 547
kfmi- 649
Aflpa- 444
madhvi- 313
mayate 184
kpiatti 571
Aurca'- 45
madhya- 380
ma (mother) 386
kpiati 143
kvathati 200
maga- 3
ma' (not) 395
kpaoti 362
magha- (able) 3
ma (pronouns) 454
kpitati 143
khacati 323
magha- (abundant) 3
Madhavl 313
kfp- 76
khanja- 156
maha- 3
mam 454
kfpana- 258
khanjati 142
maharajana- 572
ma'msa- 375
kfpani 258
khoda- 156
ma/ii- 344
mara- 150
kfsna- 69, 646
khora- 156
mahi srava- 437
marjati 646
kfsna- 646
khota- 156
mahyam 454
mas 375
Apsa- 574
majjan- 370
mas- 385
kfsa-gu- 574
labhate 564
majjati 160
mata 305
-Aft 144
/agAu- 353
maks- 312
matar- 385
Aft/- 336
laksa- 497
maksa- 312
mat/- 374
kpvi- 594
/a/a//a 42
maksika- 312
matfka 36
ksam- 174
lambhate 564
maksu 533
matula- 610
Asama 248
langhati 353
malina- 69
maya' 154
ksanoti 549
lasati 158
malva- 532
medha 348, 452
ksap- 394
las-pujani- 569
mama 454
megha- 110
ksarati 207
lasati 158
mamb- 3
meha- 613
Asaft- 549
/ata'- 532
mamhate 3
mehati 613
ksatra- 490
lavitram 481
mamne 575
meksayati 384
ksatriya- 490
labha- 564
man- 482
meksyami urdhvah 439
ksayati 490
laksa- 497
manas- 575
mesa- 511
Asa' - 174
/a Asa 497
manati 575
mesi- 5 1 1
Asam 232
leh - 352
manak 528
methati 184
ksa...pfth(i)vfm 439
lekha 354
mandira- 199
methi- 44 1
ksara- 170
/e/aya 509
mandura 199
m/h- 110
Asauti 133
lelayati 509
mani-griva- 392
mimati (measure) 374
Aset/ 171
liksa 357
maiiku- 343, 532
mimati (noise) 394
As/- 87
Ampau 527, 528
manman- 575
mlmite 249
ksiniti 158
linati 527, 528
manthati 547
mmati (dirt) 160
As/t/- 490, 622
A- 527
manu- 366
minati (exchange) 184
ksiti- 150
lobha- 358
Manu 129,367
mmati (less) 35 1
kslnati 150
lobhayati 358
many ate 575
minda 156
ksiram 382
/ocas- 513
many a 391
minoti (less) 351
ksiyate 150
/o/ia- 379, 481
mardayati 490
minoti (post) 441
ksnauti 478, 510
/oAate 505
mardh- 108
m/t- 441
ksubhyati 509
/dman- 252, 570
marici - 514
Mitra- 184
ksura- 478, 510
lopayati 568
marman- 353
mitram 452
ksvedati 72
lopasa- 212
marmar- 388
mithati 184
Asa- 25
loptra- 484, 568
marsa- 209
midham 484
icuca- 62
lot(r)am 484
marfa- 150, 366
mlna- 205
kucati 62
lubhyati 358
Marutas 630
mlvati 388
kukinga- 201
lumpati 568
marya- 31, 531, 630, 656
miyate 351
755 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Indie)
mlayati 532
nara- 174, 596
mleccha 256
nas 305,454
moda- 256
nasate 484
modate 256
nasati 35
mosati 388, 543
nasyati 150
mradate 490
nava 403
mrityati 1 58
nava- 306, 393
mriyate 150
navama- 403
mfd- 108
navate 89, 394
mfdnati 490
navya- 393
mfdu- 108, 532
nay ate 346
mrga- 147
na 305
mpiakti 646
nabhi- 39 1
mgnati 142
naga- 45
mpiiti 142, 247
nima 192, 390
mgnmayam gfham 152
na/na dha- 390, 438
mfsyate 209
nasa 395
mgsati 595
nasyam 481
mgt- 108
nau- 74
mgta- 150
navya- 74
mgti- 150
nenekti 108
mgtyu- 150
m 169
mucati 527
nid(a)- 3 1 3
mudra - 256
ni-dagha- 87
muhu- 515
ni-dhana- 484
muncati 527, 528
nihika- 530
munjati 394
nikta- 108, 204
muska- 508
nimsate 484
musnati 388, 543
nindati 313
musti- 255
ninda 155, 313
mtika- 149
nitya- 290
mura- 550
n/da- 304, 393
murdhan- 261
ni-han - 438
mas- 304, 387
nftu- 366
mQtra- 108
na (not) 395
nu 397
nuda'd 471
na (thus) 583
ohas- 449
nabhas- 110
ohate 449
nabhya - 391
djas- 209, 305, 452
nada- 481
ojman- 248
nadati 487, 488
o/cas- 4
nadi- 487
osadhi- 175
nagaram 35
osati 87
nagna- 45
dstha- 387, 487
nahyati 336
nakt - 394
dfu- 572
nakha-389
pacati 125
namas- 63, 248
pad- 209
namasyati 63
pada- 133
namati 63
padam 595
386
padyate 192
napaf 239
paksa- 517
napti- 237
paktar- 125
nar-366,548
pakti- 125
paktha- 402
parsva- 8 1
palavas 104
pasana- 548
palita- 642
past- 548
panate 185
pasa- 64
panca 306, 401
pasayati 64
pancadasa- 404
pafar- 175
pancasat 405
patayati 208
panka- 371
pari 175, 198
paiikti- 401
pa'rra- 444
panthas 202, 487
payii 198
para-ksit- 490
pe/a 507
parasu- 37
pesa- 113,413
pardate 194
pibati 175
pare 60
piccha- 604
pari 581
picchala- 604
Parjanya 407, 582
picchila- 604
parjanya- 407
pi echo ra 72
parkatl- 407
pika- 143, 648
parna 646
pimsati 113,414
parsati 185
pinaka- 442
parsana- 215
pmasti 581
parsu- 81
piparti (fill) 3, 201
par-ut 654
piparti (go) 229
parvata- 547, 582
pippaka 66
paryasti 229
pippala- 82
pasas- 507
pipyusl 382
pasty am 204
pisanga- 414
pasca 43
pisuna- 259, 414
pascat 43
pita' 305
pa's'ii 23
pi tar- 195
pasu-tfp- 500
pitr&u 195
pasyati 505
pitfvya- 335, 609
pa'fari 208
pi'trya- 195
patayati 208
pldayati 45 1
pari- 371
pltu-daru 428
patir dan 193
pfvan- 194
patisyati 208
ptvan- 194
patman- 208
prVas- 194
pa'riil 371, 642
p/yati 258, 313
pattave 192
plava- 74
patyate 490
p/ava- 323
pathas 202, 487
plava te 561
pathi-kft- 452
plasi- 24
pavayati 109
plavayati 561
pay as- 382
plehate 546
pay ate 194
plihan- 538
pajasya- 518
pi osati 88
palavi- 443
p/usi- 206
paman- 313, 413
pra- 6 1
pamsu- 499
pra-avati 418
papa- 313, 413
pra-bhartar- 496
papman- 313, 413
pra-bhf- 496
para- 515
pra-bhfti- 496
paravata 169
prabhu- 236
pirsnl 265
pra-jnati- 337
756 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Indie)
pra-napat 156
purva- 159
pra-panca- 401
puskara- 140
prapanca-na- 401
pusyati 72
prasvanita- 534
puta- 63
prasna- 570
putau 507
prataram 399
pufra- 533
prati 6
putra-putra- 272
pratlka- 191
pQr210
prathama- 399
puma- 214
prathas- 83, 539
purta - 441
prathati 539
purti- 441
pravate 323
pQrva- 399
prana- 214
purvya- 399
pra-tar 174
Pusa- 415
pray a- 3
puta- 109
priya- 214, 358,642
pQyati 529
priya 124, 214, 358
priyam ...nama 438
phalakam 512
priyata 214, 358
phena- 208
priyayate 358
phiiigaka- 201
prinati 358
phupphukaraka- 72
prtyate 358
prusnoti 72
rabhas- (angry) 22
prusva 287
rabhas- (take) 564
prusva 287
rabhate (angry) 22
pfcchati 33, 468
rabhate (take) 564
pfdaku- 415
racayati 535
pinati 417
radafi 503
pfsant- 540
rag- 497
pfsat- 540
raghu- 353
pfsni- 113, 537
rajas- 147
pit- 549
rajatam 518
pftanaj- 201
raj/u- 571
pithivi 133
rajyate 572
Pfthivf 133
rajyatz 113, 572
Pphivi mata 174
raksas- 55, 329
Plthu- 211
raksati 458
pithu- (broad) 83
rakfa- 572
pithu- (fortune) 211
raktakanta- 582
pithu ka- 24
ramate 474
psati 490
rambate 255
-psu- 82
ramhate 353
pu- 138
randhram (loins) 356
puccha- 563
randhram (tear) 567
pulakas 291, 469
raiigati 62
pulastin- 251
rasa- 159, 638
puman 251, 252, 469
rasa 159
pumsas 251, 469
rasana 224
pupputa- 72
raf/ia- 491, 641
puram 210
ratharyati 491, 641
pura 60
raufi 488
puru- 3
raya- 388
purunaman- 438
rayi- 637
puru-pesa- 538
Pay/- 637
purticid 3
rayih 637
radhnoti 472
ibhu- 177
raga- 572
Ighayate 508
raj- 329, 330
p/pya- 173, 194, 469
rajan- 329
Ijisvan- 194
raj (an)- 346
kjisvan- 439
rajan i 346
£/ra- 194
raj any a- 329
ijras... as vas 439
rajnl- 329
IjQnas- 395
rajya- 329
pyat/ 187
raj yam 329
fksa- 55, 305
Rama- 160
injati 187
rama- 160
/•not/ 468, 506
rasna 224
isabha- 363
rasp 330
1
i
--4
00
rat agn/s 330
pa- 362,412
ran 638
pam 362, 410
ray as 637
pe 161
rayaP 50
pu- 362, 410
rejate 323
reknas- 637
sa 457
rekha 354
sabar-dhuk 500
rikta- 482
sabda' 354
rikti ki- 637
saca 646
rikhati 567
sacafe 208
rinakti 305, 349
sad 191
rmati 207
sad- 522
rinvati 388
sadas- 505, 522
rip- 527
sadayati 506
ri-sadas 259
sahas- 124
rid- 207
sahasram 405
roc- 174
sahate 124
roca- 83, 513
sahuri- 124
rocate 505, 513
sajati 64
rocayati 5 1 3
sa-kft 144, 410
roc/s- 352, 513
sakthi 142, 349
roc/a- 246
sakthnas 349
rodasi 642
sakha- 115, 208, 214
roditi 245, 642
salila- 498
rodhati 248
sam- 646
rohita- 481
sama- (same) 499
roman- 252, 570
sama- (some) 533
roman tha- 2
samana 646
rosati 124
samayati 472
rosayati 124
sama 504
ru- 570
sam-dih- 628
Rudra- 642
sam-raj- 329
Rudra-ta 390
sam-rajni 329
rudh- 471
sam-skpa- 306
rudhira- 48 1
sam yoh 410
rujati 81
sana- 409
rukma- 513
sanayant- 409
ruksa- 513
samtur 25
rupyati 81
sanoft 3
rusant- 513
sant- 606
ruvati 488
santi 53
— 757 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Indie)
sanutar 25
snusi 148
Susrava- 390, 438
sa/ya- 537
saparyad 151, 450
soma 404
suva- 289
sama- 273
sapati 151, 450
span- 64
suvacas- 438
sanica yosca 345
sapta 305, 402
spat 505
suvati 289, 507
samita- 450
saptama- 402
spfhayati 285
Suvastu- 558
satn/- 134
saptatha- 402
sphayate 3, 458, 500
sudayad 560
samsa- 536
sapd- 151, 450
sphena- 208
sukara- 425
samsad 536
saranyu- 232
sphira- 3, 458
sunfta- 366
sankate 255
SaranyU 232
sphurati 329
sunu- 56, 533
sariku- 80, 205
saras- 370
sphdrjati 394
sQra- (juice) 323
sankha- 512
Sarasvati 370
sphya- 33
sdra- (sun) 556
sapha- 272
sarat- 354
srava- 207
sQras' cakra- 438
saphara- 90
sarpa- 141
sravati 207
sQrksad 636
sarabha- 272
sarpati 141
srama- 156
sQiya- 556
sardha- 268
sarpis- 194
sredhati 527
sQryam...spasam 438
sa'ru- 537
sarva- 262
sjjati 481
susi 238
sarvara- 265
sasa- 236
sfjaya- 548
sQfe 56
sastra- 336, 561
sasti 527
stabhnati 543
sva- 412, 455
sasa- 113, 240, 258
sasvarta 527
stabhnoti 543
svadha 143, 354, 455, 631
satagvin- 135
sasyam 236
stambha- 543
svajate 63
satam 305, 405
satya- 606
stambhate 543
svana- 534
satru- 22, 201
sava'- 507
stana- 8 1
svanad 534
savas- 560
sa-vatara- 24
stanati 384
svapayad 527
savira- 448
saw- 289
stanayati 582
svapid 527
saye 352
Savitar- 289
starr- 52
svapna- 527
sa/ca- 620
savya- 159, 349
stanman- 57
svapnyam 170
s'i/cha 80
si 457
sfa'ufi 449
svapo 582
si/a- 282
sadhate 228
(s)tayu- 543
svar 556
sa/am 282
sadhu- 228
stighnoti 228
svarzfi 88
samula- 134
sakam 646
stimita- 547
svaru- 442
s&myati 588
saman- 520
sftya- 547
sva'sar- 52 1
sana- 510, 641
sam/- 253
stana'- 547
svasriya- 392
sipa- 206
say am 357
stfbhih 543
svasriya 392
sara'- 246
s<ffu- 152
st f had 142
svadanam 566
sarika- 362
sidhyad 228
stfnad 539
svadate 566
sSrkara 547
simha- 350, 356
st f nod 539
svadu- 560
s'isti 536
sincati 448
styayate 547
svapayad 527
scandra- 514
sisarti 285
st(h)ag- 489
svedate 560
seva- 214, 622
sisrate 285
sthagayad 134
svidyad 560
sibham 194
sidati 522
sthalam 472, 506
sya/a- 84
sighra- 194
s/ra- 534
sthavira- 442
syoman- 573
sila- 537
s/sa- 347
stha- 472, 506
syuta- 573
si la- 510
sivyati 573
sthaman- 431
s'/pra- 251
skabhnati27Q
stha vara- 442
sas 402
s'/ras- 260
skandati 323
sthita- 43 1
sast/- 405
si'sad 510, 641
skunati 134
st/i/ti- 43 1
sastha- 402
sisira- 112
smarati 483
sthQna- 442
sthtvad 538
s'ifa- 510
smat 380
sthura- 442
s'iVa- 214, 622
smayate 345
su- 235
sakala- 538
W 2 13, 622
sniti 561
su-dhana- 484
saknas 186
slrsnas 260
snavan- 568, 571
sumanas 438
sakft 186
sfryate 3 1 2
snayu- 571
sumanasyate 198
sakti- 80
slaksna - 523
sneha- 530
sumanas 469
sakula- 205
s'masi 535
snehayati 530
suparna- 173
sakuni- 336
smasru- 107, 251
snihyati 530
sura 494, 495
sa/a- 537
snath- 510
— 758 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Indie)
socati 514
tads 457
trayantam. . .purusam
uksati 248
sods- 514
takman- 56, 107
pasum 439
u/esati 639
soka- 514
takram 382, 516
frayati 229
ukha- 443
soka- 514
taksan- 139
tri- 306
ukha- 443
sona- 481
ra/efi 49 1
trih 401
u/a- 135
srad-dadhati 6i
takva- 491
trimsat 404
u/ba- 615
sraddha 61, 439
tala- 247
tris 401
u//ca 529
srava- dha- 438
talpa- 534
tri-sirsanam 581
uluka- 66, 412
sravas - 192
tamas- 147
Trita 390, 581
ululu- 66
sra'vas aksitam 192, 437
tamayati 549
frifa- 400
u/va 615
sravo...nfnarfi 438
tamisrah 147
tri 400
umbhati 572
srayate 348
tamsayati 187
tfnam 237, 575
unapt i 572
srad- 61
tanakti 516
tfnedhi 142
upa 6 1 2
snt- 441
tanoti 187, 574
tfpti- 500
upa-barhani 45
siiniti 384
tantra- 574
tfpyati 500
upari 412
snfa'- 384
tanu- 574
tfsu- 170
upasti- 506
sromata- 192
tanuka- 574
'tf syati 170
upasthanam 506
sroni- 260
tanute 574
tftiya- 400
uran- 51 1
srosati 262
fand- 574
tsarati 141
urana- 511
srotra- 534
tanu-tyaj- 650
tsaru- 141
uru- 83
srudhi me 438
tanyati 582
tucchya- 179
uru...sadas 438
s'ruta- 262
fa'pas- 264
tudati 471
urugayam ...sravo 437
s'ruti- 262
fapati 263
tu/a- 352
urunasa- 395
srutyam nama 192, 437
tapnu- 264
f undate 471
urvara- 200
s/na'ft 384
tapirs- 264
turiya- 401
usra- 135
sfnga- 272
tarati 299
tusyati 255
usra- 135
spioti 262
tar-hi 457
tuvam 305
Usas 148
sue- 514
fa/yate 214
tusnim 475, 518
usa- 148
sukra- 514
tarjati 214
tva/c- 522
usa-kala- 90
iunas 168
farica- 535
tvam 455
ustar- 135
supti- 516
tarkayati 535
tvarate 607
ustra - 135
susrava 262
tarku- 572
Tvasta 141
ut-sad- 228
sus- 170
tarman- 77
tv^atn 455
ut-tama- 612
sola- 539 \
tarsayati 468
tvesate 509
uve 418
suna- 560
taruna- 490
tyajas- 650
sQna- 96
tat 457
tyajas- 650
Qdhar 82
sunya- 96
tafa'- (extend) 187
fya/afi 650
udM 369
sura- 448, 560, 595
fata- (father) 195
tyaktar- 650
udbnas 82
svaka- 168
favas- 560
tyag'a- 650
ula- 135
svasati 82, 518
tavisa- 560
una- 179
svasiti 82, 518
favffj 560
u- 572
urdhva- 269
svasw- 386
timyati 549
u-bhau 400
urdhvah stha- 439
ivasura- 195
tara- 424
ubhnati 572
dry 208, 329, 330
svayati 560
tirah 543
ucchalati 285
urja- 208, 329
sVa 168
tejafe 451
ucchati 148
urmi- 637
svasura- 85
tiras 4
ucyati 4
urna-vabhi- 572
svasuri- 85
tirati 229
ud- 612
Qrna- 648
sveta- 641
ttsra's 400
udan- 636
syati 510, 641
tisthati 542
udara- 2
vacas- 535
syama- (green) 246
r/tiTcs- 650
ud-avati 418
vacas- taks- 436
syama- (thrush) 582
tittira- 217
udnas 636
vadati 535
syamam ayas- 314
trapate 607
udra- 411
vadman- 535
syava- 246
trapa 607
ud-yodhati 507
vadha- 1 1 2
syena- 173, 191,336
tra'safi 198, 509
ugra- 305
vadhati 47 1
frayas 400
uksan- 135
vadhri- 91 , 471
759 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Indie)
vadhQ- 346, 369
vahati 91, 305
vahitram 91, 625, 627
vahya- 488
vajra- 112, 538, 550
vaksayati 248
vala- 442
valaka- 442
valati 607
valmika- 24
valsa- 240
vamiti 538
vamra- 24
vamraka- 24
vamrf- 24
vanas- 158, 358
vandhura- 607
vangati 63
vanisthu- 2
vandti 158
var - 113
varana - 1 1
vardhate 249
vardhati 249
varna - 113
varsa- 65, 477
varsati 477
varsman- 416
yarta- 306
vartaka- 474
variate 607
vartayati 607
Varuna 65
varutra- 91
yas 455
vasanta- 504
vasari 171, 378
vasman- 109
vasna - 185
vasnayati 185
vaste 109
vast!- 70
vasu 638
yasu- 235
Vasumanas- 438
vasa 135, 648
vasmi 629
vatsa- 24, 654
valsa ra- 654
vayam 454
yayas- 209, 548
yayad (follow) 208
vayati (textile prep) 571,
572
va 410
vada- 535
vadayati 535
vagura 572
vaghat- 449
va/'a- 550
va/c 623
va7a- 563
yam 455
vama- 158
vanchati 158
vapi 343, 637
vara- 563
va'rfi) 477, 636
vastu 281
vata- 72, 643
vati 72
yayu- 643
veda 337
vedas- 337
veman- 571
vepate 507, 607
vepati 507
yesa- 644
vestayati 644
yesa- 622
yesa- 622
yesa's- 622
veta- 643
vetasa- 643
yen 208
W- 25
V7- 66
vidman- 337
vidhava 642
vi-dha- 160, 642
vidhyate 160
yz/afe 607
vimsati 404
vinakti 493
vindu- 477
virapsa- 23
vis- 192, 622
yzs'an 25
yisa'P 193, 622
vispati- 193, 348, 469, 622
vispatnl 348, 622
visva- 25
visa - 439
wfara- 25
vitaram 193
vivakti 535
vfei- 63
vldayati 548
vidhra- 471
vira- 366, 548
vitava- 399
y//ca- 305
vrana- 650
vradhant- 249
yrata- 268
KT- 452
\jdh- 80
vfdhati 249
vfka- 646
Vfka- 390
vj kebhyah 48, 22 1
vfkt- 647
vfko hi sah 141
vpiite 629
vpioti 134, 268
v^sa - 138
\ysabha- 363
y/san- 363, 477
vfti- 199
yabhati 508
yad 457
ya/as- 650
yajata- 650
yajate 466
ya/an 650
yaknas 356
yak ft 356
yam- 271
Yama 129, 130, 608
yama- 608
yas 457
yasyati 77
yatar- 312
yatara- 457
yafafe 472
yad 457
yaud 64, 384
yava- 236
ya- 33
ya 457
ya'cad 536
yasiz 252
yatar- 522
yad 228
yatu- 362
ya'yaf 457
yojayati 655
yds- 346, 410
yudhma- 31
yudhyate 507
yudhyati 201
yugam 305, 655
yuktam 655
yunakti 64, 655
yunjati 655
yusman 457
yuvajos 457
yuvim 457
yuvan- 655
yuvasa- 656
ytka 357
yds- 84, 384
yuyam 457
Middle Indic [Mind)
loptra- 484
lotta- 484
sz/z- 537
Prakrit [Prak]
bundha- 247
Dhisana 231
/ra 583
samghai 5 1 9
sineha- 530
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit
sura 271
— 760 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Avestan)
MODERN INDIC
Maldivian
NORISTANI
NOristAni
Gawarbati
balu 9 1
Ashkun
pari 507
Parun 582
pes/ 392
Marathi
au 175
saga 511
amar 25
Prasun
Hindi
bra 84
iri 522
bhaga 49 1
Nepali
cilQ 5 1 1
iiistfa/; 148
bhagna 49 1
somalata 496
dasani 231
syus 521
KalaSa
Panjabi
nawa 74
no 74
vvaya 84
Sndrak 507
mater 36
past 392
TregAmi
par gal 407
so 273
c/zor 382
Kashmiri
ambad-trel 25
Pashai
yu 236
zo 382
Waigali
hahar 85
wall 25
zu 148
bra 84
Khowar
SlNDHI
Kati
cl 44 1
pasQ 548
na 74
hura 85
\
bra 84
puc 428
roi 416
candru 385
disari 231
sos 521
rusk 360
duts 304
yarf 522
ustu 108
Torwali
masa 304
zor 382
Alphabetic order:
pus 563
a GO, a U), b, p, £, d, 8,
nu 74
par^i 548
sus 521
yart 522
zu 382
Iranian
EASTERN IRANIAN
Avestan [Av]
e, a, f, g, y, h, i (I), J, k, m, n, o, p, r,
s, §, t, 0, u (a), v, x, x v , y, z,
a- 305
aexa- 287
aid- 215
aojaite 449
afira- 477
afnah- 637
pidyi 168
aoitfaja- 387
aSara- 611
afnah-vant- 637
aiwi-goroS- 546
aoflra- 109
aSaiti 175
a/sa- 637
aiwito 32
aoxta 449
aSu 487
aya- 247
aiwi-varanvaiti 134
a pa 42
aSu.fraSana- 237
ayo 43
aka- 61, 272
-apah- 649
aeiti 228
ayra 413
amasa- 494
apa-h v ana- 534
aem 458
ahmi 53
a fa)- 395
Appm Napat 203
aenah- 312
ahura- 330
ana 612
apara- 42, 159
aesma- 87
Ahura-mazda- 330 anda-10
apayeid 563
aes- 506
aibi-varsta- All
anhu- 330
a-pipyusi 382
aesa- (strong) 262, 313
ainika- 191
ai?hu- 561
api-vataite 493
aesa- (shaft) 508
aipi 391
antaro 63
apo 636
aeta- 224
aipi-vat- 436
anu 612
arante 362
ae-tavant 457
airime 474
anya- 4 1 1
arajah - 484
aera- 12, 399
aizya- 213, 304
aojah- 209
arajaiti 484
761
LANGUAGE INDEX (Avestan)
aram 213
a/casaf 25
busy ant- 53
daman- 345
arama- 26
iiahairi 521
hOfi- 53
dami- 345
arasa- 55, 305
armaiti 213
buxti- 284
dana- 305
arasan 363
asnaoiti 228
huza 229
da'nu- 486
a rata- 410
a-sparaza- 285
byente 549
darayal 270
as- 581
asfe 522
dafar- (creator) 141
?sa- 223, 441
asu- 194
ca 70, 305
dafar- (give) 224
a-sarata- 312
asu.aspa- 274, 439
cah/a 456
dauru 305, 598
a-saya- 508
afar- 87, 263
caiti 456
ddbdnaota 528
as-da- 77
afars 202
cakana 358
ddjlt.arata- 158
asma 454
atra-saoka- 514
canah- 358
dsngpati- 193, 281, 371
asman- 547
atram 202
caraiti 607
dardjiSa- 607
aspa- 274
atfm 202
carakara- 449
didainhe 567
aspa-arasan- 363
*atfs 202
caraman- 522
disyeiti 516
aspa-daenu- 363
a0ro 202
casman- 25, 71
dmama-paiti- 348
aspa 274
-avaya- 176
caste 25
drafsa- 109
asru- 567
a/u 352, 548
catamo 401
drajista - 305
asfa- 484
azi- 201
caOru- 401
draoga- 154
asti 53, 305
cadwaro 401
draos 598
asti- 77
hag- 161
caxra- 640
dra/a- 357
asa- 362,410
haga- 211
cis 456
druj- 538
a-sam- 175
baya- 161
cit 456
druzaiti 154
asa/J 39, 516
bandayeiti 64
ciOra- 83
duyadar- 148
asi 188, 304, 305
baoSaiti 636
duire 357
psnaoiti 35
baodayeiti 516
-da 590
dura.f 349
asfa 402
baoxtar 62 1
dab- 258
dusmanah- 281
aStama- 403
hara- 76
dadaiti 224
dus- 43
aj?fi- 402
-hara- 9 1
dadaiti 472, 506
dus-sravahya- 438
aurusa- 155, 481
baraiti 56, 90
daesa- 159
dva 399
ava 37
baraziz- 45
daesayeiti 516
dva-dasa 404
avaifi 197
bars 269
daeva- 230
dvaes- 198
ava-mlva- 388
bavaiti 53
Dahaka 581
dva ram 168
avarn- 175
bawra- 57
dahyu- 179, 531
dvazaiti 388
ava-vaek- 493
bawraini- 57
dahyu-paiti- 348
a ws 623
bawri- 57
daibitya 399
aradva- 269
a/ah- 379
ha'- 513
dam- 192, 281
aranaoiti 506
aypn 173
banu - 513
danhah- 567
arazatam 518, 641
a/ara 173
hazu- 26
danra- 567
arazi- 305, 507
a/am 458
barati- 9 1
dantan- 594
arazi 507
az 454
h^raz- 269
daos- 26
arazifya 469
jaz- 64
. barazant- 269
darsdar- 567
arazraspa- 439
aza- 229
barazi-raz- 329
daraga- 305, 357
,azah- 413
barazd 269
darag-ayu- 352, 548
fadroi 195
azaifi 170, 305
hi- 400
daragam ayu 439
fra-baratar- 452, 496
azan- 149
hi/ra- 400
danzayeiti 64
fra-fravaya- 561
azom 454
his 400
darsi- 81
fra-manyente 453
azl- 135
bi-taeya- 45 1
dasa 304, 305,403
fra-mita- 184
azro- 284
hif/a 399
dasa- 271
fra-pixsta- 414
-azro-daiSim 284
bi-zangra 400
dasaOavant- 271
fra-stanva- 542
azi- 529
hraz- 65
dasdma- (honor) 271
frasnem 570
Azi Dahaka 581
hra'far- 84, 305, 479
dasama- (numerals) 403
fratara- 399
bratuirya- 392
dasma- 159,271,485
fratama- 399
a-disti- 516
brazaiti 513
daxsa- 516
fradah- 83, 539
afs 636
hrvaf-188, 479
dazaiti 87
fra-uruxti 81
ah- 387
hona- 247
dadarasa 505
/ra 61
— 762 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Avestan)
isu- 287
is- 262
isaiti 629
istyam 108
isu- 78
iti- 312
iOyejah- 650
iza 233
izaena- 229
izya - 158
Iza - 158
frana- 214
fravarcaid 47 1
fray ah- 3
frinaid 358
hya- 214, 358, 642
hyo 124
fsarama- 413
fstana- 81
gaesa- 252
gain- 270
g^m varatpm az- 138, 170
gandarawa - 103
gantuma- 639
gao-maeza 613
gaona- 252
gaoz- 268
gar- 449
garama- 125, 263
garam da- 436
garawa- 615
gati - 115
gau- 305
gau-ansan- 363
gau-daenu- 363
gavya- 134
ga#a- 519
gaus 134
gana- 648
garabus 615
garaSa- 152, 199
garawnaiti 564
garazaiti 247
gna- 648
gouru- 264
grava- 481, 536
griva 39 1
guOa - 186
yzaraid 207
haca 646
hacaite 208
hadis- 505, 522
haetu- 152
hahmi 527
hahya- 236
ha-karat 410
ha(m)- 646
ham- 504
hama- 499, 532
ha-mista- 582
han- 3
hana- 409
hanara 25
hanhus 236
hant- 228
hand 53
haoma 495
haos- 170
haoya- 349
hap- 151, 450
hapfa 305, 402
haptaOa- 402
haraiti 458
Haraxvatl 370
haOya- 606
haurva- 262
hava- 455
haxa 115, 208
haxti- 142, 349
haz- 124
hazah 124
hazanra- 405
ha' 457
-had 228
haiti- 253
havayeid 76
harazaiti 48 1
hicaiti 448
hiSaiti 522
hisku - 170
histaid 542
hizu- 594
hrasva- 515
hu- (bear) 56
hu- (good) 235
ho- 425
hu-ba8ra- 236
humanah- 438, 469
hunaiti 507
himu- 56
bonus 533
Hu-para9w-a- 229, 488
hura 323
hu-xsnuta- 510
hva- 455
hvacah- 438
hvara 556
hvaspo 439
hv-adra- 359
hvo 457
hyaf 457
i<5a 457
iSa 457
7m 458
irinaxti 305, 349
isaiti 629
ise 270
ja/ra- 160
Jagara 37
JaiSyemi 449
jaini- 648
jainti 305, 548
jamaiti 115
/anat azfm 438, 529, 579
jannara- 438
jaraiti 175
jasaiti 1 15, 468
Jam- 648
jha- 648
Jva- 356
Jvaiti 356
Jyal8
karasa-gu- 574
/co 305, 456
hu 456
mjidra- 348
ma<5a- 639
ma<5axa- 650
maSu- 271
maeya- 110
maenis 184
maesman- 613
maesa- 511
maesi- 5 1 1
maeO- 582
maezaiti 613
ma/ava- 656
mayna- 45
maiSya- 380
mainyeite 575
mairya- (deceive) 154, 155
mairya- (youth) 656
mairyo 31, 531
- maid - 575
manah- 575
manaoOri 39 1
Manus-ciOra 367
maodano-kara- 256
maoiri 24
maraiti 483
manta- 150, 366
manza- 77
manzaid 646
Marsavan- 209
mas- 851 , 574
masah- 357, 574
mastnyan- 79
mat 380
mad 270
maxsi- 3 1 2
maz- 344
m?z-da- 348
mazda 348, 452
mazga- 370
ma (not) 395
ma (pronouns) 454
ma- 374
mJ 385
matar- 305, 385
m^.na 454
manta - 150
mand- 150
manzaid 646
marazu- 5 1 5
minasd 384
minu- 391
ka 456
ha<5a 456
kaena - 123
kahrka- 267
kahrkatat 142
hahya 456
kamara 620
ka-manda- 261
hara- 510
kand- 336
karpan- 536
has'a- 323
ha fa 201
hata- 282
katara- 456
kaurva- 45
kavay- 361
hava 418, 451
hay- 8 7
ha 456
ha‘- 357
hama- 357
hay- 123
kam 456
karafs 76
karanaoid 362
kanntaid 143
— 763 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Avestan)
miryeite 150
pairi-daezayeiti 649
miSo 184
pairika 123
miOwara- 184
pairi-tanuya- 187
mlzda- 484
pairyante 185
moyu- 3
pair; 6
mosu 533
paid- 371
mraoiti 535
paiti-visaiti 193
musti- 255
paiOyeite 490
muOra- 108
panca 401
pancadasa 404
na 395
pancasatam 405
nabah- 110
paufc? 202 ,487
nad- 488
paourvya- 399
naed- 313
par- 201
naenizaiti 108
-par- 229
namah- 564
para 60
nampn da- 390, 438
parana- 646
naoma- 403
parasu- 81
napat- 239
paskat 43
napta- 204
ppsnu- 499
naptl- 237
p^sta- 469
napt(i)ya- 157
pasu- 23
nar- 366, 548
pasus.haurva- 439
-nasaiti 35
pasu vlra 23, 366, 439
naska- 336
pasca 43
nasu- 150
pataiti 208
nasyeiti 150
patayeiti 208
nava 403
padna- 371
nava- 393
padni- 642
nayeiti 346
pa0o 202, 487
na 305
paurva- 399
nah 454
paurvata 547
nah- 395
pazdayeiti 42, 228
navaya- 74
pain 198
namah- (bend) 63
paman- 313, 413
namah- (grove) 248
para- 229
namaiti 63
pasna- 265
namaxya- 63
para<5- 194
ni-yar- 582
parana- 214
ni-sadayeiti 506
parasa- 425
nmana- 371
parasaiti 33, 468
no 305
parasu- 81
nU 397
paraf- 549
paratu- 229, 488
oidra 25
paradu- 83
paradwT 133
pacaiti 125
pasanfi az- 201
pad- 209
pisant- 581
paSam 595
p/tar- 305
paeman- 382
pouru- (abundant) 3
paesa- 113, 414
pouru- (direction) 159
paidyeiti 192
*pouru-paxsta 538, 620
pain 581
poumsa- 642
pairi-brinanti 158
pfa 195
pairi-daeza- 628
pusa- 261, 451
putika- 109
sanghaiu 536
puQra- 533
sidara- 575
puxSa- 401
snaezaiti 530
puyeiti 529
snaoda 1 1 0
sna0- 510
raecaya- 637
snayeiti 561
rae0- 151, 228
snavara 568, 571
raevant- 637
soc- 5 1 4
raexnah- 637
spaeta- 64 1
raeza- 352
spaka- 168
ragu- 353
spano 168
Ka»ha 158, 638
spar- 329
raocah- 352, 513
spas- 505
raocayeiti 513
spasyeiii 505
raod- (grieve) 246
spa 168
raod- (push) 471
spama- 208
raodaiti 248
spanta- 493, 494
raoyna- 382
sparazan- 538
raoidita- 481
sraoni- 260
raoic- 505
sravah- 192
raopi- 212
sray- 348
raoxsna- 385
srifa- 251
ras- 329
srv- 273
rasa- 56
srvant- 141
rasah- 56, 329
srva- 273
rasna 330
staman- 387
rasta- 485
staoiti 449
ra0a- 491, 641
staora- 24
ravah- 534
sfain- 431
razura- 80
staram 543
ra- 638
stambana- 543
rad- 472
staranati 539
ramayeiti 474
staranaoiti 539
rana- 260
supn- 516
razar- 346
sura- (cavity) 96
razar3 330
sura- (powerful) 448, 493,
razayeiti 187
560
razing 330
surunaoiti 262
ranjaiti 353
susi 82, 518
syava- 246
saena- 191, 336
saeni- 510, 641
Syavarsan- 246
saete 352
sa/na- 175
safa- 272
sen 171
sairya- 186
siti- 622
saocinvant- 514
sraoOram 534
sar- 384
s(y)availe 506
sarah- 260
saraSana- 268
syata- 474
sarata- 112
tacaiti 49 1
satam 305, 405
tacat 305
sadra- 259
tada 457
sab- 536
taeza- 451
sara- 260
tanu- 574
satar- 535
laosayeiu 179
764 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Avestan)
tarap- 500
udra- 411
taro 4
ugra- 305
tarsu- 170
Una- 179
tasa- 38
upa 612
tasan- 139
upairi 412
tasta- 443
upa-skambam 270
tat 457
upa-Bwayeiti 509
tpBra- 147
upa-vadayeiti 346
tauruna- 490
uru pis 212
tav- 560
urvara- 200
tavah- 560
urvata- 535
taxma - 107
us- 612
tapaiti 263
us-fravaya- 561
tata- 192
usaiti 148
tayu- 543
us-tama- 612
tamah- 147
u§astara- 174
tarasaiti 198
usJ 148
tisro 400
usz 173
tizi-dfistra 68
usfra- 135
tizi-dpsura 68
uxda vac a 438
trafya- 500
uxsan- 135
trarasaiti 509
uxsyeiti (grow) 248
tu 455
uxsyeiti (wet) 639
tUiri- 382
uz-daeza- 628, 629
tuirya- (numerals) 401
tuirya- (kinsman) 335, 609
vacah- 535
tuirya 37
vacas-tasti- 436
tusan 179
vadar- 112
tusni- 475, 518
vadayan- 112
tvam 305, 455
vadayeiti 346, 369
dang- (extend) 187
vadrya- 346
va<5u- 346, 369
Bang- (fir) 202
vaeda 337
Banwano 202
vaeg- 607
Banwara 78, 202
vaeiti 571, 643
Bfiarasa- 425
vaem 454
Oraetaona 579
vaesa- 622
Branhayeiti 198, 509
va7- 437
Brayo 400
vai<5i- 636
Bray a- 229
vak- 535
Brayrai pasvi virayi 439
vam- 538
Bri-kamaradam 581
vanta- 358
Brisa(n)t- 404
vanta 158
Bris 401
vanhaiti 171
Britya- 400
vanhanam 109
Bvam 455
vanhau sravahi 438
Bwaesah - 509
vanri 504
Bwayah- 509
var- 629
Bwfizzaiti 451
varadaite 249
Bwasa- 607
varami- 637
Bworastar- 141
varan- 511
uba- 400
varana 648
varasna- 363
ub-daena- 572
varasni- 363
udara- 2
uarat- 607
-yaroz- 208
xsasti 405
varaza- 649
xsayati 490
yas- 199
xrsa- 25
vasaml 629
xsma 455
vaste 109
xsfva- 402
vastra- 109
xsvas 402
vaxsaiti 248
xsvid- 382
vayeiti 208
vaydi 313
x v a- 412
vazaiti 91, 305
x v aeda- 560
vazra- 112
x v aena- 514
vazya- 488
x v afna- 527
vazyam 9 1
x v ai?har 52 1
va 410
xVp- 527
vah 455
xVra- 650
vaiti 72
X^aronbaxsa 340
Var 636
x v asura- 195
vastra- 198
xVng 556
vata- 643
vaxs 623
yaesya- 77
vaxs aeso 313
/am- 270
vayu- 643
/aos' 346, 352,410, 411,
vahrka- 305, 646
548
varadaiti 249
yaosdatar- 4 1 1
varazi.casman- 208
yaozaiti 507, 547
varazyeiti 649
yaoz-da- 345, 346, 410
yi- 25
yaozdata- 494
vidava 642
yasna- 650
vi-gaBa- 160
yatara- 457
vl-mad- 262, 374
yatayeiti 472
vi-madaya 262, 374
yaieffz 472
vip- 507, 607
yaB-na 583
vz'ra- 366, 548
yava- 236
vis- 192
yazaite 650
vis- 622
yazata- 650
vlsaite 622
ya 457
vzsa/'D 25
ya- 228
visaiti 404
yah- 224
vispa- 25
yakara 356
vispaiti- 348, 469, 622
yinhayeiti 224
vis 66
yam 654
vis(a)- 439
yas- 33
vitara- 193
yasio 224
vodu 235
yam- 362
voftu- manah- 438
yama- 608
vohun^m datard 438
yavin- 236
vohuna-zga- 64
Yzmo 608
vouru- 83
yd 457
xraos- 90
yuga- 305, 655
yUidyeinti 507
xrap- 158
ywdyeiti 20 1
xrUra- 71, 305
yuj- 655
xumba- 443
yus 455
xsaob- 509
yusma 455
xsap- 394
yuzam 455
— 765
LANGUAGE INDEX (Avestan)
/van- 655
pwrdnk 415
dairsa- 252
py’l- 472
dasa- 252, 569
zadah- 187
pym’kh 208
dasfa- 271
zaSah - 187
s V 246
da's- 271
zaesa- 214
swnsb 148
dro 252
zafan - 175
wtsnyy 654
dvr- 400
za/ar- 175
wr’.n 511
za/rz- 654
wrm 607
ganama- 639
z^m poraOwlm 438
wrz’yw 208, 330
zanga- 546
xwm - 147
hama- 478
zantu-paiti- 348
z’y 236
handra- 443
zaos- 566
z'mYr 533
bau 409
zaotar- 351, 448
z’tyy 533
hvaraka - 147
zaoOra- 351, 448
zut 535
zaozao- 90
basa- 323
zaranyam 234
SOGDIAN (Buddhist)
basa- 323
zaronu-maini- 392
”dwb 237
kathi-raysa- 329
zarsayamna- 547
bara- 90
zasta- 254
SOGDIAN (Manichean)
bsar- 413
zasto.miti- 374
ztyw 179
zara- 90
khargga- 186
zavaiti 89
SOGDIAN (Parthian)
zazami 349
byd 399
massa- 5 1
zJ 174
nxrys- 413
mas- 625
zamaoya- 533
parast 61
maspa- 625
zamatar- 85, 369, 533
Parlk 123
mula- 388
zanaiti 337
pwd 284
mulana- 388
zami- 305, 322
za'ra- 217, 654
tgmdrWl
mussa 388
zbatar- 89
East Iranian
pa-dim- 87
zam - 174
TVKTCC 148
pasa- 425
zamaka- 305
p/ra- 283
zomdistva - 108
Early Iranian
zarad- 61, 263, 305
Alani 213
rasa- 329
zrazc/a- 61, 439
Alanta 487
r(r)aha- 569
zrazdaiti- 61
A tar 203
rraspura- 329, 330
zy/f 504
danu 204
rraysan- 329
zyo 650
maSu 271
rraysduar- 329
pekuiov 271
rrma 329
znatar- 337
rrusa- 5 1
‘mi- 336
ISHKASHIMI
rruvasa- 212
Bajui
dec 229
rus- 178
Khotanese Saka [Khot]
saba- 240, 258
bidyaj 283
ace 171
saha-cara- 428
aiysna- 37
saha-marai 428
SOGDIAN [Sogd]
ara- 481
sarh-khal- 186
mn’k 25
asi 523
sa/za- 428
‘rsx 523
bis- 622
safa - 399
’sp 274
bisa- 622
sava- 246
a-yamb- 508
bisa- 622
skam- 270
prz- 269
brarhja- 66
sujs- 514
8wyt 148
bulysa- 296
m’t 385
farra- 575
mbw271
daba- 179
fsam- 175
— 766 —
ttura- 135
va-suj- 514
vatca- 252
Khufi
raw] 488
rusbin] 383
Khwarezmian
raxt 572
Munji
xuri 392
Ormuri
gilak 387, 521
yanak 33, 170
Oroshi
san] 428
Ossetic [Oss]
acc 1 7 1
ada?g 434
aryaw 449
aefcaeg 353
zelQton 60
^na? 646
aervad 84
aerzaet 518
aexsyr 382
aexsyr f 517
ba?rz 65
baerzond 269
cumun 175
domyn 565
don 486
faxs 517
bera?f 37
faerwe 178
fink 208
fmkx 208
ford 488
furd 488
fyrd 533
gaedy 9 1
/a/as 89
yog 134
Iron 304
ix287
jaefs 274
pew 236
ba/m 649
ksef 90
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Persian)
kaen- 362
Pashto
Sarikoli
Wakhi
kur 656
axeral 186
der 618
arbdsi 5 1
k’ullaw 268
casai 309
dors 252
ceg 5 1 1
1 ass seg 497
dwayam 400
pen/ 383
/urz 66
liskae 357
gdm 237
pis 415
pei 33
mal 503
levar 84
red 252, 570
pit 428
mxd 385
lur 148
sJpc 200
pov 175
mseng 154
mana 25
wanewlA
piirk 387
myd 271
orbase 5 1
yoz 287
rus 178
myst 387
pal 251
tiy 229
naw 74
parsa 548
Scythian
yaz 287
nad 366, 548
prang 41 5
'APitcq, 202
yodc 510
nosVa 148
punda 265
geXiTiov 271
qug 134
rawdal 175
'Pd 159
Wanji
r^e/un 50
sadad 200
Tanais 487
xarban 383
353
s/cam 270
tazsa 78, 654, 655
rgez^e 80
sxar 195
Zevq riaKaiog 195
Yagnobi
saey 511
fas 179
vis- 193
tajun 378
tar 516
Shughni
ta/yn 378
us 135
bam] 66
Yazghulami
urdse 411
vror 84
dtfn 395
dur 618
uzun 264
xor 52 1
doze 252
san] 428
wser 511
yor 522
mun 25
xarban 383
waerdon 607
zam 533
pin/ 383
xad 441
wzergon 529
zanai 236
pum 251, 469
xwer 392
wis-qxd 178
zarai 236
purg 387
wyrd 411
zaman 369, 533
sanj 428
Yidgha
wyzyn 264
sape 200
frigo 206
xuarasn 147
Roshani
sitan 442
/U 360
xuarun 147
ardan 269
sardP 186
zs/ra 382
ye* 287
sepc 200
zad213
zar 89
warbon 511, 569
xar 392
ZOROASTRIAN PAHLEVI
zarun 89
zzerond 409
wurd 269
vlyj 45
zinij 530
sns 518
zymseg 140
Parachi
andarf 607
Sanglechi
xlr 392
zindurv 103
WESTERN IRANIAN
asman- 547
daranyam 234
dasta- 254
Harauvati 370
duv^a- 412
Old Persian [OPers]
dap- 161
dida- 628
huwa- 455
ada 472, 506
bara-man- 391
drauga- 538
adam 454
ba-ra-man-nu-is 392
iyam 458
Adukanaisa- 487
bratar- 84
fra-haj- 64
aganis 3
aiva- 12, 399
brazman- 451
fratama- 399
jadiyami 449
JTva- 305
a-mata - 374
cid 456
gav 134
ap-anyaka- 156
ciy 456
/cara- 3 1
ardata- 518, 641
dama- 532
kahrkatat 112
ariya- 213, 304
dahyaus 179
hamapitar- 36, 84, 134,
ana- 362
dahyu - 179
195, 499
magu- 3
asa- 274
danuvatiy 486, 491
hamatar- 36, 134
— 767 —
marika 630
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Persian)
matar- 385
Iran 213
gandum 639
tanjidan 516
ispar 512
gau 263
tar (dark) 147
naban 395
/tar mahik 510
gurg 646
far (textile prep ) 574
naiba- 493
Luhrasp 481
bom 496
fara 575
napa 239
makas 312
jav 236
toda 4 1 7
naviya 74
randltan 503
] avid an 175
tuhi 179
nyaka 238, 386
rod 379
jigar 356
vatak
ropas 212
juy 65 5
xam 478
paruviya- 399
stor 24
JUsanda 84
xaridan 185
puga- 533
swl’ck 537
kad 283
xes 538
sir 382
kahra 229
xirs 55
raucah- 513
sbob 418
ba/a/a 362
xub 425
tanub 574
/drm 649
xusrU 386
siyafi- 472
faxr 382
bu/tii 142
xusur 195
( mapa-papai 512
taxs 78, 654, 655
bun 42, 507
xval 147
va/3z 636
kuna 42
zalu 349
tuvam 455
xard 186
kurre 656
zan 648
‘zg 336
bus 507
zar 409
datagu- 135, 137
mam 386
z/b 78
Oatiy 535
New Persian [NPers]
mus 305, 387
zala 287
a lex tan 323
na/ 481
uba- 400
ama/ 434
nana 386
Bakhtiari
usa-bara - 135
angist 104
navidan 89
gtrza 387, 521
a-roy 61
naxun 389
vag- 424
az 201
pad-zhar 230
Baluchi
varvarah 540
as 509
palang 415
gandim 639
vayam 454
azy 336
palidan 255
gwabz 636
vi6- 192,622
da/ad 572
pars 415
bum 496
balu 214, 523
Perl 123
nod 110
Wrps 23
bar 91
po/ 284, 471
romast 2
barra 511
pUpU 272
xsayaOiya 490
baf 171
rade 641
Kurdish
xsnasatiy 337
bazar 185
rayza 571
bUz 59
birinj 379
rang 572
bur 656
/ad- 650
burn 412
rasu 638
lapk 209
yaudaiiy 507
buz 229
raz80
pUr 251
casm 7 1
r/sb 357
v7z 178
Middle Persian [MPers]
casme 7 1
rom 252, 570
zalu 349
ancltan 6 1
dam 565
san 641
azab 229
da/ia 237
sar 362
Middle Iranian
barstan 125
danldan 49 1
sara/ 282
nar- 573
camrUs 140
darUna 598
sargin 186
dawidan 491
dih 179
sa/a- 508
Parthian
deb 179
diz 628
sab 490
anapat 27
dopa8an...caharpa8an 439
do worn 399
sax 80
ma(r)h 27
drang 357
doyyom 399
sus 518
pastern 27
haftom 402
fars 415
tadharv 217
hnzwg- 391
fib 33
talxlna 516
— 768 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Latin)
Italic
OSCAN [Osc]
ahesnes 379
une 636
terr 40 1
aasai 170, 263
alfo- 64 1
uocu-com 192, 622
aasai purasiai 263
apro- 425
utur 636
Latin [Lat]
Abella 25
arsfertur 452, 496
vestikatu 639
Long and short vowels
aisusis 313
avt/66
vido- 24
interfiled.
akeno- 228
berva 535
ab 42
aragetud 518
bum 134
Paelignian
ab-avus 156
cadi- 259
dupursus 439, 649
puclois 533
abdere 472, 506
casnar 240
duti 399
abies 202
ceus 214, 622
erief- 511
Sabine
abietis 202
eisemim 379
esono- 313
ausom 234
ab-nepos 156
fangvam 594
iar 51
aboled 158
feiho- 87, 628
gomia 450
Old Latin [OLatl
Acca 386
fusnam 231
Grabovius 273
arquus 78
accipiter 191 , 194
fu(u)tir 147
habina- 229
aser 7 1
acer 367
hurtum 199
heriest 158
ass/r 71
acer 509
iuklei 536
hostatu 442
aurom 234
aceris 367
kahad 564
iuka 536
c/oaca 108
acipenser 550
kenzsur 536
Iupater 230, 438
c/uo 108
acus (grain) 237
Louceti us 513
/Uve pafre 195
dacruma 567
acus (sharp) 509
maatreis 385
manuv-e 255
dingua 594
ad 590
mallo- 23
mater- 385
duenos 650
adagium 535
Mamers 630
nepitu 204
duis 400
adeps 194
ner- 366
ner- 366
duonos 650
ad-nepos 156
nf- 395
nertru 131, 159, 611
eis 457
ad-nud 394
pa/ 456
ninctu 530
en 290
adoled 87
patir 194
pater 194
endo 590
ador 237
-pert 144
peturpursus 23, 469
equos 224
adoreum 237
perum 595
pir 202
esa 371
aedes 87
petiro-pert 144
pis 315
f/vo 472
aemidus 561
petora 401
preuendu 607
forctus 269
aemulus 224
pid 456
promom 399
fortus 210
aerts 379
pid 456
pru/e 236
gend 56
aeruscare 629
pis 315
prumum 399
gigno 56
aes 379
pud 456
purka 425
gnascor 56
aesar 312
put 456
ri esune 637
hemo 366
aesculus 407, 408
puklum 533
ro/u 481
ious 345, 410
aevus 352, 548
sipus 566
Sancus 493
loedus 434
ager 200, 295
su ve/s 412
sarsite 629
loidus 434
agilis 194
sverunnei 535
sest- 402
Mavors 630
agmen 116, 170
touto 288, 417
si- 425
oino(m) 12
agnus 510
triibo- 282
sumei 410
o//us 64
ago 170
trstus 401
supa 493, 494
polcher 537
aid 535
urust 450
fe/ru 263
quom 456
aisna 313
uruvu 215
terfi 400
qudr 456
aisuna 3 1 3
vincter 201
tertiu 400
sam 456
aia 5 1 6
Viteliu 24
totam 417
semol 410
album 347
zicolo- 149
tremnu 282
semu/ 410
a/bus 177, 641
turuf 135
stlocus 472
alces 178
Umbrian [Umb]
ueiro 366
sum 457
alesco 248
acno- 228
ueiro pequo 23, 366, 439
suodales 63 1
a/gere 1 1 3
acnu 654
uerio- 548
suodalis 354
a/gor 1 13
— 769 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Latin)
alium 433, 620
arceo 270
axis 39, 516
camera 620
alius 64, 411
arcus 78
campus 62
allium 433, 620
ardea 268
babiger 42
cancer 5 1 2
alnus 1 1
ardeo 87, 170
babit 42
candeo 514
aid 248
arduus 269
baculum 110
candidatus 514
altar 87
area 581
badius 85
candidus 514
alter 411
areo 1 70
balbus 542
canicae 271
altus 248
argentum 518, 641
balbutio 542
canis 168,317
alum 620
arguo 124
6arba 251
cannibus 293
alumen 60
aries 511
barbat us 251
cano 519
a/us 620
arietis 511
baubor 51
canthus 143
alv(e)arium 96
armus 26
beatus 650
cantus 143
a/vus 96
aro 434
bellus 650
canus 113, 240, 258
amarus 69
ars 362
be/ua 82
caper 229, 317, 425, 507
am6i- 32, 400
artio 362
beo 650
cap/o 90, 563
am6o 400
artis 362
betulla 500
captus 90
ambulo 629
arfus 362, 410
bi- 400
caput 253, 261
amita 37
artus 362
bibo 175
carbo 88
amitinus 133
arvum 200
bimus 24
caries 312
amnis 486
arvms 200
bipes 400
carmen (sing) 519
amphora 444
arx 270
bis 400
carmen (textile) 570
amp/a 330, 443
ascia 38
*bis-avolus 156
carpa 90
an 458
asinus 34
bison 136
carpmus 273
Ana 195
at 37
bitumen 500
carpo 258
anas 171
atavus 156
bolva 615
car(r)o 570
anatlna 171
afer202, 263
bonus 650
carrum 625
anatis 1 7 1
atrium 263
bos 134
carrus 625
anculus 506
atta 156, 195
botulus 2
earns 214, 357
ancus 271
audio 418
boves agere 138, 170
caseus 199
angiportus 391
aufero 37
brevis 515
castro 336
ango 64
augeo 248
bubo 417
catulus 91
angor 413
*auges- 209
bucerda 186
cams 510
anguilla 176
augmentum 248
butyrum 382
cauhs 542, 620
anguis 176, 530
augur 209, 452
caul(l)ae 199
animalia suppa 612
augustus 209
cachinno 344
caurus 644
animus 82
Augustus 390
caco 187
caved 361 , 418
annus 228, 654
au//a 443
cadaver 191
cavema 96
ansa 225
aunculus 609
cado 191
cavus 96
anser 236
auris 173
cadus 443
cedo 229
antae 68
aurora 148
caecus 70
ce/are 1 13
ante 60, 209, 399
Aurora 148
caelebs 12
celer 170
ante-cello 352
auru/n 148, 234, 235
caesaries 251
cel la 282
antiae 60, 209
auster 148, 159, 174
calamitas 549
celo 134
anulus 486
australis 174
calendae 90
censed 536
anus 238, 385
austrl 174
caleo 112
cento 1 10
anus 486
a vena 409
calidus 112
centum 317, 405
aper 425
aveo 197, 317
ca/ix 444
cera 637
* ape re 64, 116
avia 238, 239
callus 523
cerdo 139
aperio 42, 134
a villus 511
calo 90
cerebrum 260
aptus 64
avis 66, 67, 176
calpar 444
Ceres 249
aqua 175, 636
avunculus 85, 238, 370,
calumnia 154
cemo 5 1 8
Aquild 487
609
caivo 1 54
cervix 273
ara 87, 170, 263
avus 37 , 156,238,239,370
calvor 1 54
cervus 273
aratrum 434
axamenta 535
calvus 45
cicer 106
area 270
axare 535
calx 287
Cicero 390
— 770 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Latin)
ciconia 548
corpus 76
decet 271, 564
ebur 176
tied 506
corulus 260
decimus 403
edo 175
cingo 224
corvusb 6, 142
decuria 403, 404
educare 468
tinis 32
cos 510, 641
decus 271, 564
egenus 343
cis 458
costa 77
defendo 548
egeo 343
citare 506
cods 510, 641
defrutum 199
egestas 343
citus 506
coxa 323
deguno 566
ego 454, 621
clvis 214, 622
crabro 272,273
delims 215
emo 564
clam 282
cracens 574
denarius 379
endo 290
clango 66
era t is 571
dens (crow) 142
ensis 56 1
claudo 272
credere 472, 500
dens (tooth) 594
eo 228
c/ava 272
credo 61, 439
densus 574
equa 274
c/a vis 272
cremor 84
Dentatus 390
eques 274, 277
clavus 272
creo 249
-dere 472, 506
equitare 277
dingo 62
cresco 249
deus 149, 230
equites 633
c/fvi's 348
creta 588
.dexter 130, 271,403, 485
equitis 274, 277
clivus 348
cnbrum 518
dicare 159
equus 274
clued 262
crinis 251
dicere 159, 340
er 264
c/un/s 260
crudelis 7 1
died 516
era (good) 235
cluor 192
crudus 7 1
dies 149
era (master) 371
coctio 125
cruor 7 1
dif- 43
erro 206
coctor 125
crusta 71, 113
dignus 271
error 206
codex 316
cuculus 142
dis- 25
erugo 6 1
cognomen 518
cQdo 549
dissipo 582
erus (good) 235
cohors 199
cuius 457
dzus 230
eras (master) 371
cohortis 199
culcita 45
divido 160, 642
ervum 4/5, 433
collis 270
culmen 270
do 186, 224
es-317
collus 392
culmus 542
doceo 271, 564
est 53
cold 607
culter 336
do/o 143
et 215, 621
cold 564
cQ/us42, 134
domat 468
ex 41 1
color 113
cum (pronouns) 456
domi 192
excel lo 352
columba 169
cum (with) 646
dominus 192, 281, 283,
expergo 37
columen 270
cunctor 255
348, 371
experior 36
combretum 22
cuniculus 258
domi tor 565
exuo 109
communis 184
cunnus 507
domo 565
condere 472, 506
cupa 444
domus 192, 281, 283,
/aba 55
conditio 345
cupio 529
. 348, 565
/aber 1 39
conditor 141
cuppa 446
donee 590
facere 472, 506
cdnlveo 348
cuprium 379
donum 185, 317
/aces 595
con or 362
curro 49 1
dormio 526
facet us 595
consldero 514
currus 491, 625
dorsum 88
/aeces 1 70
consobrmus 392, 521
cursus 49 1
drenso 395
fagus 58
conventio 115
curvus 217
- ducare 471
falcula 424
copia 637
custos 418
duco 471
falx 424
copula 64, 116
cuds 134, 522
du/cis 317, 560
/a~ma 535
coquo 125
cygnus 558
duo 399
fanum 231
cor 262
duodecem 404
far 51, 453
corbis 52
damnare 496
duodecim 403, 404
farcio 450
cord- 317
damnum 496
duo de viginti 403
farina 52
Coriolanus 3 1
daps 496
duplex 400
famus 65, 478
Corioli 3 1
de 37
duplus 63, 400
farns 52
comix 142, 362
debilis 317, 550
durare 357
fart us 450
cornu 272
decern 317, 403
fas 346
comum 272
decern et duo 403, 404
ea 458
fastigium 439
comus 106
decern trisque 403
ebrius 175
fasti go 439
— 771 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Latin)
fatum 346, 535
/7os 207 (flower)
faunus 647
/7os641 (white)
faved 418
flumen 561
fax 595
fluo 561
febris 87
fluvius 561
Februus 103
fodio 159
/e/217, 654
foedus 198
feles 9 1
folium 348
felis 363,371
follis 7 1
Z~e/lx82, 317
fons 486, 491
felo 556
/bns Bandusiae 477
fern inis 202
for 346, 535
femur 202
/ora- 168
/era 23
/oras 1 68
ferculum 356
for(c)tis 269
/eriae 231
fores 1 68
Zeno 549
foils 168
fermentum 76
foris 168
Zero 56, 90, 479
formica 24
Zero* 23
formus 125, 263, 317
ferrl 379
ford 549
ferrum 314
fors 91,211
/eras 23
fortis 210
ferved 76
Fortuna 211
fervere 539
forum 168
festlno 194
forus 168
festus dies 231
Zbveo 87
fiber 57, 317
traces 170
fibrinus 57
fraga 63
Zicta sive picta forma
frango 8 1
ficus 316, 433
/rater 84, 133,239,479
fide 418
fra ter consobrinus 133
hde/ia 444
frater germanus 84, 134
fido 418
f rater patruelis 133
figo 472
fratri 621
filum 569
/rafria 84, 239
findo 538
fratris filius 334
fines 133
fraxinus 32, 65
fingere 87
fremo
fingo 649
frendo 247
fid 53
‘ frigo 125
firmus 270
/rigus 113
hssus 538
fringilla 201
flagito 549
frio 158
flagrum 549
f rumen 249
tlamen 45 1
frustum 81
flamma 513
frutex 3 16
flamonium 45 1
/ileus 57
/7a vus 641
fugio 62, 206
/7eo 70
fui 53
fligo 549
fulcio 431
fid 71
fulgo 513
flocces 170
fulica 125
F/ora 207
fuligo 160
Z/oras 64 1
fulmen 513
fumus 529
hasta 442
/unda 528
haurio 169
fundo 448
helvus 654
fundus 247
ben 654
fungor 614
btare 653
fun us (death) 150
hiems 504
/Onus (fort) 210
hinnuleus 154
/Or 9 1 , 387
hinnus 154
furo 82
hir 254
Ftsfi's 549
hirrire
/bos 448
hodie 594, 654
gallus 89, 112
homo 174,230, 248, 366
hordeum 5 1
garrio 89
honor 1 58
gaudeo 256
homus 654
gaudium 256
horreo 547
ge/u 113
horridus 547
geminus 369, 608
hortus 199
gemo 247
hospes 249, 371
gen- 156
hosOs 224, 249, 317, 622
gena 317, 322
hum/ 247
gener 85, 369, 533
humus 174, 230, 232, 248
genere 85
genetrix 386
lacio 582
genitor 195
tarn 395
genu 336
tanua 228
genus 192
tan us 228
gerres 90
tbi 458
glaber 529
id 458
glans 407
iecoris 356
gbs 317, 387, 521
tecur 356
g/os 521
ignis 202, 203, 550, 551
glubo 143
Ilia (goddess) 232
gluten- 108
ilia (loins) 356
(g)nosco 337
Ilia 232
gradior 546
imber 477
gradus 546
imbns 477
gramen 175
(im)bubinare 186
granum 236
immolare 247
grates 449
impubes 469
gratus 449
in 290
gravis 264
in- 317, 395
grex 217
maugu ratio 209
grundio 249
incendere 514
grunnid 249
mciens 560
gras 140
inclutus 262
gusto 566
index 1 59
gustus 566
indulged 357
guttur 62, 249
mduo 109
habeo 563
In fe mus 6 1 1
in festus 35, 81
haedus 229, 317
infra 6 1 1
haereo 4
inguen 225
harundo 481
inops 637
haruspex 180, 505
inseque 536
772 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Latin)
Instlgo 451
integer 595
inter 63
intered 151
interficere 151
interpres 185
intrare 229
Inuleus 154
involucrum 91
iocineris 356
iocus 536
(ir)rigare 639
is 399,457
Is 458
ista 457
iste 457
istud 457
ita 458, 583
Jfalia 24
item 458
iter 228,487
iterum 458
itineris 400
iubeo 201, 507
iubilo 394
iudex 345, 346, 411
iugum 317, 655
iuncus 481
iungo 64, 655
iuniperus 481
Iupiter 149, 195,230,438
Iuppiter 230, 438
iurare 410
iuro 345
ius 84, 345,346, 384,
410, 411
ius iurandum 345
ius petit 410
iuvencus 656
iuvenis 352, 655
labia 255
labium 356
labo 255
labrum 356
lac 381
lacer 568
lacerta 323
lacertus 323
lacrima 567
lactis 381
lacuna 343
lacus 343
laevir 84
laevus 349
lallo 42
locusta 323
Matuta 235
lama 448
longus 357
maxilla 107
lambo 352
loquor 535
me 62 1
lamenta 123
lubet 358
me 454
lamia 538
lubldo 358
meare 448
lamina 448
lubricus 527
medeor 262, 374
lana 648
luceo 505, 513
medicus 262, 374
*lanca 618
lucema 513
meduor 374
lanugo 648
lucesit 468
meditullium 247
lanx 444
lucet 468
medius 380
larix 316
lucrum 484
meio 613
lasclvus 157
lucto 62
mel 271
lassus 588
iudo 434
meies 45
latex 639
ludus 434
me ii or 235
latro 50
lugeo 81, 247
me 11 is 271
lavo 108
lumbus 356
membrana 375
laxus 523
• lumen 513
me mb rum 375
lectus 57, 352
luna 385, 513
meminl 575
legere 346
iuo 481
memoria 483
lego 505
lupus 646
menda 155
lemures 538
lustrum 5 1 3
mendum 155
lendis 357
lufra 411
mens 575
ienis 475, 588
iufum 160
mensis 385
lens 357
lux 174, 352, 505, 513
mensum 385
ientus 317, 353, 532
mentum 107, 453
led 23, 284
macer 357, 574
meo 228
levir 84
macero 450
mergae 258
levis 353
machina 3
merges 258
lex 346
macor 574
mergitis 258
ilbare 351
madeo 638
mergo 160
liber 50
magnus 344
mcrgus 249
Liber 248, 354, 417
mala 107
merula 70
liber 107, 214, 248,416
malum 25
merus 514
Liberalia 417
malus23, 155
meta 44 1
liben 248, 417
malus 441
metior 374
libet 358
mamma 386
mef/ri 44 1
libido 358
mancus 343, 528
mefo 258
llbum 351
mando 175
meus 454.
iiceo 349
mane 174
mi care 109
lien 538
maned 482
mi hi 454
liiium 316
manifestus 35
milium 383
llmax 527
manis 235
milvus 336
limbus 255
mannus 274
mmgo 613
llmus 527
mano 639
minor 401
lingo 351
manus 254, 255
minud 351
lingua 594
manus 174, 235
minus 351, 528
lino 527, 528
mare 503
misceo 384
linquo 349, 637
margo 77
mitto 582
iimj/71 206
mantus 631, 656
moles 124
lippus 527
Mars 630
mole st us 124
lira 215
mateola 434
mollis 317, 532
Iftus 506
mater 317, 385, 590
mold 247
livor 113, 246
matercula 36
monedula 321
iocus 472
matertera 36
moned 575
locusta 323
*matteuca 434
monile 391 , 392
— 773 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Latin)
mons 270
nepos 239, 392
montis 270
neptis 237, 394
mordeo 490
Neptunus 203, 204
morior 1 50
neriosus 366
mors 1 50
nervus 96, 568, 571
mortuus 150
nescio 395
morum 388
nex 1 50
moms 388
ni 395
moved 388
nidus 393
mox 533
nigrum 347
mucus 527
ninguit 530
mu facere 394
nivis 530
muger 154
nivit 530
mugio 394
nix 530
mulceo 595
no 561
mulgeo 381
noceo 150
mulleus 69
nodus 336
mult am dice re 346
nomen 390
mulus 34
non 395
-mungo 527
nonus 403
munus 184
nos 454
murex 316
noster 454
murmuro 388
notio 337
mus 317, 387
notor 337
musca 207
notus 337
muscella 34
novacula 478, 510
muscerda 186
novare 468
musculus 388
nove 403
muscus 385
novem 403
mus tela 387
novus 317, 393
muio 184
no* 394
mutus 149
nubere 369
nubes 110
naccae 570
nudus 45
nancio 35
num 397
naris 395
nundinae 149
nascor 56
nuntius 89
nassa 336
nuptiae 369
nassus 395
nurus 148
nasus 395
natio 56
nux 405
natis 88
0313
natrix 530
ob 391
navis 74
obscums 134
ne 583
obstaculum 431
ne- 395
occulo 134
nebula 110
ocior 194
need 150
octavus 403
necto 336
ocfo 402
necubi 456
oculus 188, 317
nebas 346, 395
odl 259
nefrones 329
odium 259
nemen 571
o/eo 528
nemus 63, 248
o/or 558
neo 571
omen 61
omentum 522
pains 133
onus 87
patrius 195
operor 649
patruelis 1 33
opes 637
patmus 238, 335, 609
opilio 507
paucus 200
oplmus 194
pauper 200
Ops 637
pax 64
opto 158
pecten 570
opulentus 637
pectere 336
opus 649
pec to 570
ora 77
pectus 518
oraculum 450, 536
pecu 23
orbis 108
pecudesque virosque 439
orbus 411
peculium 23
orior 506
pecunia 23
omare 472
pecus 23
om us 32
peda 595
oro 450, 536
pedo 1 94
os 77
pellis 268
os 387, 487
pello 507
ostium 387, 487
pe/vis 443
ovzs 317, 510
penis 507
ovum 176
penna 646
pen us 199
paclscl 64
per 581
pagus (bind) 64
percello 549
pagus (country) 133
pereo 151
pa/am 255
perfino 549
pa/ea 104
perfungor 6 14
Pales 507
pergula 442
pallidus 64 1
periculum 36
pa/ma 206, 255
pema 265
palpo 255
perplovere 561
palumbus 169
pes 208
pando 539
pessum 191
pandus 143
peto 208
pango 64
pica 648
panicum 383
picea 500
pannus 569
p/cfis /iciis 439
pantex 2
picus 648
papa 195
pilleus 251, 569
papaver 316
pdus 251, 317, 569
papilio 88
p/ngo 414
papilla 82
pinguis 3
paris 185
plnso 581
pars 441
pinus 428
parvus 200
pipo 66
pasco 198
pirum 433
passus 539
piscarl 604
pafeo 539
piscina 604
pafer 100, 194, 590
piscis 100, 604
patera 443
pix 500
patina 443
p/aceo 205, 434
patior 258
placo 205, 434
patres 195
plango 549
— 774 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Latin)
planto 538
prodigus 348
planus 205
promined 453
plebes 41 7
promulgare legem 381
plebis 4 1 7
pro-nepos 156
plebs 417
prosper 3, 458
plecto 549, 570
prulna 287
plenus 2 14, 417
pruna 88
pled 201
pubens 469
pluit 561
puberes 469
pluma 570
puberis 252
plumbi 379
pubertas 469
plumbum 347
pubes 252, 469
p/us 3
pubesco 251, 469
pluteus 43 1
pubis 252
poculum 444
pudet 471
podex 194
puer 107
pollex 255
pulcher 537
polluo 160
pulex 206
polubrum 52
pubus 107
pons 202, 487
pulmo 359
pontifex 452
puls 44 1
poples 640
pubis 441
por- 581
pulvis 104
porca 215
pumex 208
porced 270
pungo 45 1
porous 113, 317, 100, 425
purus 109
porta 487
pus 471
portare 228
pustula 72
portio 441
putare (dean) 109
portus 229, 487
putare (cut) 144
posed 33, 468
puted 528
positus 42
putus 109
post(e) 42
posterns 42
quadru- 401
posfts 204
quadruped- 401
postumus 43
quadrupes 23, 469
potio 175
quae 456
potior 490
qualis 457
potis 317
qualum 52
potor 175
qualus 52
prae 60
quam 397, 457
praecello 352
quando 457
praestinare 542
quantus 457
praesto 254
Quarta 390
precor 33
quartus 401
pre(he)ndo 564
quasillum 52
premere 450
quasillus 52
pretium 185
quatio 509
prex 33
quattuor 97, 401
primus 399
-que 20, 621
pro 61
quercus 407
pro 61
queror 82, 518
pro-avus 156
qu/ 456
probus 236
quid 456
procus 33, 369
quies 474
quietus 474
rubus 642
quindecim 404
Rullus 642
qulnquaginta 405
rumen 2
qulnque 98, 100, 401
rumor 488
qulntus 402
rumpo 81
Quintus 401
runco 159
quis 315, 317, 456
ruo 567, 570
quod 456
ruris 534
quot 456
rus 534
rabies 22
sabulum 490, 499
radix 80
saburra 499
rado 503
sacer 493, 509
radula 503
sacerdos 493
ramus 80
saefa 350
rapa 620
saevus 413, 568
raprna 620
saga 505
rapd 564
saga'* 505
rapum 620
sagio 505
rastrum 503
sagitta 78
ratio 397
sagus 505
ravus 246
sa/- 317
recens 213, 399
sal 498
rectus 485
salebra 160
reddo 224
sa/icis 643
regina 329
salio 323
regius 329
sal ix 643
rego 187, 330
salvus 262
relict us 482
sancio 493
Remus 608
sanctus 493
remus 408
sanguen 71
renes 329
sapa 500, 566
reor472
sapiens 566
repo 141
sapid 566
repudium 471
sarcina 108, 629
res 637
sarcid 108, 123, 629
restis 571
sar(c)tus tectus 629
rex 329, 330
sarid 550
ricinus 317, 357
sarpo 517
npa 567
satis 500
nf us 410
Satumus 289
nvus 207
satus 289
rodo 503
sax; 379
Romulus 608
scaber 503
roris 158
scabo 503
ros 158, 638
scaevus 349
rostrum 503
scalae 323
rota 491, 640
scamnum 270
ruber 468, 381
scando 323
rudere 642
scaurus 156
rudd 246
seel us 142
rudo 246
scindo 144
rudus 379
scid 144
ru/us 48 1
scoblna 503
ruga 516
scobis 503
— 775 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Latin)
scutum 512
singularis 12
se 455
singull 12
seed 144
sinister 131, 349
secula 38
sino 1 58
secundus 399
sinus 518
securis 38
sisto 542
secus 646
sin's 150
se(d) 253
situs 158
sedeo 522
sobrinus 392, 393
sedere 522
socer 195
sedlle 505
socius 115
segnis 523
socrus 386
se//a 505
sodalis 143, 354, 455
semel 410, 499
sol 566
semen 317, 505
sol or 236
semi- 253
(so)lutus 48 1
semper 410
so/vo 48 1
senatus 409
somnium 170
seneo 409
somnus 527
senex 409
sono 534
sensus 418
sons 606
sentina 169
sonus 534
sentio 418
sopio 527
sepelio 151, 450
sopor 527
septem 402, 403
sorbed 175
septimus 402
sordeo 147
sepulcrum 151, 450
sordes 147
sequor 208
sore* 516
serenus 170
soror 52 1
sermo 535
(soror) germana 134
sere (cut) 289
sors 354, 535
sero (line) 354
spar go 539
sero (sow) 534
specio 505
serpens 141
sperno 329
serpo 141
spes 3, 458, 500
serum 207
sp/ro 72
serus 357
splendeo 514
servat pecus 439
spolium 269
servo 458
sponda 43 1
servus 77
spondeo 351
sen us 357
sponsa 351
sex 402
sponsus 351
sexaginta 405
spuma 208
sextus 402
spud 538
slat 448
squalus 510
stbi/o 72
stagnum 587
siccus 170
stagnum 207, 343
slderis 514
stamen 431
sfdo 522
stare 468, 522
sidus 514
statio 431
similis 499
status 431
simplex 410
ste//a 543
simplus 63, 410
sterilis 52
simu/ 410
stemo 539
sine 25
sternuo 133
stlria 547
tela 38
sto 542
te Hurts 247
stolidus 506
tell us 247
stramen 57
tern ere 147
strepo 89
temetum 549
stringo 574
temo 187, 508
sfrues 539
tern pus 187
struo 539
temulentus 549
studeo 471
fen do 187
studium 471
tenebrae 147
stumus 543
tener 490
suadeo 560
tent us 187
suasum 147
tenuis 187, 574
suavis 560
tepeo 263
sub 612
tepor 263
subucula 109
ter 400
subulcus 425
terebra 36, 424
sucerda 186
termen 77
sucus 499
fero 424, 490, 639
siido 560
terra 100, 133
sudus 170
ferrere 198, 509
suesco 455
terror 198, 509
suffio 388
tertius 400
sugere 499
tesca 179
sugo 556
tesqua 179
sulcare 471
testa 261, 443
su/cus 471
testis 400
sulp(h)ur 88
text or 1 39
sum 53
tignum 442
sunt 53
tilia 178
suo 573
tingo 639
super 41 2
to llo 352
supo 582
fonare 582
surus 442
tonere 582
sus 317, 425
tongeo 575
sus- 612
torculum 572
susurrus 516
torqueo 572
suus 412, 455
forreo 170
torrus 170
tafoeo 378
f ozvus 2 1 4
taceo 518
tot 457
tagax 595
tot idem 457
tails 457
totus 4 1 7
tarn 397, 457
trabes 282
tango 595
trabs 282
tantus 457
traho 47 1
tata 195
trans 4
taurus 136, 317
tremo 509
taxim 595
t repit 607
fa*o 595
tres 400
fa*us 654
tria 400, 401
te 455
t rigin t a 404
tectum 489
trim 401
fego 134
triquetrus 510
tegula 489
triticum 639
— 776 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Portuguese)
trua 607
vanus 179
villa 622
lanitrices 522
trudo 451
vap- 529
vimen 571
/arus 249
tu 455
vapor 529
vincid 63
/eudis 248, 416
tueor 198, 417
varus 523
vinco 201
*locca 497
tumidus 561
vastus 179
vlnum 644
magis 649
tundo 471
vates 436, 453, 493
vir 366, 548
Marmar 630
(Urdus 582
-ve410
viridis 246
mastra 649
tutus 198, 417
vectis 9 1
virus 439
merganser 160
vegeo 550
vfs (follow) 208
muscellus 34
uber 82
vehiculum 91, 625
vis (force) 209, 548
nonnus 386
ubi 456
vehd 91
viscum 384
occa 434
ulcus 523
vello 567
vi I ex 571
orphanus 41 1
ulmus 178
velum 572
vffis 571, 643, 644
refae 442
ulna 176
vendere 185
vitium 25
stannum 587
uls 64
venio 115, 317
vltricus 193
sfurio 550
ululare 66
venter 2
vitulus 24
suculus 425
umbilicus 391
ventus 72, 643
• vlverra 317, 540
suinus 425
umbo 391
venum 185
vivo 356
uluccus 66, 412
umere 639
venum dare 185
vlvus 317, 356
vargus 141
umerus 516
venum ire 185
voco 534
vassalus 506
uncus 6 1 , 272
venus 158
vola 62
vassus 506
unda 636
ver 504
volba 615
Vesuna 235
ung(u)o 24
verbena 80
Vole anus 529
vitus 571, 643
unguen 317, 382
verbera 80, 643
volnus 567, 650
unguis 389
verbum 65
vo/o 629
Old French [OFrenchl
ungulus 389
vereor 417
volpecula 212
corns 258
unicus 12
vereri 606
volpes 212
Flenchir 62
unus 12, 399
vermis 649
vo/tur 624
upupa 272
verres 363
voltus 505
New French [ French 1
urgeo 471
vend 581
vo/vo 607
a/ene 37
urgere 284
verruca 416
vomis 434
bronze 379
urfna 636
versus 607
vomo 538
cendre 639
urinari 636
verfere 630
voro 175
chambre 620
uro 87
verfo 607
vorsus 607
coq puant 272
ursa 55
veru 536
vos 455
cui vre 379
ursus 55
verus 606
voveo 449
loche 497
urus 135
vespa 109, 636
vox 623
onc/e 609
urvare 215
vesper 159, 184
vulva 615
poll 469
urvum 215
vespillo 109
poilu 469
usque 612
vespula 109
Late Latin [LateLat]
tete 261
uter 456
ves(s)ica 70
Alma 207, 539
vergne 1 1
uterus 2, 317
Vesta 171, 203, 281
Almus 207, 539
veme 1 1
uva 63, 655
vester 455
amma 386
uvidus 639
vestio 109
-apa 636
Italian
uxorem ducere 369
vestis 109
ava 37
A lento 487
vefus 654
blrotis 491, 641
bronzo 379
vacca 135
vexare 507
blundus 147
cissa 323
vaco 179
via 488
camisia 134
porca 407, 428
vado 625
vibrare 607
carpisculum 514
rocca 110
vadum 625
victima 493
cattus 91
zabaglione 500
vae 313
vicus 192, 193, 284, 622
cavannus 66
vagina 538
video 337
f arid 550
Portuguese
vagio 89
vidua 642
fratruelis 392
neto 239
vallum 442
vieo 571
gattus 9 1
va//us 442
vlgintl 404
grossus 574
— 777 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Rheto-Romance)
Rheto-Romance
Spanish
cade 115
negro 1 1 5
carmun 638
alesna 37
cobre 379
nieto 239
aliso 1 1
es 522
pafo 1 7 1
Romanian
amarillo 115
estar 522
rojo 1 1 5
cupru 379
anaranjado 115
gris 115
roso 115
inti 399
azii/ 115
hermana 134
sea 522
minz 274
bisabuelo 156
hermano 134
ser 422
vatra 202, 263
bianco 115 morado 115
Slavic
SOUTH SLAVIC
Old Church Slavonic [OCS]
verde 1 1 5
Alphabetic order: a, b, c, ch, £, d,
e, g, e, g, i (I), j, k, 1, m, n, o, p, p, r, s, 5, t, u (ti), v, z, l
abema 400
bronu 642
crunu 69
drevo 598
abredil 155
bruvf 188
cudo 361, 418
drozdije 170
ajice 176
bruzo 194
cujg 361, 418
drugu 1 1 5
alni 155
buditi 516
drugnpti 471
aludiji 74
by 53
danl 185
druva 598
aviti 418
bysgst- 53
darn 185
druzu 81
byti 53
dateljl 224
druzina 115
baba 42
dan 224
dnbi 1 54
berg 56, 90, 479, 525
celu 262
daviti 150, 647
duchngti 82
bez 646
cena 123
Dazlbogu 212
duchu 82
beda 418
cevlnlca 96
debelu 574
dQkti 525
bediti 418
cpsfu 525
derp 567
dung 388
belu 642
cRo 456
despn 403
duno 154
bezp 49 1
desnu 271,485
dupina 154
bICela 57
chochotati 344
desp 564
dusti 147
bijg 549
choditi 228
devgtl 403
duva 399
blgdg 147
chodu 228
devgtu 403
duva na desg 404
bljudg 636
chromu 156
dedp 37
duvoje 400
bljujg 561
chvrastije 599
detell 141
duvoji 400
blgdu 147
deti 472, 506
duzdl 43
blQcha 206
cajp 198
deverl 84
dvachati 82
bogu 161, 210
cast? 583
deza 629
dv/rf 168
bojati sg 198
cesati 570
dlni 149
dvoru 168
bolljl 525, 550
ceso 456
divu 230
dymQ 525, 529
borjg 549
cetverl 40 1
djadu 609, 610
dzvezda 514
bosti 159
cetvrltti 401
dlQgota 357
bosu 45
cefyre 401
dlQgQ (compensation) 123
gadati 564
bosujl 49
def/ri 401
dltigu (long) 357
gladiti 529
brada 251
cediti 144
do 590
gladQ 158
bradatu 251
an/ 87
dobrujl 457
glagoliti 89
braslno 51
c/fp 418
do/p 556
glasu 89
bratnja 84
creda 268
dole 618
glava 45
bra ml 84, 479, 525
crep/444
dollnl 618
gnezdo 393
bregu 269
crfpp 258
dolfi 618
godu 64
bremg 91
cr/vf 649
domu 192, 281, 525
golemo 3
bresti 268
crumlnu 649
dremljQ 526
go/u 45
— 778 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Church Slavonic)
gomimo 134
(j)edin- 399
krucijl 362
/udo 43
goneti 3
(j)elene 1 54
kruma 84
/una 385, 513
gonjQ 548
(j)elenl 154
krupa 514
/Ozp 352
gora 270
jesenl 506
/cr0v/71
goreti 525
jesm/ 53
/cz/7a 217
ma/cO 440
gospodf 249
jesiO 53, 525
/c0 646
ma/u 23
gostl 249
jezero 343
/code 456
man 385, 525
govejp 418
(/jez/264
kukonosQ 62
mazati 649
govpdo 525
jpgulja 176
/curin’ 88
medO 271
govpzdr 134
jptro 179
ArurO 112
medvedi 55
grabiti 563
jpriy 522
/cufo 456,457
me/jp 247
grabnpti 563
jpzyku 594
/cuiO 143
mene 454
.gradu 199, 525
jlgo 525
/cvasO 199
mezda 380
grefop 563
;u 397
Zcy/a 268
mezdu 380
gr^dp 546
jucha 84
kypeti 529
mechu 511
griva 391
junO 655
kyselu 199
mena 184
gromQ 582
menjp 410
grosdu 5 1
/cad/ 444
ladiji 74
mespei 385
groza 568
/cajp 198
/a/p 50
mesiii 384
grOst/ 217
kako 457
lakuti 176
mp 454
/ca/cu 457
/a/cOiO 444
mp/cO/cO 450, 532
igo 655
/camo 457
/ani (beyond) 64
mpso 375
igraii 388
/cam/ 547
/am (deer) 155
mpsii 547
du 371
kaslll 133
laskati 157
m/g/a 1 10
imp 390
/cazp25
lebedi 64 1
minp 228
imp 564
kladp 539
/echa 215
m/neri 575
inlje 287
/c/asu 45 1
/e/p 506
mlnj p 575
ino- 399
/c/pcp 62
lenu 475, 588
m/rp 150
ino/cO 12
kljucl 272
/evO 349
mite 184
inorogQ 399
kobl 3 , 211
/ezaii 352
m/zda 484
iskydati 581
/cogda 456
/ezp 352
mladu 532
istu 345
kolese 640
/pdvij'p 356
m/e/co 38 1
iti 228
/co/f 457
lijp 506
m/Omi 353
iva 654
/co/i/cu 457
llguku 353
mluva 535
iz 411
koljp 549
llnenu 206
mluviti 535
izmrumlrati 142
kolo 640
//vQ 356
mogp 3
izuti 109
/co/0 442
/izaii 351
moljp 449
ize 457
/con/ 273
ljadina 200
monisto 391, 392
izesa 655
konoplja 268
7/ubifi 358
morje 503
/corf 312
ljubu 358
morO 150
(j)ablanu 25
/cosa 570
ljuby 358
motati sp 547
(j)abluko 25
kosmu 570
ljudlje 248, 416
motyka 434
jadp 228
/cosi/77
ljudinu 416
mozgu 370
jadO 561
/cosO 70
ljudu 248
mpdrp 348
-jaga 644
/cos/ 52
/ocu 352
mpz/ 367
(pagnp 511
koteryjl 456
loky 343
mraclnu 147
(j)agoda 63
/coi/c/ 282
lomljp 81
mraku 147
jako(ze) 457
/coiora 201
/own 23, 284
mravi 24
jam/ 175
/covp 549
/ovu 23, 284
mreza 64
jara 654
/coza 229
/oza 80
mruknpti 147
jaru 362
kozllu 229
/p/ca 618
mrutvu 150
(/jave 623
/coza 229
lub 50
mucha 207
(j)azno 269
/crada 213
/uca 513
mucati 527, 528
*(j)azu 454
/crasfa 570
lucf 513
mumati 394
jaze 457
/crovO 217
iueiii 505
munogu 3
— 779 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Church Slavonic)
munoziti 3
ottcO 195
musTca 207
otleku 482
my 454
o70 37
myjQ
ovtfca 525
mysl 108
OV7C7 510
ovt/70 510
nagu 45
ovfsO 409
naju 454
ozobati 175
(na)majati 154
ozuku 391
naperjo 185, 228
nasd 454
Qgll 104
ne 395
pgulja 176
nebes - 110
p/co7f 61, 272
nebo 110
p7n" 63
nesp 35
pzp 64
netijl 237 ,239,392
iieze 583
pa- 42
/7/zO 169
pacfp 192
Tioga 389
pameti 575
nogutl 389
para 72
nosu 395, 525
pasQ 198
nosti 394, 525
pe/cp 125
r/ovO 393
pero 646
nozl 537
perp (go) 228
nu 397
perp (strike) 549
77/454
pestl 125
pena -208
o 313
pesQkQ 499
ob 391
peti 519
oba 400
PPS7/255
obresti 202
pp7a 265
obujo 109
pp71 401
ochrumo 156
pp70 402
ognf 202
piculQ 500
ojiminu 31
plchati 581
oko 188, 525
pichati 480
olovina 60
pijQ 175
o/O 60
plni 442
on 290
plnp 571
0770 458
piijQ 549
orechu 405
pisati 414, 480
ort/0 173
piskati 72
oriti 158
plstru 414
orjQ 434
pfsO 113, 414
osa 636
pista 208
osml 402
pisenica 639
osmu 403
*piSQ 525
osneziti 530
plakati sp 549
ostin 0 237
p/asa 200
ostrovu 207
p/avO 642
OSfrO 509
plesna 83
ost 39, 516
pleste 516
os/ 188
pletQ 570
ot-37
plena 185
otezati 264
plevy 104
pljujp 538
reo 535
plotu 87
rej'p 207
plovp 561
repa 620
plunu 214
rezat/' 81
plustl 25 \ , 569
rodu 249
plusta 359
roju 388
po 42
roA:0 535
poda 595
rosa 158, 638
pogrebp 159
rovp 488
pojasu 223
rozga 571
pojaso 223
rpka 49
pokoji 474
ruda 379, 481
polje 133
ruvp 567
poijp 228
rQzt 491
postatl 43 1
7/jp 567, 570
povinoti
pozde 42
saditi 506, 525
pozdu 42
sa7770 499
poziro 175
sazda 522
ppti 202, 487
sebe 455
prachu 540
sed/nt 402
pragu 442
sedmu 402
prasp 425, 525
seb/va 282
pre- 581
selo 282
presociti 170
ses/ra 52 1
pnjajo 358
sestrinQ 392
prillpjo 527, 528
sedalo 505
pTfstr 540
sedeti 522
privu 399
sejp 534
proseati 518
sekp 144
prositi 33
sekyra 38
*prost!ro 539
seme 505
proso 480
semija 622
protivu 6
semija 622
prusi 81
sen i 508
p/ro 639
seno 240
rabu (elf) 177
seru 69
sesti 522
rabn (orphan) 411
seti (sieve) 5 1 8
raciti 535
seti (sow) 525
raditi 472
severu 644
ra/cO 512
sp 455
7737770 26
spdp 352
ra77a 650
segnpti 64
777770 249
spstt 4 18
rastpgp 187
S/777 246
7-asfp 269
s/fo 518
rata 199
sivu 246
ratiste 442
sf 458
raWnO 534
strati 186
razlociti 62
slrebro 314, 518
rebro 488
slrsenl 272, 273
redu 249
skala 538
revp 488
s/coWt 503
rest/ 535
skociti 323
— 780 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Church Slavonic)
skorQ 323
stryjl 37,335,609
ffma 147
vadz'rz 535
skubp 47 1
suchfi 170
timinu 147
vaju 455
skytati sp 509
sukrusiti 549
tz'na 160
va/itz 607
sladtiku 498
svariti 535
tlnuku 574
vapa 343, 636
slama 542
svaru 535
tfrp 424, 490
variti 88
slana 112
svatu 455
tistf 195
veceru 184
slant! 498
svekrd 195
tluko 471
vedp 346, 369, 525
slava 262
svekry 386
dO/cu 535
veljo 629
slavojocije 160
svepiti sp 582
tlupa 534
veprf 425
sledu 527
sveZu 64 1
to 457
vermije 649
slezena 538
svpru 493
toll 457
veselu 198
slina 527
svinec 379
toliko 457
veszza 504
slovo 192
svinija 425
tomiti 549
vetuchu 654
sluga 506
svzzzu 425
rpga 264
vezp 9 1
slunlce 556
svistati 72
rppu 187
vede 337
sluso 480
svobodi 354
fra/cu 572
vedeti 337
s/ufz 262
svq/7412
treti 400
ve/ati 72
slysati 262
svrabu 608
tretijl 400
ve/p 643
sme/p 344
synti 56, 533
rrpsp 509
ve/cu 201
snegu 530
syru 69
tri 400
veno 82, 83, 185
snubiti 369
syru 500
trije 400
vera 606
snujp 571
su 646
trudi 451
vldova 642
so- 646
suborn 9 1
truditi sp 451
vzdO 337
Sobeslavl 390
sudravd 235
frunG 575
vljp 571
socha 80
su//p 285
trupeti 500
vinjaga 644
soczti 536
su/u 285
frusff 481
vino 644
soku (branch) 80
sumrutt 150
trutoru 535
visl 25
soku (sap) 499
sunije 170
rzy/p 490
vitl 571
soli 498
suziO 527
ro 457
vireti 636
sptQ 53
supatz 527
turn 135
vlrjp 125
sped 3,458, 500
supp 582
tuspsta 561
vfsf 192, 622
spodu 444
surest! 202
tusti 179
Vladimeru 344
sporu 3, 458
susp 556
tvarogQ 382
v/adp 490
sramu 413
sufo 405
tvoriti 564
v/aga 639
srldice 525
tvoru 564
v/astf 240
srQbati 175
sestf 402
ty 455, 525
vlekp 471
srQdice 262
sijp 573
tyspsti 405
vliku 525, 646
srupu 517
stir u 512
vluna 648
sritstf 252
sup 349
u- 37
voda 636
stadlo 43 1
surf 84
ucho 173
vos/cft 637
stanp 542
uezd 4
vosu 252
stati 543
ra 457
ugasiti 188
vozu 91 , 625
steljp 247
ray 543
up 238, 609
vozdp 346
stenati 582
tajo 457
ujka 238
vragu 141
stenjp 384, 582
fajp (melt) 378
ukonu 362
vrana 142
stezert 442
fayp (steal) 543
ulica 96
vredu 523
stfdza 228, 488
tamo 457
umu 418
vresti 581
stignp 228
tall 543
usra 387, 487
vrlchu 416
stoboru 442
Zebe455
ustina 387
vrlteti sp 607
stojatl 468
tekp 49 1 , 525
ustru 174
vrusta 607
stojp 542
tetrevl 217
usi 173
vudova 642
strada 547
tekajQ 491
vulguku 639
Stribogu 195
fp 455
va 455
wlkomu 48, 221
stropu 488
tllejp 475
vabljp 89
vunpku 238, 386
stryja 37
tl/o 525
vada 535
vusz“ 357
— 781
LANGUAGE INDEX (Old Church Slavonic)
vutoru 399, 411
zpzdp 450
Serbian Church
sedra 639
vuvreti 64
z/ca 78, 569
Slavonic [SerbCS]
sestra 521
vuz 612
ziduku 490
sulogu 57, 642
s/n/i 246
vuzgrlmeti 582
zjjp 548
sinovac 393
vuzlysu 513
zrnip 450
Old Serbian [OSerb]
sindvac 393
vuznlknoti 61
z/vp 356
gvozd 80
sjen 508
yy455
zivu 356, 525
sjever 644
vykngti 4
zledica 287
Serbo-Croatian [SCI
s//v 246
vyrinoti 388
z/eza 225
bas 58
snijeg 530
z/fdefi 158
basa 58
(s)pjena 208
zacgti 213
z/ucf 217
blazina 45
strdvo 539
za(j)apu 158
zlUtti 654
br'asno 5 1
sunica 48 1
zaprQtQku 24
zrebf 615
brat 54
sura 84
(za) usfra 148
zrebu 143
brbljati 42
frag 49 1
zelenu 246, 654
zruny 474
brk 453
frs 481, 644
zemlja 174
zu/'p 175
bukati 284
v'atra 202
ze/p 653
zurba 568
depit i 550
vi me 82
zpti 85, 533
d/a/ca 252
vuk 646
zi/p 653
Middle Bulgarian
drapati 567
zelva 595
zima 504, 525
[MBulg]
dren 528
zrno 236
zinQti 653
drostija 170
dupiti 534
zlrjp 514
dupsti 159
Slovenian (Slov)
z/afo 234
Bulgarian [Bulg]
gazifj 625
blazina 45
z/0c7217
a/ne 154
glog 575
cm 649
zovq 89
brica 49 1
gnjaviti 45 1
drok 395
zgbti 525, 594
buh 412
grab 273
gaziti 625
zrlno 236
guna 252
M 12
gfgati 24
zUlQva 521
gunja 252
jatiti se 472
Ipgac 62
zurefi 248
krokon 142
jesetra 550
male 45
zuvati 89
kulka 142
kamen 547
nar 393
zverl23
palam 255
krplje 514
o/e 508
zvonQ 534
pedesce(t) 405
laska 157
ojesa 508
p/ach 387
log 57
pazduha 26
zegp 87
sasar 516
lubura 50
p/pa 66
ze/efi 629
sterica 52
mizati 613
pir 639
zelezo 314, 379
sto 405
mjesec 385
prh 540
ze/p 425
stursel 273
modar 246
prhati 540
zelpdu 407
sesU 402
<5/ovo 347
rud 525
zeluve 595
tma 160
osoje 508
zydaff 246
ze/y 595
vlasica 638
pafica 171
vedanec 23, 647
zena 648
(v)lasica 638
pijesak 499
vedavec 23, 647
zenp 548
zuna 175
pu 387
vedomec 23, 647
zpfi 525
roda 268
zov 89
EAST SLAVIC
rudetl sp 468
cemerl 265
jezu 343
sjadry 639
cemeru 265
krlnuti 185
Russian Church
snubiti 369
deza 649
loduka 74
Slavonic [RusCS]
tesla 38
deza 649
/ubu 50
gurkati 24
d/'az// 2 1 1
malu 23
jara 654
Old Russian [ORus]
doci 147
megnuti 109
klejl 4
beru 56
dosin' 564
meniti 536
pajasni 224
brat(r)u 84
ga/ab 519
mormomrati 142
pallet 225
cemer 265
jaffy 522
muchu 385
782
LANGUAGE INDEX (New Russian)
muknuti sja 527, 528
Perun- 582
snuxa 148
yapa 343
mtilzu 381
Perunovti dubti 582
Stribogu 231
veno 369
muskti 34
Perunti 407, 582
strtijl 335
vev erica 540
navJ 150
polu 83
stryjl 335, 609
v/azu 178
nestera 237 , 394
rezatf 81
synu 533
vodili 369
nevesta 369
Rug/U 642
tilo 247
voditi zenu 346
opica 384
serenu 287
tyju 560
Volosti 153, 200
padoroga 477
sima 272
ui 609
znamja 518
New Russian [Rus]
Alphabetic order: a, b, c, £, d, e (e), g,
i, j, k, kh, 1, m, n, 0 , p, r,
s, §, t, u, v, z, z
alynja 155
carovatl 362
duch 82
Hem 178
cajy 362
duju 388
irn/a 390
baju 535
cas 583
duzy 211, 614
inej 287
bas 513
Cemer 265
dva 399
/va 654
begu 491
deremsa 620
dve 399
belena 267
ceremukha 106
dvenadcati 404
jabloko 25
beiy/ 115, 641
ceren 88
jablon 25
bereg 269
ceres 224
ell 429
jadro 507
bereza 55
cemyj 69, 106, 115
ez 264
jagoda 63
beru 90
cervi 649
jalovec 324
bezpalyj 255
Cetvertoj 390
gadatl 564
jary; 362
bleju 70
cetvertyj 401
galitlsja 89
jasenl 32
blekati 70
cukhati 418
gladkyj 529
jastreb 191
blekotatl 70
cup 262
glum 255
jatrovi 522
bljudu 636
gn/da 357
jaz 343
blokha 206
debelyj 574
gogolatl 345
jazyk 594
blud 147
deren 528
gogot 345
jebu 508
bob 55
deren 528
golod 1 58
jel 324
bobr 57
derevnja 237
goios 89
jergajet 508
bog 161, 231
dergati 471
golova 45
jerzajet 508
bolobolitl 542
desjat 403
golubdj 114
jerzatl 525
bolozno 431
desjatyj 403
go/yj 45
bor 51
desna' 594
gomola 450
kakatl 187
borju 549
deverl 84
gon 548
kavatl 66
boroda 251
devjatl 403
gora 270
kavka 321
borosno 5 1
devjatyj 403
gorod 199
kidati 581
borsc 439
deza 629
gospodi 371
kila 268
borzoj 194
d/ad/a 609, 610
govetf 418
kirplcnyj 115
borzyj 515
dobryj 457
grab 273
klej 4
britl 158
doc! 147
grebu 563
klen 367
brostl 561
dol 618
griva 391
klestiti 413
bijuch 561
ddlgyj 357
grjadu 546
kobec 191
bronyj 642
dollnij 618
groza 568
kogotl 272
brovf 188
dom 192, 281
grudy 379
koloti 549
buben 395
do rob 607
gun(j)a 252
kom/f/451
buz 58
doroga 47 1
gusf 236
komolyj 273
bytl 53
doroziti 471
komoni 273
bzdetf 194
dozd/ 43
igo 655
konl 273
drevesnyj ugoll 104
ikra 604
kopyto 272
cervf 594
drjapati 567
d 371
korl 312
cmeb284
drozd 582
da 371
koricnevyj 1 15
— 783
LANGUAGE INDEX (New Russian)
korm 84
lovitl 284
porog 442
korob 52
/oza 80
oba 400
porosenok 425
korop 90
lub 50
obmanuti 154
posokh 80
korosta 570
lubok 50
odm- 399
pozratl 175
kordva 273, 648
lucltl 505
ogonf 202
pravnuk 156
kosa 570
luka 618
d/co 71, 418
pru 549
kos 52
luplju 567
o/cum" 418
pry gatl 323
/cof 91
lut 353
ol 60
prygnutl 323
kotec 282
lutije 353
oleni 154
pry ti 323
kotitlsja 91
ollkha 1 1
pseno 581
kotora 201
mak 440
oloro 347, 641
pu/cd 251, 469
/coza 229
malma 69
orekh 405
pulja 72
/coze/ 229
mama 386
orel 173
purpuroxyj 1 15
/coza 229
mar 511
oru 450, 536
pyre/ 639
krasnyj 115
mad 385
osa' 636
/oy'a/c 205
Mati Syra Zemlja 174
dsem 504
rana 650
kroju 143
mekh 511
osefr 550
razoriil 158
krokva 441
melivo 247
osma 33
re£>ro 488
krovi 7 1
melkij rogatyj skot 23, 365
ostl 237
rezaff 81
kukusa 142
menl 205
osva 636
rlbyj 537
/cur 143
meza 380
otec 195
rodltl 249
mg/a 110
oves 409
rosa 158
khromdj 156
mjazdra 375
ovfn 236
rosf 269
khvoj 80
mnitl 575
ozero 343
rozovyj 1 1 5
khvoja 80
mnog3
ozeledica 287
rozf 49 1
khvorost 599
mokh 385
ruda 379
khvdryj 650
molnija 353, 582
pakh 517
rudoj 48 1
molod 532
pa/cha 517
rudy/ 48 1
/ada 358
moloko 381
pa7ec 255
runo 252, 570
/ady/ 358
molotl 247
pe/a 104
cydafl 642
/a/ 42
molva 535
pen! 442
/yga ff 61
/an! 155
molviti 535
perdetl 194
fysl 359
lap a 209
morkovl 620 .
pe^f'u 228
Zap/flllO
morositl 477
persi 81
se/o 282
/a'pof/110, 568
mostovaja 441
pes 113
semf 402
lapotok 110
moska 208
pestruska 604
sen 508
laska 638
motatl 547
petl 519
serdce 262
lekha 215
mukha 208
pisatf 1 1 3
serebro 5 1 8
len 206
muz 367
piskatl 604
sereda 262
/ev 356
mys 387
piscu 72
seren 287
linl 568
mytr 108
pizda 507
seren 287
/jada 200
mzatl 109
pjast 255
serp 5 1 7
Ijadveja 356
mziti (close eyes) 109
p/a fa 265
seru 186
ljud 248, 416
mziff (cloud) 110
pjati 40 1
seryj 1 1 5
ljudi 248
p/afy/ 402
sestra 52 1
lob 50
nagalitl 89
p/eco 516
sigati L94
/dd/ca 74
uazo/a 43
p/eua 268
sinij 1 14,1 15
log 57
nebo 110
p/eva 269
slavoocije 160
lokotl 176
nefoo 110
plov 74
s/ezy 527
lom 81
neret 573
pod 209
shmak 527 , 529
Ioni 654
nereto 573
pol 83
sllva 246
/osi 178
nedji 157
polokhok 387
s/oj 348
loskut
mil 57 1
polon 185
slug 506
lososl 49 7, 525
ujanja 386
polosa 200
(s)muryj 147
/ov 284
uoga' 389
polova 104
snokha 148
— 784 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (New Polish)
s(o ) 646
ruga 264
z/jar/ 653
man 385
sok 499
rur 135
z/ma 504
mdliti po cem 1 58
sokol 191
f us/rf 475
ztnutl 653
mluviti 535
sokha 80
tvorog 382
zjatl 85, 533
modla 449
soloma 542
tysjacnyj 405
znarf 337
modry 246
solovoj 160
zob 175
mrholid 477
som 510
ugoll 104
zobatf 175
myjad 394
sdr 186
ugorf 176
zoloto 234
ozdid 170
sordka 362
uic/ia' 84
zolovka 521
paze 5 1 8
sorom 413
u/c/io 173
zorod 199
perun 582
sosna 428
ulej 96
zred 514
pstruh 604
stegno 349
ulrca 96
zubr 136
pyr 639
ston 384, 582
us7d 572
zvezda 514
py 7202
stozar 442
usrr 487
zvon 534
sadra 639
stroj 335, 609
ustrje 387, 487
spratek 24
strumeni 486
ur/ca 171
ze/c/ 217
res 38
stryj 609
uz 530
• ze/eza 225
dna 160
stugnud 547
zelr^/ 115
utery 4 1 1
suk 80
v'doya 642
zeludi 407
valed 150
suka 168
veblica 312
zelvak 595
vatra 263
sukhoj 170
ve/c 201
zena 648
vykon 362
sunica 48 1
vepri 425
zeravli 140
surok 516
reran 64
zerekh 90
Kashubian
svekor 195
rerba 643
z/V/ca 500
dron 528
svekrovf 386
vered 214, 523
zdlvz 595
svjatdj 493
verkh 416
zu/u 175
POLABIAN [Polab]
syn 533
res/ 29
pol-tupe 83, 262
syroj 69
rerer/ca 540
Ukrainian [Ukr]
Proue 358
vikh(o)n 644
lypa 353
serstl 252
vmo 644
perun 582
Old Sorb lan [osorb]
sesdpalyj 255
visnja 384
sist-desjat 405
mikac 109
sityj 573
virina 643
valjava 150
wutory 41 1
sulo 441
vitvina 571
vermjanyj 649
surin 85
vyaz 178
viscun 23, 647
Lower Sorbian
sudd 76
v^az/ 392
zolok 43
[LowSorb]
vnuk 238, 386
poi sra 83
teku 49 1
voje 508
temrivo 147
volcica 647
WEST SLAVIC
Old Polish [OPoll
res 38
volgkyj 639
gwozd 80
resrf 196
volk 646
Old Czech [OCzech]
resca 196
re/na 648
died jme 390, 438
New Polish [Poll
teterev 217
vorog 141
jadati 528
brzask 5 1 3
ti's 654
vororia 142
niesteje 87
brzmiec cry 24
tjazkyj 264
vosem 402
red/ 23, 647
cewa 96
do 247
voslmoj 403
chybnpc 509
tolk 535
vosic 637
Czech [Czech)
drapac 567
tolkati 471
vo si 351
beblad 542
dziewierz 84
toloka 496
vru 535
bratr 84
dzron 528
toloknd 471
vydra 411
drazid 47 1
gabac 563
topiti 263
vynya 82
/conar 362
grab 273
torok 572
krakorad 66
bupek 272
torotoriti 535
za 61
krs 574
Hem 178
toscyj 179
zagadka 564
krsad 574
judzic 201, 507
tretij 400
zavu 89
/a's/ca 1 58
kelito 232
rrosr/481
zelenyj 115, 246, 654
mackati 450
lasica 638
— 785 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (New Polish)
iaska 638
olow 347
w$z 530
mijac 228
pizda 507
wi$z 178
Tocharian
Alphabetic order: a, a, a, c, e.
i (I), k, 1, ly, m (m), n (ft), ft, o, p, r,
s, $, $, t, ts, u (u), w, y
TOCHARIAN A [TochA]
kam 594
kom 581
lyutari 4 1 7
ak 188
/cam 534
kom (burn) 88
alya-k 64
kanwem 336
/com (dog) 168
-m 454
-am 290
kar(y)- 158
kom-tpanl 159
ma/cu 389
a(n)- 395
/cast 284
/cos 457
malan 25
ancal 61, 272
kayurs 363
kost- 549
malke 381
artar 506
kic 522
kot- 549
malyw- 247
a tas 37
kakmartik 25
kramartse 264
mahk 528
afar 194
kalwalte 56
/crasa- 577
man 385
ak 237
/car 534
/cri 263
mar 395
ak- 170
/car/ce 249
krop- 2 1 7
masak 571
a/car 567
/carpa- 285
kror 272
macar 385
aks- 535
karyap 312
krossam 113
ma/c 344
a/- 629
/cas- 536
ksar 170
malka- 381
a/a/c 411
katk- 256
kru 481
mask- 154
a/em 176
/cats 2
ku 168
maksu 457
arnpi 400
J /ca7 607
ku- 448
makte 457
anc 611
2 /ca/- 607
kukal 640
mank- 343
ancam 82
/ca/n- 534
k u li 648
mant 457
ant 209
/ca/y- 352
kulmamts- 542
mant- 547
ap- 636
kant 405
kulyp- 158
markam- 77
apsa 64, 353
kantu 594
kumnas- 1 1 5
mars- 209
are 434
kark- 65
kuras 113
mank- 490
arinc 329
kam- 549
kursar 491
mas/c- 482
arid 518, 641
karpi 490
kuryar 185
massunt 80
art- 410
kartkal 186
/cus 456
mew- 388
arwar 362
/cas- 188
/cwar- 248
mt- (dirt) 1 60
as 229
katk- 229
mi- (less) 351
as- 170
ke 457
/a/c 57
muk- 527, 528
astar 87
klaiik 62
lake 57, 352
mus- 543
as'c 237
kla(w)- 348
/a'r 358
musk- 388
ati 237
. klawa- 262
/a/c- 505
musna- 388
kleps- 413
lank- 62
camp- 187
klin- 348
/at- 228
nakcu 394
ckacar 148
klis- 588
/ip- 527
nas- 484
-Ci 455
/c/ots 262
/it/c- 228
nasu 484
cmol 35
klyosa- 262
/u 23, 284
nas 53
cu 455
klyosa- 262
lu- 481
nati 20 1
-klyu 192
luk- 505
nacki 329
e- 186, 224
knana- 337
lut- 228
nasi 329
ents- 35
ko (cavity) 96
lutk- 607
nassan 329
es 516
ko (cow) 134
nata/c 329
esa/c 612
/co- 549
lyaskam 323
nakstar 1 50
/coc 62
/y/par 528
nam- 63
i- 228
kolam 74
/y/ca/y 516
natsw- 175
ime 337
kolye 142
lyutar 41 7
nessef 362
786 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (TocharianA)
new 74
pik- 1 13, 414
smi- 345
taryak 404
nokte 394
pis- 72
snaki 12
fa- 472, 506
noktim 394
pisa- 519
sne 25
tap- 496
nu 397
plak- 205, 434
spant- 351
tassi 348, 472
nu- 89
plakam 434
spark- 285
taka- 468
nwam 150
plan ta- 514
sruk- 588
tal- 352
platk- 561
Siam- 543
tarn- 35
-Hi 454
p/u- 561
su- 477
tanki 516
nkat 231
piufk- 561
swase 477
tap- 534
nom 390
pnak 405
swar 560
tark- 481
nom-kalywats 437
poke 26
swas- 477
tarkar 477
hom-klyu 192
por 202
fas- 472, 506
nom ta - 390
porai 37
sar 521
tkam 174, 232, 561
nu (new) 393
pot- 636
sak 402
fka- 47 1
nu (nine) 403
poto 62
salyp 194
rparl54, 574
nuk 454
pracar 84
saptant 402
tpuk- (apart) 25
praski 198
sarm 535
tpuk- (hide) 268
ok - 248
prast 583
sartw- 77
tram- 509
okat 402
pratsak 191
sik 187
trank- 395
oko 63
prakar 210, 450
skasf 402
fre 400
oktant 403
prank- 644
sme 504
frif 400
olyi 74
putk - 144
sni 455
tu 455
oiik 150
soma-pacar 195, 499
tuiik 575
opsaly 649
rake 535
sonf 488, 637
turs-ko 508
or 598
rapurHe 22, 608
sotre 143, 455
fwas- 87
orkam 147
rafak 641
spar 534
fwe 388
orfo 269
rak- 187
spam 527
rap- 567
spat 402
fsar254
p- 391
ri 210
Siam 43 1
fsarw- 500
pare 91
rin- 388
stop 442
fsak- 87
pats 371
rfar 481
tsam- (branch) 80
pacar 195, 590
ru- 534
salman 158
tsam- (build) 87
pak 161, 21 1
rufk- 471
sanwem 322, 592
tsan- 486, 491
pas- 198
ruwa- 567, 570
saku 252, 569
tsar 547
pat- 159
saf 475
tsar- 567
pak- (cook) 125
saku 499
sak 403
fseke 628, 649
pak- (see) 505
saiu 262
sak-panpi 404
tsekesi pekesi 439
pal 650
sam (one) 399
sak-wepi 404
tsik- 649
pal- 536
sam (same) 499
sam 648
tsmar 80
palk- 513
sark 108
sarme 504, 592
fsrasi 35
palt 348
sas 399
sew- 653
pant 402
sak- 124, 523
sisak 350
wac 471
panw- 571
sakar 493
sis'ri 251
wak 623
pan 401
sa/e 498
skant 403
walu 150, 153
par- 56, 90
sarm 534
so- 356
walyi 607
park- 33
saksak 405
som 366
wanf 72, 643
parkar 269
j sa/- 285
spal 260
wani 1 58
parra-krase 507
2 sa7- 285
s'ren 543
wark 284
pars- 540
salp- 88
start 401
warp 199
parsk - 198
sark 516
st war 401
was 454
parwat 399
se 56, 533
suwa- 175
wasf 281
parwam 188
si- 500
wa*- 208
passam 8 1
sik- 448
talke 496
wak- 538
pats 595
skak 323
tampe 187
warpa- 199
pe 209
smale 154
tark- 572
wasir 112, 550
— 787
LANGUAGE INDEX (TocharianA)
wal 490
yom- 271
wa7- 150, 567
yoni 228
want - 607
yow- 508
wap- 572
ype 563
war 636
ysar 7 1
war - (perceive) 417
ysalman 158
war - (true) 606
ytar 228, 487
wark- 252
yuk 274
warkant 640
yuk- 547
warksal 649
wart 199
yutk- 201,507
wart- 607
TOCHARIAN B [TochB]
was (gold) 234
ai- 224
was (poison) 439
aik- 270
was - 109
a/se 262
wask- 507
aittanka 408
wash 199
akruna 567
wat 399
akwam-pere- 229
watk- 642
a/yek 64, 411
we 399
a/yzye 176
wek- 154
amaks-pante 202, 625
wen- 335
amiskanne 413
wi- 198
amiske 413
wik- 607
amma-kki 386
wiki 404
anask- 82
wir 366, 548
ant-api 400
wkam 91, 488, 625
arance 329
w/aw- 490
astare 87
wrat- 249
as/ye 229
wratk- 88, 125
atamo 35
wsar 581
ate 37
wu 399
at/ya- 237
auk 529
7-290
auk- 248
/a- 362
auki 248
yas 455
auks- 248
/a'- 228
aulon 96
yat- 472
awz 510
yak- 343
a/c201
yal 154
a&- 170, 592
yar- 108
a/ce 237
yark 449
a/cs- 535
yars- 197
a'/- 629
yas- 77
alask- 560
yat- 472
a/me 207, 539
yepe 336
ante 60, 209
yerpe 108
antse 516
yes 455
anme 82
yet we 472
ap- 636
yme 487
ar/c- 270
yn- 290
aricwi 518, 641
-yo 20
arft- 410
yok (drink) 175, 636
arwa 598
yok (hair) 252
arwer 362
yom 228
a"s- (dry) 170
as- (king) 330
kaume 581
asta 77
kaut- 549
as'ce 237
kau u rse 363
awe 238, 592
kantsa- 510, 641
kanm- 357
cake 491, 592
kare 534
came/ 35
karkkalle 186
camp- 187
karpa- 285
cancare 575
karyan 263
cahk- 575
katk- 256
ce/c- 595
katso 2
cj 455
kaya- 653
cincare 575
l kal 607
col 82
2 kal- 607
cowa/ tar/c- 543
ka/n- 534
kalp- 595
ek 188, 592
kals- 207
eksalye 649
kalts- 170
eCn> 395
ka/y- 352
enem 290
ka/yp- 595
enestai 543
kalypitsi 468
en/c- 35
-kalywe 192
eiikwe 150
kanmask- 115, 468
eficuwanne kentse 32
kants- 493
epastye 204
kark- (bind) 65
epinkte 402
kark- (grow) 249
epiiite 402
kam- 549
erk 592
kama- 185
erkatstse 507
karpiye 490, 523, 592
ertar 506
karsk- 507
efre 194
kartk- 186
effe 611
karwene 474
ewe 109, 522
kary- 185
eye 510
karya- 592
kask- 545, 592
/- 228
katk - (down) 1 69
ikam 404
katk- (go) 229
ike 192, 622
katkare 169
ts'cem 108
katna- 500
ke/e 640
kaice 96
kern 174,232
ica/cse 323
kerne 592, 594
kamartike 25
kemesse serke 1 08
/cante 405, 592
kene 534, 592
kanti 639
keni 592
kantwo 592, 594
keni(ne) 336
karak 249
kercapo 33
/caras' 249
kerciyi 199
karep 3\2
kertte 336
karse 272
keru 443
karwa 481
ker(y)- 158
karyor 185
kes- 188
kau- 549
kest 284
kauc 62
keu 134, 592
kaum 88
kewiye 134
— 788 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Tocharian B)
klaiks- 413
/are 358
mi- (dirt) 160
or 592, 598
klautso 262
laic- 505, 592
mi- (less) 351
orkamo 147
klawa- 262
lanle- 62
mile- 109
osf 281
Way- 348
lac- 228
misa 375
klank- 62
lelce 57, 352, 592
m iso 613
p- 391
klants- 588
leki 57
mif 271
paiyy r e 209
klask- 348
lenke 62, 618
miw- 388
pal warn 535
klenke 62
leswi 637
mlufle- 247
param 479
klepe 595
Zina- 528
moliye 124
parwa 646
klin- 348
lip- 527, 528
mof 271
parwe 399
kliye 648
lit- 228
m rest! we 80
patarye 195
klutk - 607
litk- 228
mus- 543
paut- 636
klyause- 262
lu- 481
muse- 388
pauto 62
klyausa- 262
luk- 505
musk- 388
pacer 195, 590, 592
klyep- 595
lut- 228
musna- 388, 543
palee 161, 21 1
kokale 592, 640
luwo 23, 284
musa- 388
pas- 72
kokal-panta 640
mutk- 256
pask- 198
kolmo 74
lyasam 592
pale- 505
kolyi 142
lyale- 352
naksam 150
palea- 563
kor 96
lyeksye 237
nakstar 150
pale w- (cook) 125
/cos 457
lyipar 528
nales- 570
pakw- (see) 505
icosi 133
lykaske 516
nana- 337
pal- 536
koym 96
lyulee 352
nasle- 561
palle- 513
kramartse 264
lyukemo 83
nam- 63
pallew 214
kranko 267
lyulee 505, 513
natk- 47 1
pann- 571
kraniye 260
-ne 290
-panta 625
kraup- 217
maiwe 249
nekclye 394
panta- 640
kramar 264
malkwer 381
nes- 484
par- 56, 90, 592
lerasa- 577
ma£ce 255
nesait 362
park- 33
kronkse 271
mascitsi 387
nesam 53
parkare 269
krorlya 272
mauk- 527, 528
nete 201
pars- 540
krosce 113
maune 158
no 397, 592
parsk- 198
leu 168
ma 395
nu- 89
parwane 188, 479
leu- 448
macer 385, 590, 592
parw.esse 399
kuk- 90
malca 344
-n 454
past 43
leulyp- 158
matsts- 175
nakte 231
pascane 8 1
kuni-mot 271
male- 527, 528
nare 573
pafsa 595
kurp- 607
mal- 124, 258, 247
nas' 454
peret 37
lc u se 456
mal-s a /e- 258
nem 390
peri 9 1
leuwa- 89
mank- 343
nem-kalywe 192, 438
pest 43
kwalne 448
mant- 547
nem fa- 390, 438
petso 371
lewar- 248
mantana- 547
nerwe 654
pile- 113,414
kwarsar 49 1
mantann- 547
nor 61 1
pile 650
leva's- 82, 518
mars- 209
nu 403
pilta 348
lewele 246
martk- 490
nunte 403
pihkte 402
lewem 168
mas- 388
nuwe 393, 592
pitke 538
mask- (exchange) 184
piya- 519
lac 228
mask- (remain) 482
oleo 63
pis 401
hit- 228
-me 455
oleso 135
pisaka 405
laiwo 349
mekwa 389
olef402
p/ale- 205, 434
/a We 81, 247
mell 25
oktante 403
plaki 434
laics 497
mely- 247
o/yi 74
planta- 514
lank u tse 353
meiiki 528
omsmem 612
plank- 185, 349
la’l- 588
mene 385
onmim 410
platk- 561
lane 448
meslce 571
op 194
pie we 74
— 789 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (TocharianB)
plu- 561
serke 108, 123, 629
plus- 561
stTc- 187
pokai- 26
skak 323
porsnai - 265
skar- 577
postam 43
skiyo 508
pratsako 191
slakkare 523
prakre 210, 451
smi- 345
pram- 450
snai 25
prank- 644
solme 262
prants- 540
somske 533
prentsa 56
sopf 582
presto 583
soy 56, 533
presciya 583
soy- 500
procer 84, 479
spaw- 500
proskye 198
spant- 351
pruk- 323
spark- 285
putk- 144
spe 612
puwar 202
sprane 265
pya/c- 549
sru/c- 588
ra- 583
sfare 543
staukk- 547
ratre 481, 592
stam 43 1
rap- 567
stam- 543
rapatsi 567
sfe 543
rale- 187
stinask- 547
ram- 63
su- 477
ras- 124
su/c- 63
reki 535
suwo 425
retke 640
swanana misa 425
rin- 388
sware 560
nye 210
swas- 477
rmer 491
swese 477
ru- 534
syelme 560
ruk- 516
rutk- 471
sa/ype 194, 592
ruwa- 567, 570
san 455
saiwe 413
sar 254
sarm 535
sal 160
sams- 472
salyiye 498
sark- 229
sam 499
sam- 77
sark 5 1 6
se 399
5a' 457
secake 350
sak- 124
sek 410
sakre 493
ser 521
sarm 534
seske 12
sa/y- 534
sesketstse 12
hal- 285
sewi 507
2 sa7- 285
siko 187
salk- 471
sim 283
salp- 88
s/cas 402
sanmetse 527
skaska 405
sarp- 175
skaste 402
se457, 592
s/e-fas 348
sekwe 499, 592
smaye 504
smare 194, 568
tank- 264
soor 571
fap- 534
sofri 143, 455
far- 535
spane 527
tark- (release) 481
spara- 534
tark- (textile prep) 572
sukask- 63
taryaka 404
su/tf 402
fas- 472, 506
suktante 402
fe 457
tek- 595
s'a/yye 23
telki 496
s'a/c 403
tin- 160
sak-pis 404
tkacer 148
sak-wi 404
tot 457
sana 592, 648
trai 400
saumo 366
traksim 252
sausam 592
fremf 509
safe 475
treiik- 395
saw- 356
tresk- 175
sa- 506
trite 400, 592
sampraye 504
tu- 87
sank- 255
tuk- 268
s(c)anm- 543
tumane 56 1
s'cfre 547
fuwe 455
scirye 543
fwa- 592
sent si 23, 592
fwas- 87
serwe 23
fwere 168, 592
sincatstse 530
skante 403
fweye 388
s'o/iye 104
tsak- 68
spal-mem 260
tsakna- 68
sran- 409, 592
tsarw- 500
s'ran 248
tsak- 87
s'farfe 401
fsam- 87, 592
s'fwer 401, 592
tsan- 486, 491
stwerpew 23
tsar- 567
sukye 514
f sene 486, 491
s'uwa- 175
falwe 161
tsik- 592, 649
tsiraune 35
fal/a- 352
waike 154
tall am 592
walkwe 646
taiiki 516
walo 490
taiikw 575
war 636
fapre 154, 574, 592
warke 354
tarkar 477
warksal 649
fa/ya 400
war me 24
faffa/ri 472, 506
warfo 199
fa’- 472, 506
wase 439, 592
taka- 543
wasfsl 109
tano 237, 592
waf 410
fa's 472
wafe 399
tak- 595
wak - 538
tal- 352
wa/fs- 142
fa/p- 534
wap- 572
fam- 35
wark- 252
790 —
LANGUAGE INDEX (Phrygian)
warpa- 199
weswe 171
yar/ce 449
yerpe 108
warsse 141
wes mask-
yasa 234
yerter 640
wask- 507
wet a 471
yasar 7 1
yes 455
wasir 112, 550
wi 399
yafwe 112, 471
yesn 175, 592
waya- 208
wi- 198
ya- 228
yetwe 472
want- 607
wik- 607
yam- 271
ykasse 158
war- 417
wina 158
yask- 33
ymiye 487
war-sk- 606
wip- 507, 607
yassu 33
yn- 290
was- (clothe) 109
witsako 80
yaf- 472
yok (hair) 252
was- (dwell) 171
w/aw- 490
yak- 343
yok (drink) 175, 636
wask- 507
wpelme 572
yam- 271
yolme 207, 637
wastarye 2
wrattsai 607
yap- 508, 592
yolo 4 1 3
wat- 471
wrauna 142
yarp- 417
yoniya 228
watk- 642
wraf- 249
yars- 197
yoro 523
wek 623
yas- 77
ypauna 563
wene 454
y- 290
yaf- 472
ysare 58 1
wen- 335
yakne 91, 488, 625
yel- 505
yselme 1 58
werke 284
yakwe 274, 592
yelyi 607
ytarye 228, 487
werpiske 199
yal 1 54
yene 455
yu- 236
werpiye 199
yap 236
yente 72,592,643
yuk- 547
wes 454
yape 572
yepe 336
ywarc-ta$ 348
wesk- 535
yapoy 563
yerkwanto 640
Other Indo-European Languages
Dacian
Aulona 1 1
Bepviia} 361
Phrygian
*aba 145
Bindus 477
yb<5a 179, 361
aPfiepETop 4 1 9
Aizis 146
Aa^ioq 379
Savov 361
ad- 590
AXovzaq 487
Aei-ndrvpoq 230, 438
K£p(a)Ari 260
adSaKETop 419
* auras 145
Domator 565
KlKEppOl 106
avap 366, 548
A^ioxa 146
Durrachion 1 1
KXiv6(o)rpoyoq 367
a^pv 322
’A^ioq 146
Genthius 288
Kvpvoq 656
5aya fog 21 1
Ai^iaiq 146
Gentius 288
TUAXa 548
Pe8v 636
Azizis 146
Aocidiaq 379
I JeXXrj 548
P EKoq 4 1 9
Bersovia 146
mandos 274
neXXrivTj 548
Benagonus 419
Berzobis 146
Nau-portus 487
(peXXevq 548
bratere 84
Dausara 146
nXarcap 379
dao£ 647
dava 145
sabaium 500
Messapic
difa 628
karpa- 145
Sestus 288
argorian 518
difog 628
*lugas 145
Sexto 288
barzidihi 378
edaes 419
*mal- 145
Sextus 288
pXagivi 451
edae£ 4 1 9
*mariska- 145
Teuta 228, 417
Ppevdov 155
£TI- 215
*medas 145
Topapoq 147
Dazes 379
264
Saprasara 146
Tritano 288
Iuppiter Menzanas 274
yEXXapoq 521
-sara 146
Tritanus 288
klaohi 262, 378, 438
Gordion 199
seba 146
Vescleves 438
Ladt- 379
Gordium 199
*tibas 145
Volcos 639
Pausd 415
-gordum 199
Zanatis 288
penke- 378
iavarepa 522
Illyrian
Qeotoria 417
wq (vi) 457
apeiq 530
Macedonian
-Si 215
kikXtiv 640
Acrabanus 288
appovreq 188, 361
veinam 455
Koq 456
Asamum 288
dAtfa 1 1
lawagtaei 31
— 791 —
f
LANGUAGE INDEX (Phrygian)
mafar419
’Api^oq 576
iuras 636
ZsvOriq 576
parap 385
Adas 487
reAA- 539
ozvfoi ferei 403
Bebrukes 57
KeXXcli 539
Venetic
podas 419
BE^pvKEq 576
pavdaKiq 199
Adua 486
mSero 228
Bidvq 576
ME^rfvai 274
donasto 62 1
TETIKpEVOq 419
-bria 576
Nrcnoq 487, 488
ekvon 274, 621
zemelen 419
ppia 2\0
-para 576
ekvopeOaris 62 1
^ePeXco 174
ppi£a 491
Pulpuldeva 576
eyo 454, 621
^Evpdv 351
fipmoq 1 99
Priooq 576
ice 621
-zordum 199
Bv^aq 576
*-sara 576
Louzera 417
Dia- 576
ZePeXt] 174
meyo 454, 621
Raetic
-c/iza 576
GKaXgri 561, 576
Puso 415
velxanu god 529
-Si^oq 649
Zovpa- 448
selboisselboi 62 1
efipo 425
Zrpfipcov 486
feufa 621
Thracian
evm 403
Tautomedes 417
vhraterei 621
Aia-^EViq 576
’EcrpEVEioq 576
Tr\ppq 576
vhuxiia 621
AxeXov 487
Esbenus 576
Zccfid^ioq 354
zonasto 62 1
Adpvq 194
rippaq 263
fcvtg 576
zofo 62 1
”Anoq 636
germo- 263
f Etpaia 444
Non-Indo-European Languages
AFRO-ASIATIC
Akkadian
Hebrew
BASQUE
Anaku 588
afhon 34
berun 347
Berber
eresu 434
bar 51
unchi 258
azre/518
harasu 434
kala’212
urre(gorri)a 234
hurasu 234
kad 444
zi/har 518
Egyptian
istar 584
lay is 856
3bw 177
kalu 272
qoph 384
gw 135
Larpu 444
sor 135
ALTAIC
pr 283
kaspu 518
yayin 644
qephi 384
hugu 143
Chuvash
s’rs’w 402
pilakku 37
Phoenician
olma 26
sisu 274
barzel 314
Hausa
5A-N/-/ 499
Karakalpak
azur/a 518
sarpu 518
Syriac
kenep 293
sessef 402
burga 2 10
Proto-Semitic
sessum 402
Mongolian
*attar 543
sukurru 38
Syrian
morin 274
*a0far 543, 586
suru 135
bava 412
alima 26
*barr- 5 1
utru 135
* burr- 51
TigrE
Turkish
*duhn- 237
Arabic
obal 25
apsak 33
*gum- 474
ball 171
hupup 272
* haras- 434
bumm 412
Ugarit
guguk 143
*hint-(at)~ 207
dinar 379
ssw 274
kenevir 293
*plq 37
fwr 135
*s-b-’-tu 402
ubullat- 25
*sab-at-u-m 402
wain 644
BANTU
*sib’att 402
ba-ntu 179
*’unw-(at-) 74, 446
LANGUAGE INDEX (Xanty)
CAUCASIAN
Georgian
batti 171
URALIC
Hungarian
a'r 484
Abkhaz
£>u412
Proto-Urauc
meh 312
acy 274
412
*/care 205
gugulis 142
*/cey- 205
Ingush
Agul
opopi 272
*kwet- 40 1
arsi 518
buhu-j4\2
sp‘ilenji 379
*kwet-kwet 403
*peca 429
Komi
Chechen
*piska 429
gort 199
buha 412
KOREAN
429
mai 274
*s;lfse 500
Mari
ETRUSCAN
*sampe 205
Man 179
Marmarce 630
*totka 205
osko 32
nepuns 204
NILO-SAHARAN
^u^ca 205
*was' 234
pundas 247
HATTIC
Nubian
*waske 234
Mordvin
ha-prassun 415
kadis 9 1
kudo 283
sawaf 26
Estonian
meks 312
tabama 26
kadakas 324
pitse 429
windu- 644
SINO-TIBETAN
kalamari 604
/coda 283
Samoedic
Proto-Sino-Tibetan
pergel 408
pi 33
HURRO-URARTIAN
*qhleks 314, 379
saareman 604
farvas 135
*wesa 234
Hurrlan
Burmese
Udmurt
ess; 274
hinzuri 27
mra# 274
Finnish
aisa 508
gurt 199
kabah 379
Chinese
ankerias 176
Veps
mahri 27
*g/krak 382
arvo 484
ora 37
pur(u)li 283
*M 382
haapa 33
oza 224
Sitlanna 402
ma 274
karhu 55
ultu 27
ma 386
kataja 324
Xanty
ush; 234
*uau 135
/cedra 309
kota 283
any 449
Urartian
SUMERIAN
mehilainen 312
burgana- 210
A.BAR 347
ora 37
sua 27
A.GAR 5 347
orja 179
u/fu 135
ansu 34
balag37
gag 272
osa 224
patja 57, 159
perkele 408
KARTVELIAN
gu 4 135
gud 135
porsas 425
sirppi 517
Proto-Kartvelian
GUSKIN 234
tama 575
*pilenji 379
imin 402
uros 135
*sw;d- 402
*wercjxJ 518
NAGGA 588
pes 403
pes-pes 403
URUDU 379
ZABAR 379
vasara 112
— 793 —
GENERAL INDEX
Numbers in bold indicate subjects with their own entries.
Alphabetical order: a, b, c, c, d, 6, e, a, f, g, h, i, j, k, 1, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, s, s, s, t, 0, ]y
u, v, w, x, y, z, z; no distinction is made between vowels with or without diacritics.
Abashevo culture, 1 - 2 , 261, 447
Abdomen, 2-3
Abel, 120
Able, 3
Abomasum, 2-3
About, 581
Above, 4
Abscess, 523
Abundant, 3
Accept, 564
Accomplish, 3
Accustom, 4
Acheron, 612
Acorn, 248, 407-408, 601
Across, 4
Act hypocritically, 43
Adam, 129
Adams, D. Q., 26, 155, 178, 253, 263,
497, 543, 594
Adhere, 4 , 528
Aditi, 367
Adityas, 351
Adpreps, 4
Adrados, E, 585, 587
Advance, 228
Adze, 37, 38
TEacus, 612
Aed, 162
Aedes rotunda Vestae, 203
Aedlles, 35
Aegean, 243
Aeneas, 427, 632
Aesdano, 139
TEsir, 120, 181-182, 330, 496, 536,
601,631,635
Aestii, 427
Afanasevo culture, 4 - 6 , 235, 339-340,
380, 425, 474, 519, 593-594, 653
Afflict, 312,413
Afraid, 198
Afrikaans, 219, 301
Afro-Asiatic, 299
After, 43
Afterworld, 151-153
Against, 6
Agamemnon, 164, 437, 587
Agapov, S. A., 329
Age, 352
Age set, 6 - 7 , 31, 121, 417, 630, 647
Agitate, 507, 607
Agnean, 303
Agni, 148, 202-204, 212
Agnicayana, 203
Agnihotra, 233
Agriculture, 7-8
Ahavaniya, 68, 203
Ahead, 61
Ahirwati, 302
Ahriman, 182
Ahura Mazdah, 119, 124, 182, 212,
239, 452, 596
Ai Bunar, 380
Aidoneus, 611
Mill, 280
Aim, 397
Aiolos, 164
Airyaman, 375
Ais, 611
Aistians, 46
Akchokrak, 545
Akhilleus, 176, 192,277,438
Akkadian(s), 256, 290
Akurgal, E., 17
Alaca Hiiyuk, 16, 261
AlaksmI, 212, 595
Alakul, 20
Alalu, 19
Alamira, 426
Alans, 20,211,303,307, 523
Alanta, 487
Alas, 313
Albanian, 8 - 11 , 288, 301
Alcoholic beverage, 44, 60
Alder, 11 - 12 , 52, 58, 597, 599-600,
603
Ale of Cuala, 280
Alekseyevka, 20
Alemanmc, 253
Alexander the Great, 241, 278, 418,
558
Alexandras, 605
Alfheimr, 177
Algonquin, 294
Allen, N.J., 122, 140
Allow, 481
Alone, 12
Along, 612
Already, 397
Altaic, 299
Alteuropaisch, 294
Altheim, 276
Altyn-depe, 390
Amass, 217
Amber, 227, 380, 392
Ambika, 182
Ambrosia, 496
Ambrosia cycle, 494
Ament, H., 223
— 795 —
GENERAL INDEX
Amorotat, 165, 375
Ammius, 163
Among, 380
Amjta, 494-495
Amjtat, 119
Amsa, 211
Amymone, 204
Anahita, 57, 124, 487
Anat, 596
Anati, E., 544, 546
Anatolia, 585
Anatolian, 12 - 17 , 50, 199, 290, 292,
296, 302, 340, 377, 419
Anatolian solution, 421 (see also
“Neolithic solution”)
Anatomy, 17-19
Ancestor god, 19-20
Ancus Martius, 119, 181
And, 20 , 214 , 583
Andre, J., 68
Andrews, A. C., 55
Andromache, 261
Andromeda, 487, 579
Andronovo culture, 6, 20 - 22 , 66, 68,
72-73, 309, 311, 325-326, 339-
340, 390, 425, 447-448, 474, 541-
542, 566, 593, 618
Angelica, 8, 21-22
Anger, 22
Angerona, 177
Angles, 219
Angra Mainyu, 182, 601
Angry, 22, 125,413
Animal, 22 - 24 , 366
Animal cry, 24
Ankou, 612
Anoint, 24 , 376
Ant, 24
Antae, 524
Antelope, 178, 519, 603
Antes, 416
Anthesteria, 151
Anthony, D. W, 157, 279, 299
Antler, 4
Anttila, R., 480
Anu, 19
Anus, 24 , 507
Any, 532
Anyang, 627
Apam Napat, 169, 203-204
Apart, 24-25
Ape, 384
Apennine, 382
Aphrodite, 26, 119, 212, 236, 358
Apollo, 161, 375-376, 427, 642, 647
Appear, 25
Appian, 289
Apple, 25 - 26 , 72, 163, 165, 264, 433,
596, 599-600, 603
Apportioner, 212
Apricot, 603
Apsidal house, 43-44, 60, 283, 604
Apuleius, 280
Apuli, 378-379
Apulus, 379
Aramaic, 30
Aranrhod, 331
Arch, 62
Archaeological principle, 296-297
Ard, 435
Ardhmagadhi, 302
Arodvi Sura Anahita, 232, 512, 595-
596
Areion, 19, 280
Ares, 124, 390, 634
Argaric, 78, 519
Argue, 125
Aristotle, 67, 264
Arjuna, 119, 164, 533, 635
Arm, 26
Armaiti, 212
Armenian(s), 26 - 30 , 92, 241, 290, 293,
296, 302, 419
Army, 30 - 31 , 630
Arnal, J., 546
Around, 32
Arpoxais, 19
Arrange, 472
Arrow, 4-5, 53-54, 65, 78 - 79 , 92, 106,
112, 127, 218, 227, 295, 317, 325,
327-328, 372, 376, 429, 447, 482,
485-486, 500, 514, 540, 558, 617,
629-630, 654 (see also “Bow”)
Arruns, 181
Arsacid Pahlavi, 303
Arsenic, 379, 588
Arsa, 369
Artaxerxes 11, 596
Artemis, 56, 438
Arthur, King, 152, 427, 612
Aru-na, 119
Arya, 73-74
Aryaman, 375
Aryan(s), 138, 179,204,213,291,304,
311,420-421,495, 552,581
As much, 457
Asgard, 163, 181
Ash 1 (tree), 32 , 66, 295, 599-600, 603
Ash2 (bum), 32-33
Ashkun, 303, 308
Ashtarte, 358
Ashurnasirpal II, 177
Ask, 33, 449
Asklepios, 375-376
Askr, 330
Aslant, 523
Asp, 90
Aspen, 33 , 599-601
Ass, 33 - 35 , 94, 107, 295, 365, 540,
628
Assail, 312
Assakenoi, 558
Assamese, 302, 306
Assembly, 35
Assert, 125
Assyrian(s), 27, 34
Asunder, 25
Asura, 370
Asuras, 212, 279
Asoka, 302, 306
Asvakayana, 558
Asvamedha, 278, 280, 330, 411, 496
AsvinI, 232
Asvins, 121, 177, 231-232, 280, 375-
376,447,495,512,556,631
Asa Vasista, 1 19, 452
Asi, 211
Astapadi, 137
At, 590
Ateste, 183
Atestine culture, 183, 621
Athamanians, 510
Atharvaveda, 306
Athene, 119, 212, 232, 243, 596, 601
Athens, 35, 78, 330, 596
Athravan, 119
Atlas, 19, 129
Attack, 64-65
Attain, 35
Attempt, 35-36
Attention, 417, 636
Attila, 301, 523
Atur Bazzen Mihr, 1 19, 203
Atur Farnbag, 119, 203
Atur Gushnasp, 1 19, 203
Audumla, 137-138 *
Auger, 36
Augustine, St, 596
Aunt, 36 - 37 , 333-334
Aurochs, 75, 86, 95, 135-137, 166,
188, 273, 321, 354, 365, 373, 429,
589,597,603,651
Aurora, 148-149, 164, 231, 438
Ausekhs, 148-149, 231
Austronesian, 299
— 796
GENERAL INDEX
Austynka, 606
Ausrine, 148-149, 231
Autumn, 504
Avalon, 612
Avars, 525
A vesta, 303,307,311
Avow, 536
Avunculate, 483, 611
Awadhi, 302
Awake, 37
Away, 37 , 61
Awl, 36, 37 , 75, 132, 325, 342, 372,
380, 396, 447, 473, 485
Awn, 7, 237
Ax, 1-2, 4, 22, 36, 37 - 39 , 65, 75, 92,
104, 112, 125, 132, 196-197, 228,
244, 317, 325, 327-328, 338, 340,
342, 347-348, 372-373, 380, 396,
414, 429, 435, 440, 482-483, 485-
486, 500, 513, 540-541, 545-547,
589, 597, 603, 618, 629-630, 651—
652
Axis mundi, 131
Axle, 39 - 40 , 516,626
Azi Dahaka, 138, 259, 529, 579, 581
Baalberge group, 41 - 42 , 340
Babble, 42
Babhmvahana, 533
Babylonian(s), 30, 307
Backl (side), 42
Back2 (behind), 42 - 4-3
Bad, 43 , 155, 516
Baden culture, 41, 43 - 44 , 104, 133,
152, 188, 200, 261, 289, 339, 445,
598, 605
Bader, E, 176,204,415
Badger, 45 , 156, 354, 363, 497, 597,
603,651
Bag, 45
Bagheli, 302
Bagnolo, 130
Bake, 125
Balanovo culture, 196 (see also
“Fatyanovo culture”)
Bald, 45 - 46 , 253
Baldi, P, 303, 469
BaldickJ., 122
Baldness, 377
Baldr, 180-182, 376
Balkan-Danubian complex, 43, 103,
146, 339, 614
Ball, 45
Ball, M.J., 101
Balor, 71, 180-181, 183, 453
Baltic, 46 - 50 , 104, 127, 221-223, 227,
294, 296, 301, 316, 337, 348, 523-
524,526,657
Balts, 167, 197
Baluchi, 303, 307
Band, 261
Bar, 272
Barber, E. J. W., 206, 266-267, 569,
574
Barbujani, G., 421, 423
Bare, 45
Barinthus, 152, 612
Barkl (tree), 50 , 600
Bark2 (dog), 50 - 51 , 65, 353
Barley, 7-8, 43, 51 - 52 , 60, 72, 86, 94,
104, 106-107, 124, 127, 166, 188,
227, 236-237, 256, 321, 350, 354,
377, 389, 409, 415, 427, 432, 474,
492, 494, 517, 541, 559, 596, 603,
617, 640, 657
Barren, 52
Bartangi, 307
Barter, 185
Barton, C. R., 151
Basarabi culture, 146, 576
Bashkard, 303
Basin, 52 , 473
Basket, 52-53
Basque, 97, 290, 295-296, 316
Bast, 50, 110
Baskartk, 303, 306
Bat, 363-364
Bathe, 108
Battle-ax, 38-39, 94, 127-128 (see also
“Ax”)
Battle of Bravellir, 182
Battle of Kuruksetra, 183
Battle of Lake Regillus, 181
Battle of the Arsian Woods, 181
Bayda, 92
Be, 53
Beads, 36, 227
Beaker culture, 53 - 55 , 78, 200, 235,
276, 279, 340, 380, 483, 519
Beam, 213, 431
Bean, 55 , 188,433,657
Bear* (animal), 31, 33, 55 - 56 , 91, 94,
156, 188, 354, 363-364, 424, 426,
429, 579, 597, 600, 603, 632, 647
Bear2 (young), 56 , 478-480
Beard, 251,253
Beat, 549, 572
Beautiful, 56-57
Beaver, 57 , 156, 188, 213, 321, 354,
363-364, 429, 540, 597, 603, 651
Bee mac Buam, 496
Bed, 57 , 642
Bedwyr, 601, 635
Bee, 57 - 58 , 427
Beech, 50, 58 - 60 , 273, 294-295, 597,
599-600, 603
Beekes, R. S. P, 36, 238, 240, 312, 370,
385, 391, 393, 461, 468-469, 480,
556, 610-611, 646
Beeler, M., 319, 622
Beer, 52, 60 , 200, 362
Beet, 432
Beetle, 312
Before, 60-61
Begin, 61
Behind, 42-43, 61
Behistun, 303
Behre, K.-E., 434
Beinhauer, K., 319
Belch, 61
Belenos, 161, 203
Belief, 61 , 263
Believe, 61
Bellquist, J. B., 45
Belly, 604
Belogrudovka culture, 104
Belonte, 423
Belorussian, 49, 301, 523
Belt, 224, 515, 544-545, 572
Beltaine, 161, 203
Bend, 61 - 63 , 193
Bendigeidfran, 280
Benefit, 484
Bengali, 302, 306
Benty Grange, 427
Benveniste, E., 24, 26, 31, 61, 118,
122-123, 160, 184, 186, 193, 202,
213, 224-225, 249, 313, 330, 335,
346, 351-352, 361-363, 377, 410-
411, 428, 450, 484, 488, 493-494,
496-497, 531-532, 538, 565, 581,
599, 622
Benvenuti, 184
Beowulf, 579
Beregovskiye, 2
Bergelmir, 20
Berlin, B , 113, 115, 246
Bernabe, A., 80, 261
Bernburg culture, 276
Bernhard, W, 147, 223, 577
Berry, 63 - 64 , 433
Berserk(r), 632-634, 647
Bessi, 576
Best,J., 577
Bestow, 224
— 797
GENERAL INDEX
Bestowed, 441
Between, 63-64
Beyond, 37, 64
Bhaga, 70, 212
Bhili, 302
Bhlma, 164
Bhisma, 231, 635
Bhojpuri, 302
Bi-, 400
Bifrost, 231
Bihari, 302, 306
Bili, 612
Bind, 64-65
Binder-god, 65
Birch, 1, 20, 32, 44, 52, 65 - 66 , 75, 104,
196, 295, 478, 495, 500, 597, 599-
601,603
Birchall, A., 245
Bird, 66 , 559, 595
Bird cry, 66
Birdlime, 384
Birds, 66 - 68 , 94-95, 151, 227
Blr-kot-ghwandai, 559
Birks, H. J., 601
Bimbaum, H., 526
Bishkent culture, 20-21, 68 - 69 , 131,
310, 558, 560, 566, 589, 617-618
Bison, 136-137, 365
Bite, 68-69
Bitter, 69
Black, 69-70, 113-115, 131, 314
Black, P, 553, 556
Blackberry, 388, 433
Blackbird, 66-67, 70
Blackbuck, 256
Blackthorn, 528
Bladder, 70
Blame, 70
Blaze, 87
Blazek, V, 25
Bleat, 70
Blegen, C., 605
Blind, 70 - 71 , 376, 387
Blindness, 375
Blood, 3, 19,71, 129, 386, 634
Bloomfield, L., 480, 552, 556
Blow, 71 - 72 , 82
Blue, 113-115,246
BMAC, 21, 68, 72 - 74 , 126, 309, 311,
378,390, 495,562,617
Boand, 204
Boar, 72, 75, 94, 157, 166, 256, 365,
396, 424-426, 514, 540, 579-580,
651 (see also “Wild pig”)
Boat, 50, 74 — 75 , 152, 431, 446, 512
Bodb, 162, 634
Bodrogkeresztur culture, 41, 75 - 76 ,
235, 380
Body, 76
Bogazkoy, 302
Bognar-Kutzian, I., 589
Bogucki, P, 383
Boian culture, 603
Boil, 76 - 77 , 125, 200, 281
Boiotos, 164
Bolster, 45
Bolt, 272
Bomhard, A., 292, 470
Bone, 19, 77 , 129
Bonfante, G., 46
Book, 50
Booty, 77 , 630
Bopp, E, 9
Border, 77
Bom, 56
Bosch-Gimpera, P, 355
Botai, 275
Both, 400
Botoritta, 97
Boudinoi, 524
Bow, 78 - 79 , 102, 202, 227, 295, 374,
513-514, 545, 629-630, 633, 642,
655
Bowl, 443, 446
Box, 50
Boy, 107
Boyd, W C., 55
Brahma, 236, 487
Brahma, 369
Brahman, 119-121, 452
Brahmana, 306
Brahui, 256, 308
Braid, 64, 570
Brain, 19, 79 ^- 80 , 129, 370
Braj-Bhasa, 302
Bran, 104, 162
Branch, 80 , 209, 600-601
Brandenstein, W, 110, 295, 584, 587
Bran wen, 162, 165
Brave, 80-81
Bread, 52, 409
Break, 81 , 567
Breast, 81 - 82 , 385
Breath, 19, 82, 129, 153
Breathe, 82 , 518
Bremmer, J., 611
Brennus, 97
Bres, 180, 331
Breton, 99, 300
Brew, 199
Bfhaspati, 212, 231
Bricriu, 138, 601
Bride-price, 82 - 83 , 196, 369-370,
372, 533
Brigantes, 269
Brigantia, 269
Bright, 83 , 513
Brigit, St, 269
Bring, 229
Bristle, 237, 252, 547
Brittonic, 98-99
Brixhe, C., 361, 419-420, 577
Broad, 83
Brome, 432, 596
Bronocice, 127, 626-627
Bronze, 2, 32, 39, 54, 78-79, 92, 104,
107, 132-133, 139, 183-184, 244,
266, 273, 314, 317-318, 321, 325,
327, 336, 338-339, 341, 347, 367,
372-373, 379-380, 392, 396, 440,
443-444, 447, 473, 478, 482, 486,
517, 558, 562, 568, 586, 588, 606,
613-614, 630,652,654
Broth, 84
Brother, 84 , 133-134, 333, 392-393,
478-480, 609, 611
Brotherhood, 84
Brother-in-law, 84—85
Brow, 478-480
Brown, 85 , 113-115, 155
Brown, C. H., 24, 434
Brown, D., 157, 279
Brozovic, D., 408
Bpvyeg, 419
Bruig na Boinne, 162
Brundisium, 380
Brutus, 183
Bubble, 76
Bucephalos, 278
Buchvaldek, M., 128
Buck, CD. ,319, 470,536
Bucket, 169
Budakalasz, 43-44
Buff Ware, 311
Buffalo, 137
Bug-Dniester culture, 52, 86 - 87 , 146,
415
Buguly, 22
Build, 87 , 281,362
Bulgarian, 301, 524
Bulge, 323
Bull, 95, 102, 135-136, 138,280,375,
389, 426,499, 512, 519
Bullace, 86
Bundeli, 302
798
GENERAL INDEX
Bundle, 262
Burden, 87
Burebista, 146
Burgundians, 219, 301, 470
Burial, 57, 151
Buringuni, 303
Burn, 87-88, 232,513,560
Burrow, 159
Burrow, T., 309, 312, 639
Burushaski, 308
Butter, 3, 382, 494
Butterfly, 88
Buttermilk, 382
Buttocks, 88
Buttons, 53
Buzz, 72
Bylany, 355
Bynan, T., 480
Ca’ Morta, 233
Cabbage, 432, 620
Cackle, 345
Caesar, J., 78, 135, 147, 149, 222-223,
633-634
Cain, 120
Calabri, 378
Caldron, 101, 443, 446, 494, 578
Calf (of leg), 604
Call, 89-90
Callosity, 523
Calypso, 11, 612
Camel, 20, 72, 107, 135-136, 256,
389,617,651
Campanile, E., 141, 439
Campbell, L., 601
Canoe, 74
Capercaille, 67
Cappadocian, 302
Captive, 90
Cardinal directions, 159-160
Carian, 302
Carnegrate group, 233
Carp, 86,90, 156,597
Carrot, 433-434, 620
Carry, 90-91
Cart(s), 91, 520
Carve, 143
Case, 91
Casimcea, 339
Casini, S., 546
Castignano, 423
Castor, 162
Castrate, 91, 137
Castrele Triane, 132
Cat, 91-92, 358, 365
Catacomb culture, 4, 56, 78, 92-94,
138-139, 152, 197, 245, 279, 327,
439,512,541,626, 653
Catal Htiyuk, 34, 94-96, 136, 169,
351,380,445,528,624
Catalan, 300
Catch, 564
Cato, 450
Cattle, 1,4, 19-20, 23, 43, 72, 75, 86,
92, 94, 104, 107, 119, 156, 166,
170, 188, 196, 227, 230, 275, 279,
295, 321, 325, 327-328, 341, 350,
354, 359, 365 , 372, 377, 383, 389,
396, 414, 446, 498, 512, 521, 540,
542, 559, 585, 589, 593, 596, 605-
606,617, 651,653
Cattle raid, 138-139, 634-635
Caucasian languages, 302
Cauliflower, 432
Cavalli-Sforza, L., 421-423, 585
Cavity, 96, 618
Caw, 66
Cedar, 20, 324, 599-600
Cei, 601,635
Celtae, 96
Celt-Iberian, 300
Celtic, 44, 96-102, 221, 223, 233, 276,
290, 294, 296, 300, 314-316, 318,
613
Celts, 53, 55, 96-102, 127, 152, 184,
223, 254, 289, 314, 344, 348, 420,
426, 623, 645
Cemetery H culture, 102-103, 310,
558-559
Cenn Faelad, 31
Censer, 4-5, 92, 94, 267, 327, 359, 652
Centaur, 103, 184
Center of gravity, 292-294, 298
Ceres, 280
Cemavoda I culture, 43, 103-104, 146,
339
Cemavoda III, 133, 565
Chaff, 8, 104
Chaffinch, 201
Chair, 505
Chamalieres, 97
Chamois, 110, 365
Chantraine, R, 245
Chapli, 396
Charcoal, 87, 104
Chariot, 1, 20, 34, 79, 92, 119, 140,
152, 161-164, 177, 233, 244-245,
277-278, 306, 309-310, 358, 368,
415, 419, 521, 595, 621, 627-628,
633, 643
Chariotry, 7
Charlemagne, 219
Charlton, T. R., 526
Charm, 154
Cham, 253
Chattisgarhi, 302
Chaucer, 220
Chaya, 289
Cheat, 154
Cheek-piece, 1, 4, 20, 22, 157, 245,
275, 373,447, 540, 559
Cheese, 3, 383
Chen, Kwang-tzuu, 474
Chernoles culture, 104-105
Chernyakovo culture, 104—106, 525-
526
Chernykh, E. N., 235, 380
Cherry, 86, 106, 354, 384, 433, 599-
600, 603
Chestnut, 405
Chew, 175
Chickadee, 66
Chick-pea, 8, 72, 106, 390, 432-433
Child, 106-107
Chin, 107, 251
Chinese, 299, 421
Chinvat bridge, 152
Chisel, 372, 447
Chital, 256
Chitral, 302
Chust culture, 107
Cicero, 314, 390, 426
Cilician, 302
Circe, 106, 426
Circle, 108, 486
Cistern, 343
Citellus (squirrel), 603
Clan, 192, 348, 531
Clay, 108, 152
Clean, 108-109
Clear, 83
Cliff, 407-408
Cloak, 109
Close (the eyes), 109
Cloth, 109-110, 266,569
Clothe(s), 109
Clothing, 109-110
Cloud, 19, 110, 129
Cloudy, 147
Club, 110-112, 583,634
Clutton-Brock, J., 35, 139, 168, 230,
366, 428,512
Clytius, 32
Coal, 104
Cock, 67,112,611
— 799 —
GENERAL INDEX
Coemptio, 370
Cofta Broniewska, A., 227
Coin-chenn, 31
Cold, 112-113
Coleman, R., 556
Coligny calendar, 97
Coll, 427
Collis, J., 254
Color, 113 - 115 , 117, 120, 131
Colored, 538
Comb wool, 570
Combat, 201
Come, 115
Comitatus, 632
Commoners, 129
Companion, 115—116
Comparative Mythology, 116-123
Compel, 418
Compensation, 123 , 346
Complain, 123
Complete, 108
Compress, 451
Compute, 397
Comrie, B., 526
Conall Cernach, 253, 331, 438
Conan, 280
Conceal, 134, 543
Concern, 259
Conchobor, 280, 611
Concubine, 123
Confarreatio, 369
Confederate, 116
Confide, 418
Conn, 162
Connla, 533
Conquer, 123 - 124 , 630
Consecrate, 493
Consider, 575
Consort goddess, 124
Constantine the Great, 288, 427
Constrain, 64
Contain, 134, 443
Contend, 124—125
Conway, R., 319
Cook, 125
Cooked, 1 18
Coot, 125 , 156
Copper, 1-2, 4, 32, 39, 53, 73, 75, 79,
111-112, 125, 127, 139-140, 218,
235, 244, 261, 310, 314, 317, 325,
327-328, 347, 350, 379-380, 390,
395-396, 414, 447, 473, 478, 482,
485, 517, 557-558, 561-562, 586,
588,603,618-619,651
Copper Hoard culture, 1 1 1-112, 125 -
127,310, 562
Copulate, 369, 508
Corded Ware culture, 8, 39, 41, 48-
50, 53, 68, 78, 127 - 128 , 131, 196,
200, 223, 279, 291, 338, 340, 372,
380-381, 430, 445, 537, 588-589,
597-598, 606
Corinth, 243
Coriolanus, 31
Corner, 143
Cornish, 99, 300
Corsac, 651
Cosmogonic, 153
Cosmogony, 117, 129 - 130 , 544
Cosmology, 130-132
Costa, G., 43
Co^ofeni culture, 132 - 133 , 339, 565
Couch, 57
Cough, 133
Count, 397
Country, 133
Cousin, 133 - 134 , 333-334
Cover, 134 , 488-489
Cow(s), 108, 130, 134 - 139 , 153, 162,
177,256, 273,365,611
Cowgill, W, 543, 556, 585
Cowherd, 268
Crab, 512
Crack, 534
Crackle, 394
Craft, 139
Craft god, 139-140
Craftsman, 139 , 619
Crane, 67, 140-141
Crane, E., 58
Crawl, 141
Crayfish, 512
Cream, 382
Create, 377
Creation, 19
Creator, 141
Creature, 23
Crete, 385
Cricetus (hamster), 603
Crime, 123, 141 , 647
Crimean Gothic, 219, 301
Cri§ culture, 146
Crooked, 62, 142 , 156, 348, 376
Cross-cousin marriage, 131, 134, 370
Cross-eyed, 70
Crossland, R. A., 245
Crow, 66-67, 70, 142 , 543
Crow kinship system, 36, 133-134,
239, 333-334
Crowd, 217
Crown of head, 261
Crunniuc, 596
Crush, 142
Cry, 24, 89-90, 123,246-247
Cu Chulainn, 162, 183, 192, 253, 277-
278, 438,533,611,632-633
Cuckoo, 124, 142-143
Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, 146, 572
(see also “Tripolye culture”)
Cudgel, 112
Cultural principle, 296
Culwych, 427
Cup, 444, 446
Cupid, 212, 358
Curatii, 453
Curds, 382-383
Cure(s), 262, 376
Curonian, 47, 301
Curse, 450
Curve, 62, 143
Custom, 143
Cut, 143-144
Cut up, 160
Cynewulf, 427
Cypress, 295
Cyril, St, 301, 523
Cyrus the Great, 7
Czech, 301, 523
Covic, B., 289
Dacian(s), 9, 11, 104, 106, 145-147,
290, 301, 576
Dadhyanc Atharvana, 447
Daena, 265
Dagda, 162, 180, 231
Dagger, 53-54, 92, 132, 218, 233, 244,
317, 325-327, 338, 341-342, 372-
373, 482, 485-486, 519, 544-546,
561-562, 614, 630, 651-652
Da(h)a, 73
Dahae, 179
Dahaka, 581
Dahllof, N., 188
Dairy products, 44
Daiva, 369
Daksinagni, 203
Dalian Forgaill, 71
Dalmana, 379
Dalmata, 379
Dalmatas, 379
Dalmathus, 379
Dalmatian, 300
Darnell, 302, 306
— 800 —
GENERAL INDEX
Damp, 371
Danae, 232, 487
Dana'ids, 232, 487
Danaus, 204,232,487
Danish, 219, 301
Danu, 232, 487
Danu, 232, 487
Aaoi, 179
Aaoq, 145
Dardani, 288
Dardic, 302, 306, 310
Darius 1, 30, 303, 307
Dark, 147
Darwin, C., 552
Dasa, 581
Dasas, 73, 179,496, 579
Dashly, 72, 559
Dasra-, 119
Dasyus, 73, 179
Dates, 60
Daughter, 107, 133, 147-148, 333, 393
Daughter-in-law, 148
Daunians, 288
Daunii, 378
Daunus, 288
Davas, 145
Dave, K. N„ 68
Dawn, 116, 117, 148
Dawn goddess, 148-149, 164
Day, 116, 149
Day, J., 423
DazIbogQ, 212
De Busbecq, O., 219
De Marinis, R., 546
De Saussure, F, 502
De Simone, C., 379
De Vries, J., 223
De Vries, N., 577
Dead, 163-165, 611
Deaf, 149-150, 376
Dear, 214, 358
Death, 150-151,374
Death beliefs, 151-154
Debt, 123
Decade formations, 404-405
Decay, 312
Deceive, 154
Declare, 535-536
Deep, 154
Deer, 33,94, 110, 154-155, 168,365,
377, 392,414, 473,559,617
Defecate, 186-187
Defect, 155-156, 376, 410
Defend, 458
Defile, 160, 186
Degrees of descent, 156
Delamarre, X., 56, 470
Delb ruck, B, 335, 610
Della Volpe, A., 77, 199, 211, 263
Delphi, 97, 204, 300
Demes, 35
Demeter, 19, 279-280, 386, 426, 611
Demiraj, S., 11
Demirci Huyiik, 15, 604
Demne Mael, 45
Depth, 247
Dereivka, 57, 156-157, 210, 275-276,
279,541
Descendant, 157
Descriptive kinship system, 333-334
Desert, 179
Desire, 157-158, 358
Desman, 363
Despoina, 280
Destroy, 158
Detschew, D., 577
Devi, 124,212,279, 595
Devoto, G., 355
Dew, 158-159
Dexter, M. R„ 149, 212, 232, 281 , 487,
556
Dhauli, 302
Dhimini, 244
Dhftarastra, 182-183,211
Diadem, 261, 619
Diakonoff, 1., 30, 299, 420 (also
D’iakonov)
D’iakonov, I., 543 (also Diakonoff)
Diakonov, 1, 37, 39 (also Diakonoff)
Dian Cecht, 377
Diana, 426
Diarmuid, 427
Diberga, 31
Die, 150, 153,375
Diebold, R„ 8, 497
Dies Parentales, 151
Dieva deli, 163, 232, 556
Dievas, 163, 212
Dievo suneliai, 163
Difficult, 264
Dig, 159
Digenes Akritas, 253
Dimitrov, D., 189
Diocletian, 288
Diodorus Siculus, 45
Diomedes, 601
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 60, 632
Dionysus, 174, 354
Dioskouroi, 121, 163-164, 232
Dip, 160
Direction, 131, 159-160
Dirt, 160
Dis, 611
Disease, 120, 375-376
Dish, 443-444
Disir, 612
Dispute, 89
Distribute, 161, 564
Distributed, 441
Ditch, 355, 596
Dithorba, 279
Dius Fidius, 119, 452-453
Dive, 160
Divide, 62, 160-161
Divine Twins, 19, 1 18, 161-165, 231-
232, 278, 375, 631
Divo duhitah, 164
Divo napatah, 164
Djanbas, 326
Djeitun culture, 165-166
Dnieper, 486-487
Dnieper-Donets culture, 111, 157,
166-168, 384, 445, 498, 640
Dniester, 486,487
Do, 362
Dodona, 58
Dog, 31, 51, 102, 156, 168, 196, 218,
227, 265-266, 276, 278-279, 295,
310, 321, 354, 364, 396, 426-428,
439, 446, 485, 519, 521, 540, 545,
559,589,611,617,647
Dolgopolsky, A., 299
Dolon, 31
Dolphin, 364
Don, 232
Donar, 634
Doniger, W., 279
Donkey, 33-34, 73, 365, 560, 617
Donn, 153,612
Door, 168-169, 282-283
Doorjamb, 168-169, 282-283
Dormarth, 266
Dormouse, 364, 387
Double, 400
Dove, 67, 169
Down, 169
Downwards, 169
Dowry, 83
Dragon, 73, 169, 438, 529-530, 578-
580
Draupadi, 182
Dravidian, 290, 293, 295-296, 306,
308-309, 334
Draw, 571
Draw (water), 169
— 801 —
GENERAL INDEX
Dream, 169-170, 527
Dregs, 170
Dress, 109
Drews, R., 246, 419-420, 628
Drink, 175-176
Drinking set, 44
Drip, 207
Drive, 170
Drizzle, 110,477
Drone, 58, 395
Druid, 45, 408, 438, 578, 598, 601
Drunemeton, 248
Dry, 170-171
Drywiaty, 486
Dubthach Doeltenga, 601
Dubuisson, D., 165, 514-515
Duby, G., 635
Duck, 67, 171, 498-499
DumakI, 302, 306
Dumb, 149, 376
Dumezil, G., 65, 103, 116, 118, 120,
122, 131, 138, 140, 149, 203-204,
209, 211-213, 281, 313, 332, 369-
370, 410-411, 452-453, 494, 496,
578, 580-581, 601-602, 631, 633-
635
Dung, 186
Dura-Europas, 571
Durga, 595
Duridanov, 1., 145, 146
Durkheim, E., 118
Duryodhana, 182
Dust, 160, 499
Dutch, 219, 301
Duzaka, 264
Dwell, 171, 281
Dwelling, 282
Dyaus, 131, 163-164,231
Dye, 572-573
Dyen, I., 553, 556
Dylan, 331
Eagle, 66-67, 72, 173, 191, 426
Ear, 173
Ear (of grain), 7, 237
Early, 173-174
Earth, 19, 120, 129, 174, 377, 438
Earth goddess, 174, 232
East, 131, 148, 153, 159, 174-175,485
Eat, 175-176
Edelman, D. 1., 312
Eel, 86, 176, 295, 504, 597
Egg, 176, 507
Egil Skallagnmson, 647-648
Egyptians, 306, 504
Eichner, H., 423-424
Eight, 398, 402-403
Eighth, 403
Eilers, W„ 263
Eithne, 162
Elam, 290
Elamite(s), 73, 295-296, 298, 307-309
Elatha, 180
Elbow, 176
Elder, 58
Elephant, 176-177, 256, 375, 414
Eleusis, 280, 426
Elf, 177
Eliade, M„ 65, 77
Elk, 156, 166, 177-178, 365, 429, 540,
597, 603
Elm, 50, 78, 178-179, 597, 599-600,
603
Elysian Fields, 150
EmainAblach, 153, 162
Emain Macha, 130, 162, 279
Embla, 330
Empty, 179
Enclosure, 152, 199, 295
Enemy, 179, 249
English, 219-220, 301
Enjoy, 500, 566, 614
Enter, 508
Entrails, 179-180
Entwine, 62
Enyalios, 634
Eochaid, 331
Eos, .148-149, 164, 231
Ephebeia, 632
Ephebes, 31
ecpripeiGc , 647
Ephebos, 121
Ephedra, 72,473,495
Epidauros, 375
Epomeduos, 278, 496
Epona, 161, 279-280
Equus October, 330
Erdosy, G., 312
Eremon, 375
Erinyes, 612
Erinys, 232
Ermanaric, 163
Ermine, 364-365
Ernout, A., 4, 319
Eros, 212, 358
Eschatology, 130, 180-183
Esculent root, 620
Eskimo kinship system, 36, 133, 332-
334>09
Este culture, 183-184, 621
— 802 —
'Eoria, 171
Estonian(s), 46-47, 420
Estuary, 487
Esus, 117, 141,453
Estar, 543
Etain, 162
Etio, 27, 29-30
Etiuni, 29
Etruscan(s), 70, 152, 177, 204, 218,
233, 290, 295-296, 315-316, 318,
424, 453, 486, 623
Eubuleus, 426
Euippe, 164
Euler, W, 149, 174
Euphorbos, 253
Euripides, 153
Europoid, 6 (see also “Physical
Anthropology”)
Eurycleia, 426
Evans, D., 578
Evening, 184
Evil, 43,413
Evret, C., 299
Ewe, 273, 510
Excellent, 235
Exchange, 184^186, 249, 563
Exclusion principle, 295-296
Excrement, 186-187
Exero, 189
Exhausted, 549
Express, 536
Extend, 187-188
External language relations, 291-292
Extinguish(ed), 188, 343
Eye(s), 19, 70, 129, 153, 188, 453, 544,
556
Eyebrow, 188
Ezero culture, 16, 43, 133, 188-189,
200, 211, 324, 339, 565, 576, 588,
605
Face, 191
Fafnir, 579
Falcon, 66-67,173, 191,358
Falerii Veteris, 314
Faliscan, 300, 314
Falk, H., 112, 126
Fall, 191-192
Fallow, 8, 200
Fallow deer, 155, 188, 363
Fame, 192, 437-438
Family, 192-193, 263, 332, 483, 622
Family tree, 552
Far, 193
Faroese, 219, 301
GENERAL INDEX
Farsi, 303
Fart, 194
Fast, 194
Fasten, 64, 573
Fat, 3, 194 , 560, 574, 638-639
Father, 194 - 195 , 333
Father-in-law, 195-196
Fatigued, 588
Fatten, 199
Fatyanovo culture, 2, 56, 127, 196 -
197 , 430
Fault, 155
Favism, 55
Favor, 197-198
Favorable, 236
Fear, 198 , 391,413
Feather, 646
Februus, 103
Fedorovo period, 20, 22
Feed, 198-199
Feel, 575
Feet, 129
Feindidi, 31
Felloe, 643
Felt, 569-570
Felting, 573
Fence, 152, 156, 199
Fenrir, 70, 182, 453, 647
Fergile group, 146
Feridun, 20, 579
Ferment, 60, 199-200
Ferocity, 22
Ferret, 638
Fertility, 118
Fescue, 432
Few, 200
Fiachra, 162
Flanna, 632
Fides, 453
Field, 7-8, 200 - 201 , 295, 584
Fifteen, 404
Fifth, 401-402
Fifty, 404-405
Fig, 433
Fight, 201
Fill, 201 , 500
Finch, 66-67, 201
Find, 202
Find one’s way, 202
Fine, 528
Finger, 255
Finn mac Cumaill, 45, 253, 427, 453,
496 ^
Finns, 420
Fionguala, 162
Fir, 202, 324, 428-429, 600, 603
Firdausi, 203
Fire, 87, 104, 129, 202 , 263, 521, 578,
582-584,617
Fire cult, 202 - 203 , 309
Fire in water motif, 169, 203-204
Firm, 204
First, 399
First Function, 45, 70, 121, 149, 156,
209, 253, 279, 376, 577, 632, 634-
635
First Germanic Sound Shift, 221
Fischer, F, 102
Fischer,' H., 264
Fish, 204-205,227,651
Fish-egg, 205
Fishhook, 4, 328, 429
Fissure, 96
Fist, 255
Fit, 3
Fit together, 64
Fitting, 410
Five, 398, 401-402
Fixed, 547
Fjprgyn, 407-408, 582
Flaith, 280
Flamen Dialis, 119, 129, 253, 452
Flamen Martlalis, 119, 452
Flamen Quirinalis, 119, 452
Flaminica Dialis, 331
Flank, 517
Flat, 205-206
Flattery, D., 495-496
Flax, 8, 206 , 267, 321, 354, 433, 559,
596, 657
Flay, 567
Flea, 206
Flee, 206
Fleece, 252,511
Fleming, S., 646
Flemish, 301
Flesh, 19, 129, 377
Float, 561
Flock, 268
Floor, 206, 247, 282-283
Flotsam, 206
Flow, 159, 206 - 207 , 448, 491
Flower, 207
Fly l (insect), 207-208
Fly2 (verb), 208
Fly-agaric, 495
Foam, 208,212
Fol, A., 619
Fold, 63
Follow, 208 , 284
Follower, 115
Following, 42, 646
Folte^ti culture, 146
Fondo Baratela, 621
Food, 208
Foot, 208 - 209 , 247
Footprint, 595
Forbid, 493
Force, 209 , 330, 352, 361
Ford, P K„ 204
Fordicidia, 137
Forearm, 176
Forehead, 209
Foreleg, 26
Forest, 270, 598
Forget, 209
Fork, 209-210
Formorian(s), 71, 180, 453, 631
Fort(ified site), 20, 43-44, 49, 72-73,
92, 103-105, 107, 132, 152, 179-
180, 188-189, 196,210-211,225,
289, 295, 339-341, 344-345, 372,
389, 427, 448, 482, 490, 520, 604-
605,613,628-630,651,657
Fortuna, 212
Fortunata, 152
Fortune, 211-212
Fortune goddess, 212
Forward, 61
Foul, 490
Four, 398, 401
Fourth, 401
Fourth Function, 121-122, 140
Fox, 156, 188, 212 - 213 , 354, 364,
429, 540, 597, 603, 651
Fraenkel, E., 50
Framework, 213 , 283
Francis, E. D., 245
Franconian, 301
Franks, 219
Franrasyan, 204
Frau Holle, 612
Frazer, J., 117, 384
Free, 214
Freeman, 213 , 416
Freeze, 1 13
French, 101, 300
Fresh, 213-214
Freud, S., 116
Freyja, 119, 163, 358, 426-427, 631,
634
Freyr, 119, 163, 358, 399, 426, 631
Fried, M., 532
Friedrich, J., 17
Friedrich, P, 4, 335, 358, 469, 601
— 803 —
GENERAL INDEX
Friend, 214
Friendly, 214
Frig, 214
Frigg, 124,214, 331,642
Frighten, 214
Frightening, 568
Frija, 214, 642
Frisian, 220, 301
Frisk, H., 245
Friulian, 300
Frog, 214, 323, 523
Frog-spawn, 205
Front, 191
Frost, 113,287
Fruit(s), 43, 63
Full, 214
Full (textiles), 573
Fulla, 331
Fulvius Stella, 280
Functionalist School, 117-118
Furor, 632-633
Furrow, 8, 215, 375
Further, 215
Fuwch Gyfeilioru, 137
Gae bolga, 633
Gaelic, 300
Gaia, 231
Galatians, 97, 289, 300
Galen, 387
Galindai, 49
Galinqaya, 303
Gall, 217
Gallatae, 96
Gallehus, 580
Gamebird, 217
Gamkrelidze, T. V, and V Ivanov, 25,
27, 37, 51, 65, 69, 110, 118, 131-
132, 148, 150, 176, 187, 191,205,
207, 237, 246, 255, 258, 264-266,
270, 272, 295, 330, 370, 374, 418,
429, 446, 461 , 468-469, 474, 477-
478,521,532,547, 551,644
Gandhara Grave culture, 558 (see “Swat
culture”)
Gandharva, 369-370
Ganesa, 375
Ganges, 409
Ganweriwala, 256
Gaomaeza-, 375
Gap, 534
Garden, 200
Garhapatya, 68, 203
Garhwali, 302
Garlic, 433, 620
Garm, 265
Garment, 109-110
Gate, 168-169
Gates, H. P, 335
Gather, 217, 258
Gathic, 303
Gaudo culture, 217-218, 317-318
Gaul(ish), 78, 99, 233, 300
Gauls, 60, 96-97, 236
Gawarbati, 302, 306
Gayomart, 138
Gazelle, 72, 107, 166, 230, 256, 377
Gedikli, 151
Gefjun, 331
Gefn, 358
Genetics, 422-423
Gening, V F, 521
Gening, V V, 521
Genthius, 288
Gentius, 288
Geoffrey of Monmouth, 152,612
Georgian, 342
Georgiev, G., 189
Georgiev, V, 577
Geraldus Cambrensis, 278
Gerd, 163
Geri, 265
German(s), 263, 301, 303, 420
Germanic, 50, 127, 218-223, 227, 290,
294, 296, 301, 315-316, 421, 426-
427, 524, 526, 657
Gershenson, D. E., 648
Gerstein, M. R., 141, 648
Geryon, 138, 581
Getae, 106
Gey, A. N„ 397
Gheg, 9
Gifr, 265
Gift, 185-186, 225, 249
Gilaki, 303
Gildas, St, 45
Giles, E„ 55
Gimbutas, M., 50, 53, 55, 227, 232,
299, 339-342, 408, 483-484, 489,
490, 526, 566, 619-620, 630
Gindin, L. A., 605
Gird, 223-224
Girl, 107
Gima, 302
Giurgiule§ti, 619
Give, 224-225
Glance, 505
Gland, 225, 376
Glasinac culture, 225-226, 289
Gleam, 513
Glide, 226
Glitter, 5 1 3
Glob, P V., 174
Globular Amphora culture, 41, 49,
226-227, 279, 339, 350, 372, 513,
597-598
Glottochronology, 553, 584
Glow, 87, 513
Glue, 4
Gnat, 207,312
Gnaw, 175, 503
Go, 227-229, 546
Goat, 1,4,20,23,43,72,75,92, 102,
107, 137-138, 156, 166, 188,227,
229-230, 256, 269, 278-279, 295,
321, 327, 341, 350, 354, 359, 365-
366, 372, 377, 383, 389, 396, 415,
426, 429,446,473, 511-512, 540,
559, 585,605,617,651,653
God, 230-231, 330
Goddesses, 231-233, 538
Godel, R., 30
Godin Tepe, 60, 645
Gofann, 139
Goibniu, 139, 529
Goidelic, 98-99, 101
Gol^b, Z., 273, 524, 526
Golasecca culture, 97, 100, 233-234,
318
Gold, 4, 53, 75, 92, 119, 140, 145,
234—235, 261, 367, 372-373, 392,
439, 558-559,605,618-619
Golden, 271
Goll mac Morna, 453
Gonda, J., 330
Gonur, 34, 72
Good, 235-236
Goods, 637-638
Goose, 66-67, 156,236
Goosefoot, 432
Goossens, R., 643
Gorani, 303, 307
Gordion, 418-419
Gordium, 199
Gothic, 301, 524
Goths, 219, 523
Goto,!, 356
Gracious, 198
Grackle, 66
Grain, 52, 119, 236-237, 295, 383,
432, 585
Grainne, 162
Granddaughter, 237, 394
Grandfather, 182, 237-238, 332, 334,
370,609-611
804 —
GENERAL INDEX
Grandmother, 238-239
Grandson, 180, 239-240, 334, 370,
392-394
Grandson/nephew of waters, 203-204
Grannos, 161
Grape, 60, 72, 188, 434, 603, 645
Grapevine, 559
Grasp, 560, 563-564
Grass, 45, 240, 252
Gray, 113-115,240
Gray, E. A., 183
Graze, 175, 198
Grease, 194
Great, 344
Grebe, 67
Greedy, 157-158
Greek(s), 9, 11,30, 76, 92, 152,240-
246, 263, 290, 293, 296, 301-302,
314, 316, 361, 419-420, 423, 444,
645
Green, 113-115,246
Green, M., 102, 344
Greenbaum, S., 580
Greens, 7, 620
Gregoire, H., 643
Greppin, J. A. C., 30, 68, 141
GreyWare, 258, 309, 311
Gricourt, J., 281
Grief, 413
Grieve, 246-247
Griffon, 470
Grigson, C., 366
Grimm, J., 221
Grimms Law, 27, 221
Grind, 8, 142,247, 581
Grinding stone, 1, 165, 295, 326, 377,
542, 585
Grinev plaque, 470
Grip, 564
GriswardJ., 632, 636
Groan, 518, 582
Grottanelli, C., 165,281
Ground, 247-248
Grove, 63,65,248, 353,458
Grow, 53, 248-249
Growl, 394
Grumble, 394
Grunt, 249
Guard, 198
Gudmundr, 612
Gudrun, 163 4
Guest, 249
Gujarati, 302, 306
Gull, 66-67, 249
Gullet, 249
Gullveig, 358, 631, 635
Gulp, 175
Gumelnqa culture, 103, 146, 235, 557
Gums, 387-388
Gumugou culture, 473 (see Qawrighul
culture’')
Gundestrup, 177, 181
Guntert, R, 612
Gurbane§ti, 267
Gurid, 182
Gutian, 27
Gutnish, 301
Gvozdanivic, J., 405
Gwydion, 331, 427
Gwyn ap Nudd, 265
Gylfi, 331
Gypsies, 302
Haarmann, R, 423
Haas, O., 379, 420
Hades, 152, 265, 278, 280, 426, 580,
611-612
Hadubrant, 533
Haffkiistenkultur, 49
Haheu, V., 620
Hahn, A., 17
Hahn, E. A., 391
Hail, 287
Hair, 19, 45, 117, 129, 240, 251-253,
377, 569
Hajji Firaz Tepe, 645
Hajnal, I., 248
Halcyon, 246
Half, 253
Hallstatt culture, 100-101, 146, 152,
233, 253-254, 267, 321-322, 344-
345, 613
Ham, 291
Hamangia culture, 146, 603
Hammer, 112
Hamp, E., 11, 26, 57-58, 70-71, 77,
168, 171, 187, 191, 236, 263, 289,
369-370, 408, 428, 458, 503, 519,
551,567, 582,601,604
Hamster, 354, 364
Hand, 254-255,401,453
Handle, 255, 450
Hang, 255
Hannibal, 233
Hansel, B., 279, 628
Hansen, L.J., 153
Haoma, 72, 495
Happy, 255-256
Harald, 647
Harappan culture, 34, 52, 73, 79, 90,
102-103, 125, 137, 177, 203, 210,
256-257, 308-309, 347, 377, 384,
414, 443, 446, 478, 519, 559, 562
Harauti, 302
Hard, 547, 568
Hare, 75, 156,188,227,240,256-258,
354, 364, 540, 559, 589, 597, 603,
651
Harii, 31
Harm, 258, 312
Harmel, 495
Harold Wartooth, 182
Harpies, 612
Harpoon, 111, 429, 499
Harris, D. R., 166
Harrison, R. J., 55
Harrow, 8, 434
Harvest, 8, 258, 504
Harzan, 303
Hasanlu, 258-259, 309, 368
Hate, 259-260
Hateful, 259
Hathor, 124
Hatti(c), 15, 29, 96, 290, 293, 295, 374
Hattusa, 12-13, 15, 418
HaudryJ., 20, 117, 122, 131-132, 177,
231, 289-290
Haunch, 260
Haurvatat, 119, 165, 375
Hausler, A., 40, 197, 341, 653, 657
Hawaiian kinship system, 36, 133,
332-334
Hawk, 67, 173, 191
Hawthorn, 260, 600, 603
Hazel, 260, 405-406, 599-601, 603
Head, 19, 120,260-261
Headband, 261
Headdress, 2, 31
Heal, 261-262, 376, 387
Healthy, 262
Heap, 262
Hear, 262
Heart, 61,262-263, 501
Hearth, 68-69, 77, 203, 232, 263, 283
Heat, 263-264
Heaven, 19, 129
Heavy, 264
Hebe, 124, 209
Hecatomb, 137
Hedge, 199
Hedgehog, 264—265, 363, 603
Heel, 265
Height, 210
Heiligenbuck, 254
— 805 —
GENERAL INDEX
Heimdallr, 19, 182, 231
Heine-Geldern, R., 125, 127
Hekate, 265, 612
Hektor, 124, 438
Hel, 152, 199, 265, 612
Helene, 164, 232
Helgi Hundingsbana, 65
Helios, 163-164, 278
Hellebore, 265
Hellen, 164
Hell-hound, 265-266
Help, 266
Hemera, 164
Hemp, 92, 266-267, 293 f 354, 393,
433, 495, 657
Hen, 67, 267
Henbane, 8, 267-268
Hendriksen, H., 188
Hengist, 163
Henwen, 427
Hephaistos, 124, 139, 529
Hera, 117, 119, 124, 174, 209, 224,
231,579
Herakles, 26, 103, 117, 138, 224,426,
579-581, 634-635
Herbs, 376
Herd, 217, 268
Herder-cultivator, 120, 131, 140, 331,
376
Herdsman, 268, 653
Here, 458
Herewulf, 31
Heijolfr, 31
Hermes, 601, 612
Herminones, 367
Hernia, 268
Herodotus, 29, 34, 49, 97, 104, 145,
152, 179, 266-267, 274, 279, 311,
316,356,419, 524,575,627
Heron, 66, 140, 268
Hesiod, 58, 131, 138, 232, 358, 596
Hespera, 164
Hestia, 109, 203, 232
Hesychius, 302
Hetterich, H., 196, 238, 240, 333-334,
335,610-611
Hew, 549
Hide 1 (conceal), 268 , 522
Hide 2 (skin), 1 10, 268-269
Hiebert, E T„ 74, 474
Hierakonpolis, 60
Hieroglyphic Luvian, 302
High, 269
High-one, 269
Hilaeira, 164
Hildebrant, 533
Hildisvln, 426
Hill, 269-270
Hiller, S„ 246
Hillfort, 101,233, 253
Hilmarsson, J., 522, 594
Hind, 155
Hindi-Urdu, 302, 306
Hip, 260
Hippocrates, 387
Hirt, H., 498, 501-502
Hisarlik, 604
Hispano-Celtic, 97-98, 300
Hiss, 72, 395
Hittite(s), 12, 27, 29, 34, 79, 263, 277,
290, 293, 302, 306, 419, 426
Hludana, 612
Hoarfrost, 287
Hochdorf, 267
Hock, 270
Hock, H. H., 480
Hockmann, O., 211
Hodder, I., 483-484
Hoddinott, R., 577
Hodr, 181, 183
Hoe, 107, 434-436
Hoenigswald, H. M., 556
Hoffmann, K., 530
Hog deer, 246
Hold, 123, 270 - 271 , 443, 450, 564
Hole, 96
Hollow, 96
Holy, 493
Holy Grail, 494
Homer, 35, 70, 79, 137, 140, 169, 176,
210, 245, 351, 419, 426, 478, 484,
509, 536, 556, 575, 605, 629, 655
Hone, 510, 641
Honey, 58, 69, 200, 271 , 281, 313, 496,
637
Honey-colored, 271
Honor, 271 , 650
Hoof, 272
Hook, 272 , 447
Hooker, J. T„ 245
Hoopoe, 272
Hoops, J., 601
Hoot, 66
Hop, 324
Hopf, M., 434
Hops, 433
Horace, ^388
Horatii, 580
Horatius Codes, 70, 181, 183, 453
Horn, 272-273
Hornbeam, 273 , 599-600, 603
Hornet, 273
Hornless, 273
Horsa, 163
Horse, 1, 4-5, 15, 19-20, 23, 34, 49,
55, 72-73, 92, 96, 103-104, 106-
107, 127-128, 130, 138, 146, 152,
156-157, 161-165, 168, 177, 183,
196, 227, 244, 253, 273 - 279 , 295-
296, 298, 306, 309-310, 316-318,
32 1 , 325, 327-33 1 , 339-34 1 , 353-
354, 359, 365, 368, 372, 374, 376-
377, 390, 396, 414, 419, 426, 438-
439, 446-447, 473, 482, 484-485,
496, 498-499, 501, 512, 520-521,
540, 545, 557, 559-560, 565-566,
578-580, 586-587, 593, 59^-597,
603, 605, 614, 617, 621, 627-628,
633, 651, 653, 655
Horse goddess, 279-281
Horse sacrifice, 313, 330, 635
Horse-bit, 104
Horse-gear, 233, 367, 560
Horse-hair, 252
Horse-riding, 276
Hospitalet-du-Larzac, 97
Hostile, 259, 281
Hot, 263-264
Hound, 230, 277
House, 281 - 284 , 295
Household, 192, 622
How, 457
Howl, 66, 284 , 395,412,488
How many, 456
How much, 456
Hoyrup, J., 405
Hrlmfaxi, 163
Hrolf Kraka, 579
Hsiung-nu, 590
Hubbard, P., 11
Hiibschmann, H., 30
Huld, M. E., 11, 26, 37, 50, 79, 196,
379,519,528,537,562,601
Hum, 284
Humble, 284
Hundred, 398, 405
Hunger, 284
Hunn, E. S., 68
Huns, 106, 163,219,303,307
Hunsruck-Eifel culture, 223
Hunt, 284
Huntley, B., 601
Hupasiya, 581
Hurl, 581
806
GENERAL INDEX
Hurrian(s), 15-16, 27, 29-30, 73, 290,
293, 295-296, 298, 306, 308-309,
342
Hurry, 284-285
Husband, 332-333, 366, 371
Hvar-Lisicici culture, 289
Hydra, 580
Hymir, 138, 581
1,454
Iapyges, 378
Iberian, 290, 295-296
Ibero-Celtic, 97 (see also “Hispano-
Celtic”)
Ibex, 110, 366
Ice, 287
Icelandic, 219, 301
Icicle, 287
Ida, 233
Idas, 164
Ignis Vestae, 203
Iguvine tablets, 345
11a, 232-233
Ilia, 232
Ilijaka, 225
111,516
Illness, 410
Illuyanka, 581
Illyrian(s), 9, 11, 44, 226, 287-289,
293-294, 301, 315, 318, 361, 379,
613,621,623
Ilya of Muron, 533
Imbolc, 269
Impeller, 289-290
Impressed Ware culture, 289
In, 290
In addition, 214
In front, 60
Inana, 543
Incite, 547
Incline, 607
Increase, 452
ln-da-ra, 119
Indara, 634
Indech, 181
lnden, 489
India, 420
Indie, 302
Indo-Aryan(s), 68, 73, 102-103, 125-
126, 210, 256, 259, 263, 277, 290-
291, 302, 311, 368, 377-378, 415,
558, 560, 618
Indo-European homeland, 55-56, 58,
60, 63, 68, 75, 79, 86, 91, 94, 127,
153, 155-156, 165, 176,210,235,
248, 275, 290 - 299 , 308, 339, 355,
446, 474, 482-483, 489, 497-498,
503, 577, 585, 587, 595, 627
Indo-European language family, 299 -
303
Indo-Hittite, 15
Indo-Iranian(s), 20, 50, 73, 92, 166,
241, 259, 292, 296-297, 302, 303 -
312 , 440, 448, 524, 558-559, 567,
584. 653
Indra, 31, 61, 111-112, 119, 126, 138,
141, 148, 173, 177, 209, 265, 278,
310, 376, 426, 452, 495, 512, 529,
547, 550, 579-581, 583, 631, 634-
635
Indus Civilization, 102, 235, 256 (see
also “Harappan culture”)
Infertile, 52
Ingvaeones, 367
Injure, 312
Innara, 581
Innards, 179
Insects, 312 , 649-650
Inspiration, 3 1 2-3 1 3
Inspired, 493
Instruct, 536
Insult, 313
Interfunctional war, 63 1
Interjections, 313
Intertwine, 571
Intestines, 179
Into, 63-63, 290
lntoxicator, 313
Invite, 89
Invoke, 89
Ion, 140
Ipsen, G., 584
Iranian(s), 2, 6, 73, 104, 106-107, 146,
152, 254, 277, 290-291, 297, 302-
303, 307, 309, 311, 326, 416, 430,
542. 654
Irish, 99-100, 300
Iron, 79, 101, 104, 107, 145-146, 223,
253, 313 - 314 , 336, 344, 379, 414,
559, 630, 633
Iroquois kinship system, 36, 133-134,
333-334
Isaurian, 302
Ishkashimi, 307
Ishkashimi-Sanglech, 303
lshtar, 358
Istaevones, 367
’Icma, 171
Istar, 543
Italian, 300
Italic languages, 44, 100, 152, 218,
223, 290, 294, 296, 300, 314 - 319 ,
379, 424, 613, 621
Italo-Celtic, 100
Ivanov, V., 25, 132, 469 (see also
“Gamkrelidze”)
Ivory, 177
-Jackal, 364
Jackdaw, 66-67, 321
Jalodararoga-, 375-376
Jamison, S., 323
Jamshid, 19
Japhet, 291
Jarl, 19, 131,231,253
Jasanoff, J., 223
Jason, 579
Jastorf culture, 220, 223, 321-322
Jatvingians, 46 (see also “Yotvingians”)
Jaugada, 302
Jaw, 107, 322
Jay, 67, 323
Jerome, St, 97
Jest, 434
Join, 64, 196
Joint, 323
Joki, A. J., 26
Jolt, 509
Jomsviking, 579
Jones, W., 458-459
Jones-Bley, K., 50
Jordanes, 163, 524, 578
Jovanovic, B., 519
Jug, 444
Juice, 323
Jump, 323-324
Junazite, 324
Jung, C, 116, 601
Juniper, 324 , 599-600
Juno, 117, 124, 232, 596
Jupiter, 119, 124, 131, 163, 181,231,
331, 369, 452-453, 513, 596, 634-
635
Juppiter, 450
Justus, C. E, 405, 450, 458
Jutes, 219
Juvenal, 280
Kadmos, 632
Kadrow, S., 94
Kafiri, 302, 308
Kalaja Dalmages, 288
Kalasa, 302, 306
Kale, 432
Kali, 595
— 807 —
GENERAL INDEX
Kalibangan, 257
Kaliyuga, 183
Kalsi, 302
Kama Neolithic culture, 429
Kamadeva, 212, 358
Kamadhenu, 137
Kammenhuber, A., 17
Kanes, 15
Kangurt Tut, 617
Karaliunas, S., 56
Karasuk culture, 325-326
Karbuna, 380
Karkaralinsk, 21
Karl, 19, 131,231
Karosthl Prakrit, 593
Kartvelian, 342
Karum Kanesh, 245
Kashmiri, 302, 306
Kashubian, 301, 523
Kaska, 374
Kaskians, 29
Kassite, 588
Kastor, 163-164
Katelai, 558
Kati, 302, 308
Katicic, R„ 146, 245, 289, 361, 577
Katincharov, R., 189
Katz, S„ 646
Kauravas, 182
Kay, P., 113, 115,246
Kay, Sir, 601
Kazakevicius, V, 50
Kazanki, 545
Kazansky, N., 391
Kearns, J. C., 470
Keegan, J., 630
Keep, 268
Kelteminar culture, 326-327
Keltoi, 96
Kemi Oba culture, 327 - 328 , 339-340,
359, 372, 478, 544, 588
Kennedy, K., 103
Kent, R. G., 312
Kerberos, 230, 265, 580
Keres, 612
Karato-baesaza-, 376
Kernosovka, 545
Khalchayan, 593
Khandeshi, 302
Kharon, 152, 612
Khasi, 308
Kherai, 559
Khorasmian, 303
Khotanese Saka, 303, 307, 593
Khowar, 302, 306
Khrusaor, 277
Khutor Repin, 275
Khvalynsk culture, 279, 328 - 329 , 339,
380, 447,498,541,653
Khwarazmian, 307
Kick, 329
Kid, 511
Kidney, 329
Kiev, 212
Kikkuli, 306
Kildare, 269
Kilian, L., 50
Kimmerians, 30, 418, 542
Kindle, 87
King, 209, 278, 313, 329 - 331 , 356,
417, 514, 546, 578, 619, 630
King and virgin motif, 331-332
Kingdom, 329
Kingship in heaven motif, 19-20, 131
Kinship, 71, 239, 332-335
Kinsman, 335
Kiratas, 140
Kimis, 106
Kiss, 335
Kite, 66-67, 335-336
Klady, 266, 372-374, 519, 562
Klaiman, M. H„ 458
Klazomenai-Limantepe, 604
Kluge, E, 223
Knee, 270, 336
Knife, 69, 107, 227, 295, 325, 327,
336 , 342, 372, 376, 396, 440, 447-
448, 540-541, 561, 613, 617, 654
Knobloch, J., 80, 284,515
Knossos, 79, 177, 240, 243-244
Knoti (tie), 148, 336 , 393
Knot 2 (in wood), 336
Know, 336-337
Kohistani, 302
Kohl, P, 68
Kolaxais, 19
Koln-Lindenthal, 355
Kolochin culture, 337 - 338 , 416, 448,
524, 526
Kolomiyshchina, 602
Komarov culture, 338 , 526, 606
Konkani, 302, 306
Koppers, W, 279
Kortlandt, E, 567
Korucu Tepe, 15
Krahe, H., 289, 294
Kraljevic, M., 277
Krause, W, 594
Kraynov, D. A., 197
Kristiansen, K., 128
Krivodol-Salcuia culture, 324
Krogmann, W, 60, 498
Kronos, 19-20, 131, 289-290, 517
Kjsna, 212
Kruger, B., 223, 322
Kruk, J., 128
KpU7ti£ia, 647
Kruskal, J. B., 553, 556
Krypteia, 31
Ksatnya, 119, 121
Kucha, 590-591
Kuchean, 303
Kulan, 33, 365
Kultepe, 628
Kumarbi, 19
Kumauni, 302
Kumazari, 303
Kumiss, 200
Kuni, 129
Kurciatov, S., 620
Kurdish, 303
Kurds, 29
Kurgan model (solution or theory), 44,
57, 75, 103, 128, 133, 146, 156,
167, 188, 210, 227, 275, 289, 299,
324, 339-341, 342, 350, 372, 395,
421, 423, 482-483, 485, 489, 498,
541, 546, 557, 585-586, 589, 598,
604-605,614,619,627,653
Kurgan tradition, 41, 326-327, 329,
338 - 341 , 359
Kurke, L., 351
Kuro-Araxes culture, 27, 30, 340, 341-
342 , 372, 517, 588
Kurochkin, G. N., 259, 367-368, 369
Kuruksetra, 182
Kuru-Pancalas, 126
Kushans, 590
Kusa, 129
Kutuluk, 111
Kuznetsov, R E, 440, 448
Kvasir, 496
Kvatskhelebi, 341
Kveld-Ulfr, 647
Kvitanska, 541
Kyurgenner, 326
Lack, 343
Lacus Albanus, 204
Ladin, 300
Lady, 371
Lagundo, 546
Lahnda, 302, 306
Laima, 212, 358
Laime, 212
— 808 —
GENERAL INDEX
Lake, 343
Lake Vourukasa, 204
Laksmana, 165
Laksmi, 212,595
Lamb, 510-511
Lambert, P.-Y., 101
Lame, 156
Lament, 246-247
Lampas, 164
Lanamnas eicne, 370
Land, 133
Lane, G. S., 60, 323
Lanuvian, 300
Large, 344
Laria, 612
Lars Porsena, 71, 181
Lascivious, 157-158
La Tene culture, 96, 100-101, 152,
223, 254, 321-322, 344^-345, 385,
613
Latham, R., 291
Latin, 9, 11, 300-301, 314-315, 318
Latino-Faliscan, 300, 621
Latvian, 46-47, 301
Laugh, 344-345
Lavagnone, 435
Law, 345-346, 410
Law of Jaroslav, 345
Law of Manu, 357, 420, 495
Lazar-Meyn, H., 115
Lazky, 278
Lchashen, 27, 30, 628
Lead 1 (verb), 346, 390
Lead 2 (metal), 347-348, 519, 587
Leader, 329, 348, 630, 632
Leaf, 50, 348
Lean, 348
Leap, 323
Learn, 348
Leather, 269, 514
Leave, 348-349
Le Cerquete-Fianello, 485
Leech, 349
Lees, R. B., 556
Left, 118, 120, 130-131, 159, 348,
349,611
Leg, 349
Lehmann, W P, 165, 223, 469, 480,
501-503
Lehrman, A., 646, 648
Leiptr, 409
Lejeune, M., 245, 419-420, 622
Lelwani, 61 1
Lemming, 364
Lemnos, 316
Lengyel culture, 210, 227, 349-350,
354, 598
Lentil, 72, 127, 188, 354, 433, 559,
596, 603, 657
Leopard, 350-351,365,415
Lepontic, 97, 99, 100, 233-234, 300,
315,318
Leprosy, 522
Lerner, L., 114-115
Less, 351, 515
Lethe, 152
Letnisa, 580
Lettuce, 432
Leukippides, 164
Levine, M., 157
Levirate, 335
Levi-Strauss, C., 71, 483
Lewis, FL, 101
Lexico-statistics, 553
Libation, 151,233,351,496
Lichardus, J., 42, 619-620
Lick, 351-352
Lie 1 (recline), 352
Lie 2 (deceive), 352
Life, 352, 438, 548
Lift, 352
Light 1 (shine), 83, 352-353, 513
Light 2 (of weight) 353
Lightning, 353, 409, 582
Ligurian, 233, 315
Limb, 353
Lime, 74, 514
Limit, 77
Limp, 156
Lincoln, B., 117, 121-122, 130, 138-
139, 152-153, 266, 377, 385, 497,
581,635-636
Lindeman, F. O., 61, 388
Linden, 50, 163, 178, 353-354, 578,
599-600, 603
Line, 77, 354
Lineage, 354
Linear Ware culture, 38-39, 44, 52,
178, 206, 210, 266, 275, 291, 298,
340, 349-350, 354-355, 383-384,
415, 435, 440, 446, 489, 598, 603,
629
Linen, 206
Linke, U., 71, 386-387
Linnaeus, C., 67
Lion, 23, 73, 184, 284, 295, 350-351,
356, 358, 363, 365, 415, 426-427,
559, 580, 595
Lip, 356, 387
Lipoxais, 19
Liquid, 439, 638
Lithuanian, 46-47, 301
Litter, 356
Little, 200
Littleton, C. S., 20, 122, 132, 204, 631
Live, 356
Liver, 356
Livestock, 23, 366
Livonian, 47
Livy, 181,204
Lieu Llaw Gyffes, 331 , 426
Llyr, 162, 280
Lockwood, W. B., 303, 470
Loebanr, 559
Lofty 269
Loins, 356
Loki, 19, 180-182, 601, 647
Lommel, H., 487
Long, 356-357, 574
Loom, 572
Loon, 66
Lord, 329
Lothar, 331
Louse, 357
Love, 357-358
Love god, 212
Love goddess, 358—359
Low, 6 1 1
Low German, 219
Lower Mikhaylovka group, 227, 327,
339-340, 359, 372, 544
Lowly, 284
Loxias, 375
Lua Mater, 612
Lubotsky, A., 141, 171
Lucan, 578
Lucius Brutus, 181
Lucius Tarquin, 181
Lucretia, 181
Lug, 71, 97, 142, 180-181, 183, 203,
390, 453, 634
Lugaid Three Red Stripes, 331
Lugus, 97, 180, 634
Lung, 353, 359
Lupa, 647
Lur, 303
Luristani, 303
Lusatian culture, 470, 613
Lusitanian, 97
Luther, M., 46
Lutzky, H., 494
Luvian(s), 12-13, 27, 29, 243, 290,
302
Lyalovo culture, 429
Lycaonian, 302
— 809 —
GENERAL INDEX
Lycian, 12-13, 302
Lycurgus, 119
Lydian, 12-13, 302
Lykos, 647
Lyle, E., 122
Lynkeus, 164, 360
Lynx, 359-360, 365, 429, 597, 603
Lyonnet, B., 618
Mabon, 162, 427
Mac Datho, 517
Mace, 36, 92-93, 111-112, 196, 329,
379, 486, 545, 558, 583
Macedonian(s), 241, 301, 361, 419,
523
Macha, 161-162, 181, 232, 279, 281,
596, 634
MacQueen, J., 17
Macrobius, 135
Mada, 495-496, 631
Madder, 246
Madhavl, 281, 313, 331
Maedoc, St, 514
Mag Tuired, 180, 183
Magadhi, 302, 306
Magdalenberg, 254
Maggot, 650
Magic, 361-362, 453
Magpie, 67, 323, 362
Mahabharata, 306, 310
Maharastri, 302, 306
Maher, J. P, 408, 547-548
Mair, V, 474, 594
Maithili, 302
Maiya, 302, 306
Make, 362
Makkay, J., 154, 211, 355, 443, 474
Malaria, 55
Malatya, 580, 628
Maldivian, 302
Male, 363
Mallard, 156
Mallory, J. P, 68, 205, 279, 299, 366,
423, 519, 546, 562, 587, 653
Malvi, 302
Mammals, 363—366
Man (human), 366-367, 371
Man (mythic figure), 121, 129
Manannan mac Lir, 162-163
Manavi, 138
Manawydan mab Llyr, 162, 165, 427
Manczak, W., 246
Mandelstam, A. M., 68
Mane, 45, 251, 253
Mania, 612
Mann, S. E„ 11,470
Mannerbund, 31, 630, 632
Mannus, 129, 367
Mansehra, 302
Manu, 19, 119, 129, 232-233, 367
Manure, 186
Manu-smjti, 129, 345 (see also “Law
of Manu”)
Manx, 100, 300
Maori, 67
Maple, 78, 367, 597, 599-600
Maponos, 161-162
Marathi, 302, 306
March, 427
Mare, 274
Maringer.J., 203
Mariupol, 111
Mark, 414
Markey, T. L„ 8, 26, 52, 185-186, 253,
255,349, 390-391,394,405
Markhor, 559
Marks, J., 555-556
Marlik, 309, 367-369
Marmot, 364
Marriage, 33, 83, 118, 131, 186, 193,
369-370, 483
Marrow, 79-80, 370
Marrucinian, 300
Marry, 148, 334, 369
Mars, 117, 119, 124, 138, 278, 331,
513, 596, 630-631,634
Marsh, 370-371
Marsian, 315
Marten, 91, 265, 364-365, 371, 429,
522, 597, 603
Maruts, 137, 277, 452, 630, 634
Marwari, 302
Maryevka, 627
Masarmi, 303
Mash, 84
Masica, C. P, 312
Mason, I. L„ 35, 139, 168, 230, 366,
428, 512
Massilia, 96
Masson, V M., 166, 604
Master, 281, 348, 371-372, 490
Mater Matuta, 148
Math, 331
Mathieu, M., 643
Mati Syra Zemlja, 174, 232
Matralia, 148
Matsya, 452
Mature, 248
Matveyevka, 92
MaGro-baesaza-, 376
Mauss, M., 186
Mayaki, 213
Maykop culture, 136, 227, 235, 266,
327, 339-340, 347, 359, 372-374,
443,445,519,537
Mayrhofer, M., 312, 392
Mazandarani, 303, 307
McCone, K., 7, 31, 121-122, 417, 428,
531-532, 648
McCormick, F, 383
McDaniel, C., 115
McGovern, PE., 200, 646
McGrail, S„ 75
Me, 454
Mead, 53, 58, 60, 173, 200, 271 , 494,
496, 631
Meadow, 200
Meal, 175
Measure, 159,262,374
Meat, 374-375
Medb, 232, 280-281, 313, 390, 496
Medes, 30, 311
Median, 303
Medical god, 375
Medicine, 129, 375-377
Mediterranean, 3 1 6
Medugenus, 281
Meduna, 281
Medusa, 19, 138, 277, 581
Meet, 377
Mehrgarh, 52, 308, 310-311 , 377-378
Meid, W., 132, 160, 277, 391, 508,
585, 587
Meier- Arendt, W, 147
Meillet, A., 4, 30, 195,319,556
Melanippe, 164
Melchert, H. C., 17, 154
Meleager, 1 12, 426
Mellaart, J., 96
Mellink, M. J., 259
Melt, 378
Meluwwa, 256
Menarva, 596
Menelaos, 164
Menerva, 596
Meness, 232, 556
Menozzi, P, 423
Menrva, 596
Mercury, 117, 415, 427
Merpert, N., 189, 324, 604, 653
Merry, 256
Merseburg charm, 376
Meshoko, 372
Mesrop Mastoc 1 , 27
— 810 —
GENERAL INDEX
Messapi(c), 288-290, 293, 301, 315,
318,378-379
Messenia, 164
Metal, 379-380
Methodius, St, 301, 523
Metis, 596
Metrics, 437
Mewati, 302
Mlach, 376
Michelsberg culture, 210
Midas, 418-419, 579
Middle, 380
Middle Adriatic culture, 423
Middle Dnieper culture, 127, 339, 380-
381,430, 537
Middle Persian, 303
Midge, 207
Midgley, M., 598
Midir, 162
Midgard-serpent, 138, 182, 494, 580-
581
Mi-it-ra, 119
Mikhaylovka, 16, 34, 211, 213, 275,
359,605,651-652
Milisauskas, S., 128
Milk, 137, 162, 169, 200, 212, 230,
295, 313, 375, 381-383, 494, 496,
511-512
Miller, D. A., 122, 533, 636
Millet, 43, 86, 107, 166, 237, 321 , 354,
383-384, 432, 541, 596, 603, 657
Milograd culture, 49
Milyan, 13, 302
Munir, 70-71, 152
Mind, 19, 129, 385
Minerva, 124, 269, 596
Minnow, 205
Minos, 612
Minyan, 605
Mirabello Eclano, 218
Misfortune, 413
Mist, 110
Mistake, 155
Mistletoe, 248, 384, 601
Mistress, 371-372
Mitanni, 92, 164, 258-259, 277, 302,
306, 308-309,311,368
Mitra, 119, 184-185, 211-212, 346,
452
MiOra, 124, 304, 379, 452, 612, 634
Mix, 384
Moan, 247, 384
Moccus, 427
Mochlos, 347
Mohawk, 67
Mohenjo-daro, 256-257, 267
Moira, 612
Moirai, 212
Moisson, P, 177
Moist, 638-639
Moisture, 158-159, 638
Molaroni 423
Mole, 363, 375, 387, 603
Mole rat, 364
Molochansk, 94
Mongolian, 299
Mongoose, 57, 264-265, 363
Monkey, 384-385, 421
Moon, 19, -129, 163,385
Moon god, 556
Moonwomon, B., 115, 246
Moravian, 301
Morgan, L. H., 333
Morning, 173-174
Morngan, 181, 612, 634
Mortal, 150, 366
Moscati, S., 102, 344
Mosquito, 55, 205
Moss, 385
Mother, 36, 333, 385-386
Mother-in-law, 386-387
Mould, 385
Mount (copulate), 508
Mount Ararat, 291
Mountain, 129, 269-270, 407-408
Mourn, 246
Mouse, 363-364, 387, 388, 521
Mouth, 129, 387-388
Mouth (of river), 487
Move, 201, 207-208, 284-285, 388
Mow, 258
Moytura, 71
Much, 3
Mucius Scaevola, 71, 181, 453
Muck, 186
Mud, 371
Mulberry, 388
Mule, 35, 245
Muller, E M., 116-117
Miiller-Karpe, H., 560
Mumble, 394
Mummies, 6
Munchayev, R., 342, 374
Munda, 290, 295, 308
Munjani, 307
Munji, 303
Murmur, 388
Mursilis II, 450
Muscle, 388
Mussel, 512
— 811 —
Musset, L., 223
Muski, 30
Mutter, 394
Mycenae(ans), 1, 92, 151, 177, 240,
243, 245, 277, 290, 301, 478, 532,
628
Mysians, 35
Nagy, G., 192,439,583
Naharnavali, 162
Nail, 129, 182,389
Naked, 45
Nakh-Daghestani, 29
Nakta, 164
Nakula, 119, 164
Namazga, 72, 389-390, 519, 566
Name, 390-391, 438
Namuci, 495
Nanhaithya, 165
Napolskikh, V., 205
Nar, 331
Narrow, 391
Nartan, 372
Narten, J., 594
Narva culture, 49, 429
Na-sa-at-tiya, 119, 164
Nasatya, 119, 164-165
Nasu, 265
Natalevka, 545
Naturist School, 116-117
Navajo, 113
Navan Fort, 162
Nave, 391,626
Navel, 391
Near, 391
Nechtan, 169, 203-204
Neck, 391-392
Necklace, 391,392
Need, 343
Needle, 80
Nehalennia, 150, 612
Nehring, A., 470
Nejshtadt, M. I., 601
Nemed, 279, 596
Neolithic solution, 423, 489 (see also
“Anatolian solution”)
Nepali, 302
Nephew, 180, 182, 239, 370, 392-393,
611
Neptunalia, 204
Neptunus, 204
Nerio, 174, 596
Neroznak, V P, 420
Nerthus, 174, 577, 596
Nesreca, 212
GENERAL INDEX
Nessus, 103
Nest, 393
Net, 393
Nettle, 393
Neu, E., 574
Neurol, 49, 524
New, 393
Newmark, L. , 1 1
Nichols, J., 526
Nicobarese, 308
Niece, 237, 393-394
Niepokuj, M., 63
Night, 116,394
Nilgai, 256
Nimadi, 302
Nine, 403
Ninth, 403
Nipple, 81
Nirjta, 612
Nit, 357
Njordr, 119, 163,577, 631
Noah, 291
Noble, 235
Nod, 394
Noise, 24, 394-395
Nordic, 420-421
Norm, 345
Normier, R., 32
Norn, 301
Noms, 212
North, 131, 159,485,611
North Caucasian, 292
North Wind, 643
Norwegian, 219, 301
Nose, 395
Nostratic, 292
Not, 395
Noua culture, 146
Nourishing, 82
Nourishment, 208
Novilara, 315, 423-424
Novocherkask, 545
Novodanilovka group, 395—396, 619
Novosvobodna culture, 339, 374
Novotitorovka culture, 372, 396-397,
626
Now, 397
Nuadu, 180-181,376,453
Numa, 119,453
Number, 397
Numerals, 397-405
Numitor, 232, 331
Nuristani, 302-304, 307-308
Nussbaum, A. J., 261, 273
Nut, 43, 58, 166, 260, 273, 405-406,
599-600
Nyberg, H., 496
Nyia, 612
O, 313
Oak, 58-60, 65, 75, 248, 273, 407-
408, 446, 514, 582-583, 597-603
Oar, 408
Oath, 70-71, 123, 174,408-409,452-
453
Oats, 7, 43, 86, 321, 409, 432, 559,
603
O’ Brien, S. T., 183
Observe, 505, 623
Ocher, 4, 41, 103, 166,474, 498, 541,
619,651
Ocher-grave culture, 651
Ochre Coloured Pottery, 125
Odainsakr, 153
Oden, N., 423
Odrysae, 576
Odysseus, 11, 36, 106, 426, 439, 601
Odinn (Odin), 19-20, 31, 65, 70-71,
117, 119-121, 124, 142, 163, 173,
181-183, 265, 278, 330-331, 348,
390, 453, 493, 496, 577-578, 612,
631, 634-635, 642, 647-648
Odinn warrior/Porr warrior, 634-635
Oengus Mac ind Og, 162
Oettinger, N., 17, 387
Offering, 351
Offspring, 24, 106-107
Ogham, 99-100, 300
Ogma, 181, 634
Ogmios, 634
Ohrmazd, 182
Oil, 194, 295
Okunevo culture, 4, 6
Olbia, 78
Old, 409
Old Church Slavonic, 301, 523
Old Europe, 339
Old Irish, 101
Old man, 409-410
Old Norse, 219, 301
Old Persian, 303
Old Prussian, 46, 301
Oleg, 578
Olive, 295
Olmsted, G., 117, 122
Olrik, A., 183
Olympus, 243
Omaha kinship system, 36, 85, 1 33—
134, 196, 237-239, 332-335, 392,
394, 533,610
Omasum, 3
On, 391
Onager, 33, 72, 94, 107, 166, 256, 365,
389. 628. 651
Once, 410
One, 12, 398-399
One-eyed, 70-71, 376
Onion, 433
Oosten, J., 494, 496
Opinion, 410
Oppress, 158,471
Ops, 331
Or, 410
Orange, 1 13-115
Orcus, 612
Order, 410-411,452
Oriya, 302, 306
Ormuri, 303, 307
Oroshori, 307
Orphan, 411
Oscan, 300,314-315
Osco-Umbrian, 300, 318, 423, 621
Ossetes, 303
Ossetic, 303, 307
Osthoff, H., 599
Ostrogoths, 219
Other, 253,411,458
Otomani-Wietenberg culture, 576
Ottar the Simple, 426
Otter, 156, 364, 411, 429, 540, 597,
603.651
Otzi, 32, 53, 104, 110, 514
Ouranos, 19-20, 131, 231-232, 290,
358, 517
Oupavog, 65
Out, 411, 612
Over, 412, 581
Overcome, 158, 229
Overflow, 560
Oversee, 417
Ovicaprid, 596, 589, 603 (see also
“Sheep”, “Goat”)
Ovid, 129, 148, 358
Owen, E, 223
Owl, 67, 412
Own, 412
Ox, 44, 91, 133, 138, 277, 377, 408,
436, 627, 655
Oxus culture, 72 (see “BMAC”)
Packed, 574
Paddle, 408
— 812 —
GENERAL INDEX
Padua, 183,621
Paelignian, 300
Paeones, 288
Pahari, 302, 306
Pahlavi, 307
Pain, 375, 413-414
Paint, 414
Painted Grey Ware culture, 310, 414 —
415
Pakhpo, 303
Palaic, 12-13, 27, 302
Palate, 387
Pale, 641-642
Pali, 302, 306
Palisade, 596
Pallottino, M., 319
Palm, 255
Palmer, L. R., 245, 319
Pamir, 303, 307
Pan, 415
Panai, 306
Panayotou, A., 361, 577
Pandava(s), 164, 182
Pandora, 212, 595
Pandu, 119, 182,452
Panini, 306
Panis, 73, 179
Panther, 363,415
Paphlagonian, 302
Papuni, 303
Parachi, 303, 307
Parcae, 212
Paris, 26, 119, 164
Paris Altar, 140
Parjanya-, 407, 582
Parnoi, 73
Parpola, A., 74, 179, 256,312
Parthian, 27, 30
Parvalescu, A., 71, 484, 543
Parvatl, 595
Pashto, 303, 307
Pass, 229
Pass through, 228
Passage, 487-488, 637
Pastoral god, 415
Pasture, 200
Patch, 110
Path, 487
Patollo, 453
Patollus, 453, 611
Patriarchal, 332
Paul, St, 97, 300
Paunch, 2
Paurva, 259
Pay, 185
Pazyryk, 267, 604
Pea, 8, 72, 86, 106, 127, 166, 188, 227,
256, 354, 415-416, 432-433, 541,
559, 596, 603, 657
Peacock, 102, 310, 559
Peak, 416
Pear, 433, 603
Pebble, 547
Pecullus, 453, 611
Pedersen, H., 101
Pedrero, R„ 26, 255
Pedrotti, A., 546
Peel, 567-568
Peg, 508; 594
Pegasus, 19, 277
Pelasgians, 243
Penelope, 236, 642 '
Penetrate, 508
Penis, 230, 507
Penkov culture, 337, 416, 448, 524-
526
Pennacini, A., 646
Pennaod, G., 372
People, 416 - 417 , 630
Pepkino, 1
Perceive, 417 - 418 , 505
Perch, 156, 418 , 550
Perish, 150
Perkunas, 203, 230, 407, 547, 61 1, 634
Perkunas, 582
Perkuns, 582
P^rkuons, 582
Persephone, 280, 426, 611
Perseus, 277, 487, 579
Persian, 303, 307, 311
Person, 150, 366
Persuade, 418
Perun, 611, 634
Perunas, 408
Perunu, 407, 582
Pessedjik-depe, 166
Pestrikova, V. I., 329
Petre§ti culture, 146
Petrovsk culture, 447
Petru-cori, 31
Peucetii, 378-379
Phaea, 426
Phaethon, 164
Phalura, 302, 306
Phantom, 538
Pheasant, 67
Phigalia, 611
Philoctetes, 11
Phoenician(s), 243, 314, 316, 444, 645
Phoibe, 164
C>puyeg, 419
Phrygian(s), 29-30, 241, 290, 293,
302,361,418-420, 605
Phyloi, 35
Physical anthropology, 4, 55, 75, 103,
107, 128, 146, 166, 197, 218, 223,
227, 244, 291, 310, 316, 355, 420 -
423 , 474, 486, 577, 593
Pianello-Timmari horizon, 622
Piantelli, M., 544, 546
Piazza, A., 423
Picene(s), 290, 295, 301, 315, 423 -
424 , 648
Pick, 573
Piets, 45, 587
Pierce, 424-425
Pig, 1,20,43,59,75,86,92, 106-107,
127, 138, 156, 166, 188, 196, 227,
295, 321, 327, 350, 354, 359, 365,
372, 389, 408, 414, 425 - 428 , 429,
512, 540, 542, 559, 585, 589, 596,
603, 606, 611
Pigeon, 67, 169
Piggott, S., 40, 628, 641
Piglet, 425
Pigorini, L., 318
Pika, 364
Pike, 86, 156, 597
Pikeperch, 90
Pikshiki, 2
Pile, 87
Pillar, 131,442
Pimple, 523
Pin, 428 , 508
Pinault, G.-J , 391, 594
Pine, 20, 78, 407, 428 - 429 , 597, 599-
600, 603
Pink, 113-115
Pintail duck, 156
Pirithous, 164
Pirwa, 277
Pisani, V, 423
Pisidian, 12-13, 302
Pisai, 302
Pitch, 65
Pit-Comb Ware culture, 197, 429-430
Pit-grave culture, 651
Pitiful, 568
Place, 430 - 431 , 506
Plait, 570-572
Plane tree, 35
Plank, 282-283,431
Plants, 19, 129, 377,431-434
Plate, 443
Plato, 140
813 —
GENERAL INDEX
Plautus, 238, 596
Play, 434
Please, 434 , 566
Pliny, 58, 71, 347, 377, 387, 409, 510
Plow, 8, 92, 137-138, 245, 295, 298,
309, 383, 429, 434 - 436 , 483-484,
544, 586, 597,603,651,655
Plowshare, 434
Pluck, 258, 567
Pluck wool, 570
Plum, 86,246,433
Plutarch, 148
Pluto, 611
Poet, 192 , 436 , 451
Poetry, 436-439
Poetto, M., 393
Point, 439
Pointed, 509-510
Poison, 439
Poke, 451
Pokomy, J., 446, 470
Polabian, 301, 523
Pole, 442, 508, 626-627, 633
Polecat, 365, 439 , 603, 638
Polish, 301, 523
Pollux, 162
Polome, E. C, 60, 146, 174, 279, 288-
289, 362, 411, 450, 532, 577, 622,
636
Poltavka culture, 4, 92, 112, 439 - 440 ,
541,653
Polybius, 632
Polydeukes, 163-164
Pompeii, 300, 315, 409, 620
Pond, 343
Pool, 343
Poplar, 33, 599-600
Poppy, 72, 354, 434, 440-441
Porcupine, 559
Pork, 427
Porpoise, 364
Porridge, 52, 409, 441
Porte San Pietro, 485
Portion, 441
Portuguese, 300, 556
Poseidon, 19, 164, 204, 277, 504, 596
Poseidonius, 427
Position, 431
Possehl, G. L., 256
Possess, 270
Possessions, 637-638
Post, 77, 131, 282-283, 441-443
Pot, 255, 261, 443-446
Potapovka culture, 340, 440, 446 - 448 ,
537
Potekhina, I. D., 168
Potlatch, 225, 497
Pottery 295 (see also “Pot”)
Poultney J. W, 424
Pour, 351, 448
Power, 209, 255, 560
Powerful, 448
Praenestine, 300
Prague culture, 337, 416, 448 - 449 ,
524-526
Praise, 449
Prajapati, 278, 369
Prajapatya, 369
Prakrit(s), 302, 306
Prasun, 302, 308
Pray, 449-450
Prayer, 450
Preist, 345
Prepare, 450
Press, 450 - 451 , 471,570
Prevost, R., 558
Priam, 605
Prick, 451
Priest, 55, 120, 131, 138, 140, 209,
331, 369, 375-376, 451 - 453 , 512,
514, 546, 595,631,653
Priesthood, 129
Prifti, R, 11
Prize, 484
Project, 453-454
Projection, 453
Prokosch, E., 223
Pronouns, 454 - 458 ; demonstrative
457-458; indefinite 455-457;
interrogative 455-457; personal
454- 455; reflexive 455; relative
455- 457
Prop, 543
Propel, 507
Prosper, 458
Protect, 198,268,417,458
Proto-Indo-European, 458-470, accent
462- 463; adjective 464-465;
morphology 464-468; noun 464-
465; phonology 459-462; syntax
463- 464; verb 465-468; word
formation 468-469
Provencal, 300
Pfthivi, 231
Prussian, 49
Pryderi, 162, 277, 280, 427
Przeworsk culture, 106, 470, 526, 657
Ptolemy, 49, 99, 524
Pubic hair, 507
Puhvel, J., 17, 24, 71, 121, 123, 130,
154, 165, 201, 204, 236, 279, 281,
332, 375, 377, 496-497, 581, 636
Pui Digre, 579
Pulgram, E., 319,424, 622
Pull, 187,226,471,570, 574
Pulses, 43, 72, 603
Punjabi, 302, 306
Purchase, 185
Pure, 471
Purple, 1 13-115
Purulent, 490
Purushanda, 15
Purusa, 129, 138, 328, 544
Pus, 375, 471
Push, 471—472
Pustynka, 606
Pusztaistvanhaza, 76
Pusan, 212,230, 415,612
Put, 472 , 506
Put in order, 472
Put together, 362, 472
Putrefaction, 471
Pwyll, 280
Pylos, 240
Pyramus, 388
Pythagoreans, 55
Pytheas, 99
Qarashahr, 590
Qawrighul culture, 473 - 474 , 593
Quail, 67, 474
Quarrel, 124-125
Queen, 329
Quern, 325, 327, 341, 359, 396,474,
541, 589
Quetta, 311
Quiet, 474-475
Quirtnus, 331
Rabbit, 33, 258, 265, 363-364, 638
Radiant, 513
Radin, R, 601
Radish, 432
RadnerJ. N., 578
Radulescu, M.-M., 379
Raetic, 315
Raglan, Lord, 117
Ragnarok, 180-181, 231
Rain, 477-478
Rain drop, 477
Raise, 352
Rajasthani, 302, 306
RajasUya, 514, 635
Rake, 434, 581
— 814
GENERAL INDEX
Raksasa, 370
Ram, 137,470, 511-512
Rama, 160, 165
Ramat, R, 186
Ramayana, 306
Rape seed, 432
Rashnu, 612
Raspberry, 433
Rassamakin, Y. Y., 541
Rat, 375, 387
Rathaestar, 119
Ratrl, 148
Rattle, 394
Rau, W, 39, 112,211,380,446
Rausing, G., 79
Ravana, 165
Raven, 66, 70, 142, 453, 543
Raw, 71, 118,478
Razor, 478 , 558, 568, 613, 622, 641
^bhus, 289
Reach, 35, 187
Rear-end, 88
Rechtaid, 279
Recite, 536
Reconstruction, 478-480
Red, 113-115, 131, 148,279,480-481
Red deer, 75, 86, 154-156, 166, 188,
227, 321, 354, 365, 372, 396, 425,
429,540, 589,597, 603,651
Red-eye, 156
Reed, 481
Rees, A., 123
Rees, B., 123
Refresh, 261
Regulus, 71
Reichelt, H., 548
Reins, 481
Reitia, 621
Rejoice, 256
Relation, 196
Relationship principle, 296
Release, 481
Remain, 482
Remains, 482
Remedello culture, 78, 317-318, 482 -
483 , 519
Remember, 483
Remove, 388
Remus, 121, 130, 138, 232, 331, 608,
647
Rend, 567-568
Renderer, 642
Renfrew, C., 299, 585
Renou, L., 581
Repair, 629
Reproach, 70
Repulse, 471
Residence, 483-484
Resin, 499
Resound, 89, 534
Rest, 474, 527
Restitution, 108, 123
Return home, 484
Revel, 255
Revere, 198
Revile, 313
Reward, 484
Rezepkin, A. D., 374
Rgveda, 306
Rhadamanthys, 612
Rhea Silvia, 331
Rhiannon, 161-162, 279-281
Rhinoceros, 256
Rlastrad, 632
Rib, 81
Rice, 256, 309, 414, 495, 559
Rich, 3, 484
Ride, 91, 485
Riding, 277
Right, 118, 120, 130-131, 159, 349,
485
Rlgr, 19
Rinaldone culture, 78, 317-318, 485 -
486
Ring, 486
Ringe, D. R., 554-556, 594
Rite, 351
Ritualist School, 117
River, 486 - 487 , 636
River bank, 515
River goddess, 487
River name(s), 294, 355, 577
Rix, H., 171,245
Roach, 156
Road, 487-488
Roar, 488
Roast, 88, 125
Robinson, O. W, 223
Rock, 547-548
Rod, 442
Rodriguez, M. S., 415, 510
Roe(deer), 75, 86, 155-156, 166, 188,
354, 365, 429, 540, 589, 597, 603
Roider, U„ 529
Roll, 607
Roman(s), 263-265, 423, 444, 635
Roman, P, 133
Romanian, 11, 145-146, 300
Romansch, 300
Romany, 302
Rome, 97, 130, 203, 212, 236, 249,
300, 314, 330, 409-410, 576, 632
Romulus, 119, 121, 130, 138, 209,
232, 331, 453, 608, 631, 635, 647
Roof, 282-283, 488-489
Room, 282-283
Root, 80, 247, 600-601
Roshani, 307
Rossen culture, 354, 489 - 490 , 598
Rostam, 533
Rot, 490
Rough, 490 , 523
Row, 354, 490
Rub, 490 , 510
Rude; 568
Rudna Glava, 380
Rudra, 31, 375-376, 438, 442, 642
Rue, 495
Ruff, 90
RukminI, 212
Rule, 159,490
Ruler, 329
Rumble, 395
Rumen, 2-3
Rump, 88
Run, 491
Rusanova, I P, 449
Rush (reed), 481
Russian, 301, 523
Rutulian, 632
Ryder, M. L., 512, 649
Rye, 7-8, 321, 354, 432 , 491 - 492 , 559,
657
Ryegrass, 492 .
Saami, 422
Sabine(s), 120, 315, 631, 635
Sabine War, 631
Sacred, 493-494
Sacred drink, 173, 494-496
Sacrifice, 3, 130, 137-138, 151, 351,
353, 408, 410, 452, 494-495, 496 -
497 , 512, 542, 578
Sacrificial meal, 496
Sad, 568
Sadovsky, O. J., 604
Saeturnus, 290
Safflower, 432
Safronov, V A., 94
Sagart, L., 193
Sahadeva, 119, 164
Sahlins, M., 186
Saiga, 107, 178, 365,651
Saka, 20, 307-308
Saladin, 122
815 —
GENERAL INDEX
Salcu^a-Bubanj culture, 76, 289
Sallentini, 378
Salmon, 294, 497-498, 550
Salt, 233, 498
Samain, 290, 504
Samara culture, 167, 447, 498-499
Samarkand, 307
Same, 499
Samnites, 314
Sams, G. K., 420
Sand, 499
Sanglechi, 303
Sanskrit, 302
Sap, 499-500
Sapalli culture, 68
Sarac, 277
Saranyu, 19, 232, 280, 367
Sarasvatl, 212,487, 512, 595
Sardinian, 300
Sargulami, 303
Sarianidi, V, 74
Sarikoli, 307
Sarmatian(s), 20, 106, 146, 211, 311,
303, 523-526, 657
Sarus, 163
Sassanian, 593
Sassanian Pahlavi, 303
Sated, 458
Satisfy, 500
Saturn, 289
Saturnus, 131, 289
Saule, 163
Saules Meita, 163, 232, 556
Sausverde, E., 223
SautramanI, 138, 512
Savama, 232, 367
Savio, G., 646
Savitar-, 289
Savitj, 131, 177, 212, 289-290, 556
Saxo Grammaticus, 182, 253, 578, 635
Saxon(s), 219, 301
Say, 535-536 .
Sayers, W, 121, 578
Scabby, 523
Scare, 214
Scatter, 500
Scepter, 92, 328-329, 339, 440, 557,
618-619
Scharfe, H., 329-330, 409
Schindler, J., 66, 414
Schleicher, A., 500, 502, 550-552
Schleicher’s tale, 500-503
Schlerath, B., 112, 168, 266, 530, 587
Schliemann, H., 261
Schmidt, G., 458
Schmidt, K.-H., 101
Schmidt, W, 294
Schmitt, R., 192,391,439
Schnaufer, A., 612
Schrader, O., 470, 498
Schrijver, P, 194, 529
Schulze, W, 446
Schwantes, G., 322
Schwartz, M., 405, 495-496
Schwarz, E., 223
Scipio, 233
Sclaveni, 524
Scots, 45, 99
Scots Gaelic, 100
Scrape, 490, 503
Scratch, 143, 354, 503, 567, 570
Scream, 89
Scrotum, 507
Scuttle, 323
Scythes, 224
Scythian(s), 19, 30, 78, 104, 106, 146,
152, 178, 211, 224, 267, 276, 279,
303, 311, 420, 523-524, 542, 626
Scythian Farmers, 104
Sea, 498, 503-504
Sea god, 504
Seal, 597
Season(s), 504, 654
Seat, 505
Second, 399
Second Function, 45, 156, 253, 277,
577, 579-580, 631-635
See, .337, 360, 505
Seed, 505
Seek, 3, 505-506
Seep, 207
Seer, 451
Seethe, 76, 529
Seize, 560, 563
Self, 455
Sell, 185
Selonian, 47, 301
Semel, 232
Semele, 174
Semenov, V A., 6
Semenova, A. P, 448
Semigallian, 47
Semitic, 292, 294-296, 298, 302, 309
Semnani, 303
Semnones, 65, 130, 248, 354
Sen, S. K., 503
Send, 481
Sequanna, 97
Serbo-Croatian, 301, 524
Sergent, B., 370
Series, 268, 354
Serpent, 124, 138, 438, 494, 579-580
Servant, 506
Service, E., 532
Servici, 423-424
Sesame, 256
Sesklo, 244
Sesto Calende, 233
Set, 472, 506
Set in motion, 506-507
Set in place, 472
Settle, 171
Settlement, 282, 622
Seven, 398, 402
Seventh, 402
Sew, 572-574
Sexual organs, 507-508
Sezzheye, 498
Shade, 508
Shadow, 508
Shaft, 508
Shahbazjarhi, 302
Shake, 507, 509
Shalmaneser, 311
Shame, 413, 509
Shang, 30
Shape, 649
Sharp, 509-510, 568
Sharpen, 510
Shave, 252, 503
Shear, 252
Sheatfish, 510
Sheep, 1,4, 20, 23, 43, 69, 72, 75, 92,
94, 102, 106-107, 156, 166, 168,
188, 196, 227, 230, 256, 279, 295,
321-328, 341, 350, 354, 359, 365-
366, 372, 377, 383, 389, 396, 414,
429, 446, 473, 501, 510-512, 540,
542, 559, 570, 585-586, 593, 605,
611,617, 648,651,653
Shellfish, 512, 597
Shem, 291
Shepel, E. A., 94
Sherratt, A., 60, 200, 267, 299, 383,
436, 441,496,649
Sherratt, S., 299
Shield, 101, 227, 512-513, 613, 633
Shields, K., 405
Shimmer, 513
Shin, 349
Shina, 302
Shine, 65, 148,513-514
Shining, 194
Shiny, 529
Ship, 140, 162-163
— 816 —
GENERAL INDEX
Shoe, 152, 182, 514-515, 546
Shoot, 515, 581
Shore, 515
Short, 515
Shortugai, 256
Shot, 394
Shoulder, 26, 39, 515-516
Shout, 89
Show, 516
Shrew, 363, 516
Shrink, 516
Shughni, 303, 307
Shumashti, 302
Sibri, 310-311, 378
Sicel, 301,315
Sick, 375, 516-517
Sick maintenance, 376
Sickle, 1-2, 8, 19, 107, 165, 295, 325-
327, 341-342, 377, 414, 429, 517,
542, 585, 606, 613, 654
Sickness, 516-517
Side, 517-518, 646
Side tic, 302
Sidrys, R., 50
Siegfried, 578-579
Sieglin, W, 423
Sieve, 518
Sift, 518
Sigh, 82, 518
Sigmund, 647
Sign, 518
Signy, 163
Sigurd Ring, 182
Sihler, A., 329-330
Silent, 518
Silurus, 156
Silver, 2, 4-5, 53-54, 73, 92, 145, 235,
244, 266, 295, 314, 347, 372-373,
390, 392, 396, 440, 453, 482, 514,
518-519, 558, 586-588, 605, 614,
641, 652
Simmonds, N. W, 434
Sindhi, 302, 306
Sinew, 568-569
Sinfjotli, 152, 647
Sing, 89, 519-520
Singe, 87, 170
Single, 12
Sinhalese, 302, 306
Sino-Tibetan, 299
Sins of the warrior motif, 1 18, 578, 580,
634-635
Sintashta, 78, 21 1, 266, 309, 447, 520-
521, 627-628
Sintashta-Petrovka period, 20
Sister, 133-134, 333-334, 392, 521,
609
Sister-in-law, 521-522
Sit, 522
Slta, 165
Six, 398, 402
Sixth, 402
Sixty, 405
Skelanksa period (culture), 541
Skldbladnir, 163
Skin, 268,511,522
Skin disease, 375, 522-523
Skinfaxi, 163
Skomal, S. N., 76, 590
Skull, 93, 129,261,446
Sky, 20, 110, 117, 120, 129, 153,438,
547
Sky daughter, 231
Sky father, 230
Sky god, 117, 131, 161, 164, 231, 328,
452
Slack, 523, 588
Slag, 639
Slant, 523
Slav(s), 49, 106, 197, 294, 338, 381,
470, 523, 576, 606
Slavic languages, 50, 104, 127, 221,
223, 227, 288, 296, 301, 303, 316,
337, 348, 416, 449, 523-526, 613,
657
Sleep, 526-527
Sleepy, 588
Sleipnir, 19, 163, 278
Slender, 357
Slick, 527
Slide, 527
Slimy, 527-528
Sling, 528, 633
Slip, 527
Slippery, 527
Sloe(tree), 86, 528, 600
Slovak, 301, 523
Slovene, 524
Slovenian, 301, 524
Slovincian, 301, 523
Slow, 523
Slug, 529
Small, 528
Smear, 528, 649
Smell, 528-529
Smile, 344
Smintheus, 375
Smith god, 529
Smith, R. M., 391
Smoke, 529
Smooth, 529
Smoulder, 88
Snail, 529
Snake, 19-20, 49, 73, 140, 176, 264,
426-427, 529-530, 544, 578, 595
Snatch, 564
Sneeze, 82, 133
Snore, 530
Snorri Sturluson, 177, 181
Snort, 82
Snow, 287, 477, 504, 530
So much, 457
Soak, 639
Sochacki, Z., 44, 189
Social organization, 530-532
Soft, 532
Sogdian, 303, 307
Sohrab, 533
Soil, 160
Sokal, R , 421, 423
Sokolnichek, 533
Solar motif, 19, 44, 55, 339-341, 490,
544-545, 652
Solta, R. G„ 30
Soma, 72, 173, 233, 313, 368, 494-
496, 532-533
Soma (deity), 37, 212, 232, 556
Some, 532-533
Somghuni, 303
Son, 107, 133, 332-333, 533
Son-in-law, 533
Sons death motif, 533
Song, 520
Soon, 533
Sorbian, 301, 523
Sorcery, 362
Sororate, 335
Soudinoi, 49
Sound, 533-534
Sour, 69
Souslik, 364
South, 131, 159,485
Sovereignty, 118, 120
Sow (seed), 534
Space, 534
Spalax, 603
Spanish, 300
Sparrow, 66-67, 534, 543
Sparse, 528
Spana, 164, 301
Spartoi, 579
Speak, 89, 449, 534-536
— 817 —
GENERAL INDEX
Spear, 2, 22, 32, 79, 107, 233, 260,
279, 295, 327, 342, 372, 414, 429,
513-514, 536-537, 545-546, 558,
578, 600, 629-630, 633,651
Specht, E, 110
Speckled, 537-538
Speech, 351
Spell, 362, 376, 452-453
Spelt, 596
Spenta Armaiti, 212
Sperrings culture, 429
Spew, 538
Spin, 571-572
Spindle, 558
Spirit, 330, 538
Spit (saliva), 538
Spit (spear), 536-537
Spleen, 538
Splinter, 538
Split, 143, 538-539, 549
Spoke (wheel), 627
Spoke, 628
Spongy, 539
Spotted, 537
Sprang, 571
Spread, 539
Spread out, 205-206
Sprig, 80
Spring (jump), 323
Spring (season), 504
Spring (water), 71, 539
Sprinkle, 539, 540
Sprout, 348
Spruce, 324, 429
Spurn, 329
Sputter, 394
Squeeze, 450, 570
Squirrel, 364, 540, 603
Sraosha, 612
Sreca, 212
Sredny Stog culture, 4, 52, 56, 156-
157, 210, 275-276, 328, 339, 384,
395, 416, 540-541, 562, 604, 619,
640, 653
Srubna culture, 2, 20, 311, 340, 439,
541-542, 628, 653
Stab, 549
Stacul, G., 560
Staff, 442
Stag, 155
Stake, 441-442
Stalk, 542, 620
Stammbaum, 552-553
Stammer, 542
Stand, 249, 506, 542-543
Stang, C. S., 50
Star, 543
Starcatherus, 578, 580, 635
Starkadr, 253, 580, 635
Starling, 66-67, 543
Stature, 431
Stauanoi, 524
Stay, 171,482
Steal, 543-544
Stein, A., 303
Steiner, G., 17
Stelae, 129-130, 327-328, 359, 515,
544-546, 651-652
Stem, 542
Step, 546
Stick, 472, 528, 537
Stick to, 4
Sticky, 527
Stiff, 547
Still, 475
Sting, 424
Stinger, 312
Stink, 528
Stipcevic, A., 289
Stir, 201, 547, 607
S(t)irona, 161
Stoat, 265, 364-365
Stogovska period (culture), 541
Stomach, 2
Stone, 19, 129, 408, 547-548, 583
Stork, 67, 140, 548
Storm, 408
Strabo, 140, 145, 361, 419, 498
Strainer, 382-383
Stranger, 249
Strap, 528
Straw, 542
Strength, 208-209, 438, 548
Stretch, 187
Strew, 500, 539
StribogQ, 212
Strike, 407, 471, 548-550, 567, 582
String, 574
Striped, 537
Strive, 158
Strong, 490, 550
Strunk, K., 330
Struve, K. W, 526
Stupid, 550
Sturgeon, 550
Sturtevant, E. H., 17
Styx, 409, 452, 612
Suabi, 354
Subdue, 565
Subgrouping, 550-556
Success, 212
Sucellos, 634
Suck, 556
Suckling, 82
Sudanese, 36, 133, 333-334
Suebian, 253
Suffer, 413
Sufficient, 3
Suit, 3
Suksma sarira, 102
Sumerian, 295-296, 298
Summer, 504
Sun, 19, 129, 153, 161, 163, 188, 226-
227, 267, 278, 338, 415, 438, 544,
556, 627
Sun (deity), 116-117, 161, 163, 165,
231-232, 452
Sun goddess, 556
Sunhild, 163
Suovetaurilia, 138, 512
Support, 270
Sura, 495
Surabhi, 137
Surpass, 229
Surround, 134
Surski, 445
Surya, 164, 231,278,289,556
Surya, 164, 232,415,556
Suttee, 485-486, 558, 642
Suvorovo culture, 339, 556-557
Svantovit, 634
Svayamvara, 281, 642
Swadesh, M., 553, 584, 587
Swallow, 175
Swamp, 370
Swamp deer, 256
Swan, 66, 161, 164,558, 595
Swana, 163
Swanhild, 163
Swat culture, 68, 103, 310, 415, 558-
560, 566, 589
Swear, 409, 452, 560
Sweat, 560
Swedish, 219, 301
Sweep, 582
Sweet, 560
Swell, 71-72, 451,560-561
Swim, 561
Swing, 63
Sword, 73, 79, 125-126, 150, 233,
243, 344-345, 427, 513, 561-562,
577-578, 593,613,622,633
Sylvanus, 634
Syr, 358
Syrdon, 601
— 818
GENERAL INDEX
Szegvar-Tiiskoves, 517
Szemerenyi, O., 83-85, 148, 193, 195-
196, 213, 263, 335, 412, 470, 521-
522,611,622,648
Szigetszentmarton, 43, 626
Sabala, 265
Sakalya, 306
Sakti, 117, 124
Sani, 289
£aurasenl, 302, 306
Sisupala, 635
£iva, 124, 643
sraddha, 151
Sn Laksml, 358, 487
sudra, 121,370
Syama, 265
SumastI, 306
Sisa, 306
Taboo, 493-494
Tacitus, 31, 46, 65, 129-130, 162, 174,
179, 248, 253, 367, 420, 427, 504,
577,610, 632
Tail, 563
Tajik(s), 74, 303, 307
Take, 202, 224-225, 563-565
Talishi, 303, 307
Tame, 565
Tanais, 78
Tandriul, 68
Tara, 453
Taranis, 578, 634
Targitaos, 19
Tarpeia, 601, 631, 635
Tartaria tablets, 565-566
Tartessian, 97, 290, 295-296
Taste, 566
Tasty, 560, 566
Tati, 307
Taylor, A., 556
Taylor, G , 421
Tazabagyab culture, 20, 68, 558, 566-
567, 589
Teach, 567
Teal, 156, 171
Tearl (cry), 567
Tear 2 (rend), 81, 471, 567-568
Tech Duinn, 153
Teen formations, 403-404
Telegin, D. Ya„ 157, 168, 541, 544, 546
Tellus, 137
Temporal principle, 296
Ten, 398, 403
Tench, 568
Tendon, 568
Tenth, 403
Tepecik, 15
Terminus, 212
Terramare culture, 318, 568
Terrible, 568-569
Teshub, 19
Testicle(s), 164, 507
Tethra, 162
Tetter, 522
Teuta, 288
TeutateS, 634
Textile, 511, 569
Textile preparation, 569-574
Teymon Twrf Liant, 280
Thanatos, 612
Thapar, R., 203
Tharu, 302
That, 457
That sort, 457
Thea, 164
Thebes, 240, 647
Then, 457
Theocritus, 70
There, 457-458
Thersltes, 45-46
Theseus, 164, 426
Thesmophoria, 426
Thick, 3, 516, 574
Thief, 543
Thieme, R, 46, 60, 213, 253, 498, 561-
562
Thigh, 260
Thin, 357, 528, 574-575
Think, 418, 575
Third (hero), 138
Third (numeral), 400
Third Function, 2, 122, 156, 253, 279,
370, 546, 577, 631,633-635
Thirty, 404
This, 458
Thisbe, 388
Thomas, W, 594
Thompson, D’Arcy W., 68
Thomson, B., 423
Thom, 80, 575
Thou, 455
Thought, 575
Thousand, 405
Thracian(s), 9, 11, 92, 104, 145, 290,
293, 301, 338, 361, 419, 575-577,
605
Thread, 252, 569, 571
Threaten, 577
Threatening, 568
Three, 400-401
Threefold death motif, 453, 577-578,
635
Three-headed monster motif, 259, 309,
578-581,635
Thresh, 8, 581
Thrice, 401
Throat, 249
Through, 4, 581
Throw, 581-582
Thrush, 67, 70, 582
Thrust, 451,471
Thucydides, 145
Thumb, 255
Thunder, 408, 582, 634
Thunder god, 328, 545-546, 582-583
Thunderstorm, 409
Thus, 458, 583
Tick, 357
Tickle, 451
Tie, 64, 428
Tiger, 559
Timargarha, 559
Time, 583
Time-depth, 583-587
Timid, 198
Timothy grass, 432
Tin, 39, 314, 347, 379, 587-588
Tinas Clenar, 165
Tirahl, 302, 306
Tired, 588
Tlresias, 70
Tiryns, 240
Tischler,J., 17, 115,284,556,585,587
Tiszapolgar culture, 75, 128, 235, 380,
588-590
Tlthonus, 148
Titus Tatius, 631, 635
Tlw, 453
To, 590
Tocharian(s), 6, 292, 296, 303, 425,
473-474, 590-594
Tocharoi, 590
Today, 594
Todd, E., 193
Todd, M„ 223
Togolok, 72-73
Tokharoi, 303
Tolstoy Mogila, 268
Tongue, 594
Tool, 594
Tooth, 594
Torch, 595
— 819 —
GENERAL INDEX
Torment, 577
Tortoise, 72, 156, 295, 302, 595 , 651
Torwali, 302, 306
Tosk, 9
Touch, 595
Track, 284, 488, 595
Trajan, 146
Transfunctional, 148
Transfunctional goddess, 124/161,
232, 280, 487, 595-596
Travel, 228
TRB culture, 8, 38-39, 41 , 44, 49, 128,
137, 197, 206, 210, 223, 226-227,
235, 276, 297, 339-340, 350, 372,
380, 441, 595, 596 - 598 , 626-627,
655
Treat badly, 43
Tree, 129, 131, 209, 252, 407, 598 -
599
Trees, 599-601
Tre garni, 308
Tremble, 198, 509
Treveri, 97
Trial, 36
Triale ti, 27, 30
Tribe, 531
Trick, 154
Trickle, 207
Trickster, 46, 253, 494, 601-602
Tricorii, 31
Trier, J„ 528
Tripartition, 118-120, 131
Tripathi, V, 415
Tripolye culture, 52, 56, 78, 206, 210,
275, 339, 365, 371, 380, 384, 415-
416, 440, 541, 557, 572, 588, 602 -
604 , 614, 645 (see “Cucuteni
culture”)
Triptolemus, 612
Trisiras, 141
Trita, 138, 259, 390, 579, 580-581
Tpirxvq, 138
Troels-Smith, J., 179
Trojan(s), 120, 288, 418, 575, 605
Trojan War, 26, 631
Troop, 116
Trough, 74
Trout, 295, 497, 550, 604
Troy, 16,43, 133, 188, 192,210-211,
261, 275, 324, 339, 419, 438, 519,
588, 604 - 605 , 614, 629, 645
Trubachev, O., 526
True, 606
Trundholm, 278
Trust, 61
Trzciniec culture, 338, 526, 606
Tuatha De Danann, 162, 232, 427, 487,
631
Tube, 96
Tuisto, 129, 367
Tulkhar, 68-69, 203
Tullius Hostilius, 119
Tumshuqese, 303
Turfanian, 303
Turkic, 295, 299, 307
Turkish, 301
Turn, 62, 606-608
Turner, L., 312
Turnip, 8, 432, 620
Tustrup, 597
T vasty, 139, 141, 177, 212, 232, 579
Twelve, 404
Twenty, 404
Twice, 400
Twig, 80, 600
Twill, 593
Twin, 138, 596, 608
Twin (mythic figure), 121, 129-130,
153, 367
Twine, 571
Twist, 571-572, 607-608, 644
Two, 398-400
Twrch Trwyth, 427, 579
Tyche, 212
Typhoeus, 19
Typhon, 19-20, 124
Tyr, 65, 70, 119, 181-182, 453
Tzeltal, 67, 238
0raetaona (Thraetaona), 138, 259, 529,
579, 581
0rita A0wya, 579
borr (Thor), 119-121, 138, 182, 230,
353, 407-408, 578, 580-583, 611,
631, 634
braell (Thrall), 19, 131,231
brudgelmir (Thrudgelmir), 20
Udder, 82
Uerpmann, H.-P., 279
Uighur, 590
Ukrainian, 301, 523
Ulcer, 523
Ullikummi, 19
Uma, 595
Umbrian, 315
Uncle, 182, 238, 333-335, 609-611
Under, 611
Underneath, 612
Undertake, 35
Underworld, 611-612
Un-dying, 494
Unetice culture, 41
Unhealthy, 43
United, 399
Unpleasant, 43
Up, 612
Upelluri, 19
Upright, 269
Ur, 30, 627
Ural Neolithic culture, 429
Uralic, 2, 197, 292, 294, 296, 309, 422,
429-430, 498, 523
Urartian(s), 27, 29-30, 73, 259, 290,
293, 298, 342
Urinate, 613
Urine, 108, 375
Urnfield culture, 78, 100, 233, 253,
288-289, 318, 478, 537, 562, 613 -
614 , 623
Ursa Major, 55, 640
Urvaro-baesaza-, 376
Us, 454
Usatovo culture, 104, 132, 188, 213,
339,382,519, 562,588,614
Use, 614-615
Useful, 614
Usovo Ozero, 541
Osus, 370
Usas, 148, 164,231
Uterus, 615
Otgard, 181
Utyevka, 2
Uzbeks, 74
Vac, 437
Vacher de Lapouge , G . , 42 1
Vadastra culture, 436
Vadetskaya, E. B., 6
Vaisvanara, 278
Vaisya, 119, 121, 370
Vajra, 111, 126, 141, 310, 583
Vakhsh culture, 20-21, 68, 558, 560,
566, 589, 617-618
Val Camonica, 129, 544
Valhalla, 150, 152-153, 182,427,612
Valkyrie(s), 150, 152, 181-182, 265,
331, 358, 612
Valley, 618
Vandals, 219, 301,470
Vanhapara, 264
Vanir, 120, 163,496,631,635
Vanku-, 375
Van Leeuwen-TurnovcovaJ., 349, 485
820 —
GENERAL INDEX
Van Windekens, A. J., 567, 594
Van Zeist, W, 434
Variegated, 538
Varna, 235,261,618-620
Varro, 140
Varuna, 65, 117, 119, 211-212, 346,
375-376, 452, 495, 503, 612
Vasilev, S. A., 6
Vasil’kov, Y. V, 374
Vasilyev, 1. B., 329, 448
Vasista, 452
Vasiuki, 494
Vasmer, M., 526
Vaste, 378
Vastryo-fsuyant-, 119
Vasu, 211
Vats, M. S., 102-103
Vault, 618, 620
Vayu, 374, 581
Vayu, 138, 374, 630, 634, 643
Vegetables, 620
Vehicle(s), 4-5, 16, 20, 30, 36, 39-40,
43-44, 49, 92, 96, 127-128, 137,
244-245, 254, 295, 298, 308-309,
318, 339, 342, 389, 396, 429, 544,
546, 586-588, 593, 597, 626, 651,
653, 655
Veii, 204
Veles, 611
Velinas, 453, 611
Veliuoka, 150
Vellaunos, 117
Velnias, 611
Vendel, 427
VendryesJ., 102, 284
Venedi, 470, 524, 526
Veneti(c), 44, 183-184, 293-294, 301,
315-316,318,613,620-622
Venture, 35
Venus, 212, 358, 543
Verkhnaya Alabuga, 22
Vemer, K.,221
Vemer’s Law, 221
Verona, 183,621
Vessel, 443-444, 585
Vesta, 171,203,232,281
Vestal Virgins, 203, 253, 331
Vestinian, 300
Vetch, 94, 433, 603
Vetiris, 427
VaraOragna, 579
Vicenza, 183, 621
Vidal-Naquet, P., 632
Vldarr, 181-183
Vldofnir, 265
Vigor, 209
Vlgrldr, 182
Vijara, 152
Vikar, 578
Viking(s), 78, 152, 219
Vikletice, 128
Village, 295, 622
Villano van culture, 184, 318, 424, 613,
622-623
Vilovatovo, 261
Vine, 200, 434, 603, 644-645
Vine, B„ 450
Vinogradova, N., 618
Violent, 22
Virgil, 388, 632
Visible, 623
Visigothic, 301
Visigoths, 219
Vistula 207
Visnu, 182,212
Visvakarman, 139
Visvarupa, 138, 259, 581
Vital force, 209
Vitality, 548
Vlvahvant, 19
Vivas vat, 19, 232, 280, 367
Vlasto, A. R, 526
Vo-corii, 31
Vohu Mana, 119
Voi Navolok, 430
Voice, 534, 623
Vole, 363-364, 603
Volos, 611
Volosu, 153
Volscian, 315
Vomit, 538
Vors, 261
Vovnigy, 167
Vratyas, 289
Vftra, 61, 141,487, 529,579
Vftrahan, 579
Vucedol, 43-44, 289, 340
Vulcan, 139
Vulture, 67, 623-624
Vulva, 507
Vyasa, 182
Wade, 625
WagonCs), 138-139, 174, 233, 277-
278, 397, 436, 501, 508, 587, 625 -
628 , 641,643
Wagon-chassis, 625
Waigali, 302, 308
Waken, 516
Wakhi, 303, 307
Walk, 546
Wall, 152, 199, 283, 62&-629
Walnut, 405-406
Walternienburg/Bernburg culture, 41
Waltz, H., 443
Wanchi, 303, 307
Wander, 629
Want, 629
War-band, 30, 31, 629-630, 632
Warbler, 66
Ward, D.J., 165, 578
Warfare, 629-630
War god, 1 12, 452, 545, 580, 630 - 631 ,
633-634
War of the Foundation, 120, 180,496,
631,634-635
War of the Functions, 631
Warm, 263-264
Warnow, T., 556
Warp, 431
Warriors, 30-31, 45, 56, 120-121,
129, 131, 138, 140, 192, 209, 253,
277-278, 331, 375-376, 426-427,
437-438, 452, 514, 531, 533, 546,
579, 596, 629, 631 - 636 , 653
Warrior Function, 118, 122
Wart, 523
Wash, 108, 561
Wasp, 636
Wasson, G., 66, 495-496
Wasylikowa, K., 434
Watch, 636
Water, 19, 129, 370, 494, 636-637
Water bird, 268
Water buffalo, 256
Watercress, 432
Watkins, C., 52, 77, 90, 101, 110, 123,
139, 143, 169, 225, 231, 237, 260,
330, 346, 376-377, 436, 439, 453,
458, 470, 481, 484, 494, 508, 517,
530, 536, 543, 544, 581, 605-606,
637
Wattle, 571
Wave, 539, 637
Wave of Advance, 297, 585
Wave theory, 552
Wax, 58, 637
Way, 487-488, 637
Wayfaring-tree, 603
We, 454
Weak, 528, 637
Wealth, 212,637-638
Weapons, 633
Wear out, 142
Weasel, 265, 364-365, 521, 638
— 821 —
GENERAL INDEX
Weave, 572
Weaver, 140
Weaving, 627
Wedge, 638
Weep, 247
Weevil, 312
Weft, 572
Weigh, 374
Weitenberg, J., 141, 648
Weland, 139
Well, 71
Wellentheorie, 552-553
Weis, 510
Welsh, 99, 100, 300
Wends, 524
Wennerberg, C., 388
Werewolf, 647
West, 159
West, B., 267
Wet, 638-639
Whale, 364
What, 456-457
What sort, 457
Wheat, 7-8, 43, 51-52, 60, 72, 86, 92,
94, 104, 106-107, 127, 165-166,
188, 227, 256, 321, 350, 354, 377,
384, 389, 409, 415, 421, 427, 432,
473-474, 492, 517, 541, 559, 596,
603,605,617, 639 - 640 , 657
Wheel(s), 36, 165, 197, 277, 316, 438,
446-447, 520, 626-628, 640-641
Wheeler, M., 256
When, 456
Where, 456
Whet, 510
Whetstone, 641
Whey, 382-383
Which, 456-457
White, 113-115, 131, 194, 641-642
Whitethorn, 260
Who, 456-457
Whole, 262
Wide, 83
Widow, 642
Widower, 642
Wife, 332-333, 346, 371, 642
Wikander, S., 31, 118, 183
Wild, 597
Wild animal, 23
Wild god, 642-643
Wild pig, 156, 597, 603 (see also
“Boar”)
Wildcat, 91, 364-365, 371, 427, 559,
597, 603
Wilkes, J., 289
William of Tyre, 122
Willow, 578, 599-601, 643
Wilusa, 605
Wind 1 (blow), 19, 129, 153, 374, 643-
644
Wind2 (wrap), 607, 644
Wine, 53, 103, 184, 200, 314, 398,
444, 494, 496, 644-646
Wing, 646
Winn, S., 566
Winning, 212
Winnow, 646
Winter, 182, 504
Winter, W, 30, 331,358, 594
Wintun, 238
Wipe, 646
Wisent, 136
Wish, 629
Witczak, K. T., 155, 223, 234-235,
349, 353, 359, 548, 550, 643
With, 646
Without, 646
Wittenwater, 597
Wolf, 23, 31, 51, 94, 138, 141, 150,
156, 168, 182, 188, 264, 266, 274,
354, 363-364, 396, 427, 429, 470,
531, 540, 579, 603, 611, 630, 646 -
648 , 651
Wolverine, 365, 429, 603
Woman, 371,385,648
Womb, 2, 615
Wood, 598
Woodpecker, 67, 648
Wool, 16, 23, 72, 295, 298, 383, 501,
511-512, 570, 586,648-649
Wordick, F, 36, 333, 335
Work, 649
World, 649
Worm, 649-650
Worship, 650
Wotan, 577, 634
Wotapuri-Katarqalai, 302, 306
Wound, 375-376, 548, 650
Wrap, 644
Wulfila, 219
Wuotan, 642
Wut, 632
Wyatt, W F, 245-246
Xanthos, 277
Xanthus, 419
Xenophon, 7, 60
Xerxes, 34, 307
Xirotiris, N., 246
XsaOra, Vairya, 119
Xvaranah, 129, 204
Yaghnobi, 303, 307
Yakar, J., 96
Yaksma, 377
Yama (mythic figure), 19, 102, 129,
153, 231-232, 265, 310, 367, 373,
377, 608, 612
Yama (site), 396
Yama Xsaeta, 19, 129
Yarn!, 19, 231-232
Yamna culture, 1, 4, 34, 56, 78, 92,
138, 151-152, 210, 213, 266-267,
275, 279, 327, 329, 339-340, 359,
372, 380-381, 396, 435, 439-440,
478, 512, 519, 541, 544, 562, 577,
604, 626 , 651-653
Yawn, 653
Yayati, 281,313,331
Yaz culture, 310-311, 653-654
Yazghulami, 303, 307
Year, 117,654
Yearling, 24
Yellow, 113-115, 234, 246, 654
Yesterday, 654
Yew, 78, 444, 597, 599-601, 654-655
Ygg, 278
Yidgha, 303, 307
Yield, 607
Yima, 153, 182
Ymir, 20, 129-130, 138, 153, 608
Yimo, 608
Yoke, 16, 245,295,627,655
Yonder, 64
York, M., 113, 165,494
Yotvingian(s), 46, 301
You, 455
Young, 655-656
Young, T. C., 312
Youth, 531, 655-656
Yudhistira, 119, 164, 182, 265, 452
Yuezhi, 590-591, 593
Zakro, 177
Zalmoxis, 61 1
Zanotti, D. G., 94, 566, 620
ZaraOustra, 138, 153, 165, 230, 266,
303, 307, 452, 536
Zarubintsy culture, 106, 470, 517, 526,
657-658
Zaza, 303
Zdanovich, G. B., 521
Zebaki, 303
Zebu, 256
Zemes Mate, 174, 232
— 822 —
GENERAL INDEX
Zemgalian, 301
Zeuner, E E., 35, 139, 168, 230, 366,
428, 512
Zeus, 19, 124, 131, 148, 163-164, 174,
209, 224, 231, 277, 290, 450, 596,
598, 635
Zgusta, L, 501-503
Zhou, B.-X., 267 Zvelebil, M., 299
Zimmer, S., 43, 139, 279, 532, 628 Zysk, K. G„ 377
Zohak, 19-20, 579
Zohary, D., 434 Zmyna, 232
Zoroaster, 303, 307 (see also
“ZaraOustra”)
Zvelebil, K„ 299
— 823 —
FIGURE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
All figures have been redrawn from the sources listed below, i.e., it should be
understood that all figures are “after” the sources cited.
Abbreviations:
BAC =Gimbutas, M. (1965) Bronze Age Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe. The Hague, Mouton
CG= Gimbutas, M. (1991) Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco, Harpers.
HV = Miiller-Karpe, Hermann (1966-) Handbuch der Vorgeschichte. Munich, Beck.
JIES = Journal of Indo-European Studies
Abashevo: b. BAC, fig. 420, p. 599; c. Gorbunov, V S. (1989)
Poselencheskiye Pamyatniki Bronzogo Veka vLesostepnom
Priurale. Kuybyshev, Kuybyshev State Pedagogical Institute,
tab. 10, p. 134; d. Gorbunov, V S. (1986) Abashevskaya
KuEtura Yuzhnogo Priuralya. Ufa, Bashkir State Pedo-
gogical Institute, tab. 17, p. 92; e. BAC fig. 426, p. 604.
Afanasevo: b.-g. Vadetskaya, E. (1986) Arkheologicheskiye
Pamyatniki v Stepyakh Srednego Yeniseya. Leningrad,
Nauka, tab. II, p. 20-21.
Andronovo: b. Kuzmina, Ye. (1994) Otkuda Prishli Indoarii ?
Moscow, fig. 7, p. 403; c. ibid., fig. 9, p. 405; d. ibid., fig.
19, p. 415; e.-f. Avdusin, D. A. (1977) Arkheologiya SSSR.
Moscow, Vysshaya Shkola, fig. 41, p. 1 12; g. Gening, V E,
G. Zdanovich and V. V. Gening (1992) Sintashta.
Chelyabinsk, Yuzno-Ural’skoye knizhnoye izdatel’stvo, fig.
126, p. 231; h. Kuzmina, op. cit., fig. 57, p. 457; i.
Potemkina, T. M. (1985) Bronzovyy Vek Lesostepnogo
Pritobol’ya. Moscow, Nauka, fig. 69, p. 172.
Ax: a. HVU, tab. 272; b. ibid., tab. 218; c. CG, fig. 6-13, p.
198; d. ibid., fig. 7-67, p. 268; e.-f. BAC, fig. 13, p. 43; g.
ibid., fig. 158, p. 229.
Axle: a. Hausler, A. (1994) Archaologische Zeugnisse fur Pferd
und Wagen in Ost- und Mitteleuropa, Die Indogermanen
und das Pferd. Budapest, fig. 2, p. 219; b. ibid., fig. 3, p.
220; c. ibid., fig. 4, p. 221.
Baalberge: b. Gimbutas, M. (1956) The Prehistory of Eastern
Europe. Cambridge, Mass., Peabody Museum, fig. 87, p.
149.
Baden: b. Schmidt, R. R. (1945) Die Burg Vucedol. Zagreb,
Ausgabe des Kroatischen Archaologischen Staatsmuseums
in Zagreb, fig. 8, p. 19; c.-d. HV, 111/3, tab. 477; e. ibid.,
tab. 476; f. Gimbutas, M. (1973) JIES 1, fig. 20, p. 188.
Beaker: b: Piggott, S. (1965) Prehistoric Europe. Chicago,
Aldine, fig. 53, p. 99; c. Harrison, R. (1980) The Beaker
Folk. London, Thames and Hudson, fig. 98, p. 141; d , f .
Piggott, op. cit., fig. 53, p. 99; e. Harrison, op. cit., fig. 35;
g. ibid., fig. 33, p. 48.
Bishkent: b.-c. Mandelshtam, A. M. (1968) Pamyatniki Epokhi
Bronzi v Yuzhnom Tadzhikistane. Moscow, Nauka, figs.
10, 16, pp. 21,27.
BMAC: b. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. (1994) Antiquity 68, fig. 1,
p. 399; c. Sarianidi, V. (1994) Antiquity 68, fig. 6, p. 415;
d. Parpola, A. Studia Onentalia 64, fig. 10, p. 285.
Bodrogkeresztur: b. CG, fig. 3-81, p. 117; c. Hillebrand, J.
(1929) Das Fruhkupferzeitliche Graberfeld von Pusztaist-
vanhaza. Budapest, Frankin-Tarsulat Nyomdaja, fig. 4,
p. 17.
Bow: a. Rausing, G. (1967) The Bow: Some Notes on its Origin
and Development. Bonn, Rudolf Habelt, fig. 49; b. ibid.,
fig. 47; c. ibid., fig.50; d. ibid., fig. 54.
Bug-Dniester: b.-d. Arkhelogiya Ukrainskoy SSR 1, fig. 3 1 , p.
123.
Catacomb 1: b. Rolle, R. et al. (1991) Gold der Steppe:
Archaologie der Ukraine. Schleswig, Archaologisches
Landesmuseum, fig. 4, p. 46; c: Hausler, A. (1974) Die
Graber der alteren Ockergrabkultur zwischen Ural und
Dnepr. Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, taf. 48, p. 263; d. Shepel,
E. A. (1996) JIES 24, fig. 3, p. 10; e: Arkhelogiya
Ukrainskoy SSR I, (1985). Kiev, Naukova Dumka, fig. 110,
p. 412.
— 825
FIGURE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Catacomb II: a. Hausler, op. tit. tab. 32, p. 247; b. Pustavalov,
S. (1993) Arkheolohiya , 1, 24-33; figs. 4-5, pp. 28-29; c.
Arkhelogiya Ukrainskoy SSR I, fig. Ill, p. 414; d. ibid.,
fig. 112, p. 416; e. ibid., fig. 108, p. 408.
Gatal Htiytlk: b. Mellaart (1967) Qatal Hiiyuk. New York,
McGraw-Hill, fig. 100, p. 202; c. ibid., fig. 106, p. 212; d.
ibid., fig. 159, p. 326; e. ibid., fig. 169, p. 333.
Cemetery H: b. Vats, M. S. (1940) Excavations at Harappa. 2
vols. Delhi, Government of India, pi. 62.
Cemoles: b. Arkhelogiya Ukrainskoy SSR 11, fig. 6, p. 33.
Chemyakovo: b. Arkhelogiya Ukrainskoy SSR 111, fig. 17, p.
99; c. Symonovich, E. and N. Kravchenko (1983)
Pogrebal’nye Obryady Piemen Cherny akhovskoy Kul’tury.
Moscow, Nauka, tab. 18, p. 144; d. Smilenko, A. T. (1975)
Slov’yany ta ikh Susidy v Stepovumu Podniprov’i (li-xiii
st.). Kiev, Naukova Dumka, fig. 11, p. 42.
Club: a. Coles, B. and J. (1989) People of the Wetlands.
London, Thames and Hudson, fig. 25, p. 38; b. Baltic-
Pontic Studies 2, fig. 1, p. 169; c. ibid., fig. 2, p. 170; d.
drawn from photograph provided by excavator, P.
Kuzentsov; e. Yule, P (1985) Metalwork of the Bronze Age
in India. Munich, Beck, pi. 10; f. ibid., pi. 43.
Comparative Mythology: Sayers, W. (1993) Mankind
Quarterly 34, p. 31.
Copper Hoard: b. Yule, P. (1985) Metalwork of the Bronze
Age in India. Munich, Beck, pi. 10, c. ibid., pis. 18, 20; d.
ibid., pi. 43; e. ibid. pi. 96.
Corded Ware: b.-e. Buchvaldek, M. and D. Koutecky (1970)
Vikletice, ein schnurkeramisches Graberfeld. Acta Institut
Praehistorici Universitatis Caroli Pragensis, Praehistorica,
3, fig. 44, p. 105.
Cosmology: Piantelli, M. (1983) Bollettino del Centro Camuno
di Studi Preistorici 20, fig. 5, p. 35.
Cotofeni: b. Roman, P (1977) The Late Copper Age Co{ofeni
Culture of South-East Europe. Oxford, British
Archaeological Reports, pi. 4; c. ibid., pi. 17; d. ibid., pi.
89; e. ibid., pi. 9; f. ibid., pi. 8.
Deieivka: a. Telegin, D. Ya. (1986) Dereivka. BAR International
Ser. 287, Oxford, fig. 5, p. 7, b. ibid., fig. 51, p. 83; c.
ibid., fig. 24, p. 33; d. ibid., fig. 16, p. 22.
Djeitun: b. Kohl, P. (1984), Central Asia: Palaeolithic
Beginnings to the Iron Age. Paris, fig. 1; c. ibid., fig. 2, p.
51.
Dnieper-Donets: b. Telegin, D. Ya. and I. D. Potekhina (1987)
Neolithic Cemeteries and Populations in the Dnieper Basin.
BAR International Ser. 383, Oxford, fig. 3, p. 7.
Este: b. Duhn, E von, (1923), Italische Graberkunde II.
Heidelberg, tab. 9; c. Frey, H. (1962) Die Situla in Pro-
vidence, Romisch-Germanische Forschungen 26, taf. 65.
Ezero: b. Georgiev, G. era/. (1979) Ezero: Rannobronzovoto
Selishte. Sofia, fig. 53, p. 86; c. ibid., fig. 109, p. 175; d.
ibid., fig. 174, p. 370; e. ibid., fig. 175, p. 371.
Fatyanovo-Balanovo: b. Avdusin, D. A. (1977) Arkheologiya
SSSR. Moscow, Vysshaya Shkola, fig. 43, p. 116; c.
Gadzyatskaya, O. S. (1976) Pamyatniki Fat’yanovskoy
Kul’tury. Moscow, Nauka, tab. 2, p. 101; d.-e. ibid., fig.
44, p. 118.
Gaudo: b.-c. HV II1/3, tab. 436; d. ibid., tab. 435.
Glasinac : b. Benac, A. (1957) Glasinac. Sarajevo.
Globular Amphora: b. Wislanski, T. (1970), The Neolithic in
Poland. Wroclaw, Nauk, fig 67, p. 199; c. Arkhelogiya
Ukrainskoy SSR I, fig. 75, p. 288; d. Sulimirsky, T. (1970)
Prehistoric Russia. London, p. 163; e. CG, fig. 10-31, p.
384; f. CG, fig. 10-26, p. 380.
Golasecca: Kruta, V era/, (eds.) (1991) The Celts. London,
Thames and Hudson, p. 94.
Hallstatt: b. Collis.J. (1984) The European Iron Age. London,
Batsford, fig. 2 1 , p. 86; c. Kruta, V er a/. , The Celts. London,
Thames and Hudson, p. 84.
Harappan: b. HV III/3, tab. 718; c. Allchin, B. and R. (1982)
The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan. Cambridge,
University Press, fig. 7-3, p. 174; d. Parpola, A. (1994)
Deciphering the Indus Valley Script. Cambridge, University
Press; e. Fairservis, W. A. (1971) The Roots of Ancient
India. New York, Macmillan, pi. 30, p. 255.
Hasanlu: Dyson, R. (1960) Archaeology 13, 2, 124-125.
Headband: a. HV 111/3, tab. 479; b. Vasiliyev, 1. (1995)
Drevniye Indoiranskiye Kul'tury Volgo-Ural’ya. Samara, fig.
13, p. 109.
Horse: a. Uerpmann, H.-P (1995) Le cheval er let autres
equides: aspects de l’histoire de leur insertion dans les
activites humaines. Liege, fig. 1, p. 22; b. Telegin, D. Ya.
(1986) Dereivka. BAR International Ser. 287, Oxford, fig.
51, p. 138.
Jastorf: b. Kruger, B. Die Germanen, vol. 1. Berlin, fig. 24; c,
e. Schwantes, G. (1950) Diejastorf-Zivilization, in Reinicke
Festschrift (eds. G. Behrens and J. Werner). Mains,
Schneider, fig. 1-10, p. 120; d. Kruger, op. cit., fig. 27, p
138.
Karasuk: b. Vadestskaya, E. (1986) Arkheologicheskiye
Pamyatniki v Stepyakh Srednego Yeniseya. Leningrad,
Nauka, pi. 6, p. 54; c. ibid., tab. 5, p. 56; d. Avdushin, D.
(1977) Arkheologiya SSSR. Moscow, Vysshaya Shkola, fig.
48, p. 123.
Kelteminar: b. Gupta, S. R (1979) Archaeology of Soviet
Central Asia, and the Indian Borderlands, 11. Delhi, B. R.
Publishing Co., fig. 6, p. 19.
Kemi Oba: b. Arkhelogiya Ukrainskoy SSR /, fig. 89, p. 333;
c.-d. ibid., fig. 87, p. 326.
Khvalynsk: b. Agapov, S. A. er al. (1990) Khvalynskiy
Eneoliticheskiy Mogil’nik. Saratov, fig. 5, p. 101 ; c., i. ibid.,
fig. 8, p. 24; d.-e. ibid., fig. 31, p. 127; f. ibid., fig. 32, p.
128; g.-h. ibid., fig. 24, p. 120.
Kolochin: b. Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR III, fig. 40, p. 172;
c. ibid., fig. 38, p. 168.
Komarov: b. Arkhelogiya Ukrainskoy SSR /, fig. 115, p. 430;
c. ibid., fig. 116, p. 432; d.-e. ibid., fig. 115, p. 434.
Kuro-Araxes: b. Kushnareva, K. and V Markovin (1994)
Epokha Bronzy Kavkaza i Sredney Azii. Moscow, Nauka,
tab. 4, p. 22; c.-e. ibid., tab. 12, p. 40.
— 826 —
FIGURE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
La Tfcne: b. Piggott, S. (1965) Ancient Europe. Chicago,
Aldine, fig. 119, p. 217; c. Kruta, V. etal ( 1991 ) The Celts.
London, Thames and Hudson, p. 131; d. Raftery, B. (1994)
Pagan Celtic Ireland. London, Thames and Hudson, fig.
103, p. 164; e. Szabo, M. and E. Petres (1992) Decorated
Weapons of the La Tene Iron Age in the Carpathian Basin.
Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum, pi. 99, p. 217.
Lengyel: b. CG, fig. 3-35, p. 82; c. ibid., fig. 3-33A, p. 79; d.
ibid., fig. 3-36, p. 83.
Linear Ware: b. HVII, tab. 211; c. ibid., tab. 217; d. Tringham,
R. (1971) Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe
6000 - 3000 BC. London, Hutchinson, fig. 20, p. 120; e.
Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR 1, fig. 33, p. 129.
Lower Mikhaylovka: b.-c. Arkhelogiya Ukrainskoy SSR I, fig.
87, p. 326.
Marlik: a.-c. Kurochkin, G.N. (1994) Near Eastern Aryans
and the royal cemetery of Marlik, in South Asian Archae-
ology 1993 I, fig. 34.1, p. 390; d.-e. ibid., fig. 34.2, p.
391; f.-g. ibid., fig. 34.5, p. 394.
Maykop: b.-c. HV, 1II/3, tab. 686; d.-f. ibid., tab. 687; g.
Kushnareva, K. and V Markovin (1994) Epokha Bronzy
Kavkaza i Sredney Azii. Moscow, Nauka, tab. 57, p. 211;
h. ibid., tab. 47, p. 192; i. Rezepkin, A. D. (1992) JIES 20,
fig. 6, p. 68; j. Kushnareva and Markovin, op. cit., tab. 53,
p. 204; k. Rezepkin, op. cit., figs. 1-2, p. 60-61.
Messapic Language: b.-c. Randall-Maclver (1927) The Iron
Age in Italy. Oxford, Clarendon, pi. 47.
Middle Dnieper: b .-f. Arkhelogiya Ukrainskoy SSR I, fig. 99,
p. 366.
Milk: a. Bogucki, P (1986) Expedition, fig. 3, p. 54; b.
Zbenovitch, V G. (1974) PozdnetripoVskiye Plemena
Sevemogo Prichemomor’ya. Kiev, Naukovo Dumka, fig.
33, p. 86; c. Barker, G. (1981) Landscape and Society:
Prehistoric Central Italy. London, Academic Press, fig. 27,
р. 93.
Novodanilovka Group: b.-c. Arkhelogiya Ukrainskoy SSR I,
fig. 83; p. 312; d.-g. ibid., fig. 84, p. 314.
Novotitorovka: b. Gey A. N. (1991) Sovetskaya Arkheologiya
1991, 1, fig. 3, p. 60; c. ibid., fig. 6, p. 64.
Painted Grey Ware: b. Fairservis, W (1971) The Roots of
Ancient India. New York, Macmillan, fig. 71, p. 350.
Physical Anthropology: 1. Coon, C. (1939) The Races of
Europe. New York, Macmillan, map 8, p. 270-271; 11.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., P Menozzi and A. Piazza (1994) The
History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton,
Princeton University Press, figs. 5.11.1-3, p. 292-293.
Picene: b. Randall-Maclver (1927) The Iron Age in Italy.
Oxford, Clarendon, pi. 24; c. ibid., fig. 24, p. 106.
Pit-Comb: b. Gimbutas, M. (1956) The Prehistory of Eastern
Europe. Cambridge, Peabody Museum, fig. 109, p. 185;
с. -d. Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR 1, fig. 49, p. 180; e.
ibid., fig. 50, p. 182; f. Gimbutas, op. cit., fig. 121, p. 291.
Plow: a.CG, fig. 6-9, p. 196; b.-c. Sherratt, A. (1981) Plough
and pastoralism, in Patterns of the Past: Studies in Honour
of David Clarke (eds. N. Hammond et al.). Cambridge,
fig. 10.6, p. 268; U Bidzilya, V 1. and E. Yakovenko (1973),
Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 1973, 3, fig. 1, p. 149; e. CG,
fig. 10-43, p. 397; V HV, 11, tab. 189.
Poltavka. b.-d. Hausler. A. (1974) Die Graber der alteren
Ockergrabkulture zw^chen Ural und Dnepr. Berlin,
Akademie-Verlag, tab. 8-9.
Poppy. Zohary, D. and M. Hopf (1988) Domestication of
Plants in the Old World. Oxford, Clarendon, map. 16, p.
124.
Pot: a.-b. HVII, tab. 116; c. CG, fig. 3-75, p. 1 13; d HV, 1117
3 , tab. 477; e. Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR 1, fig. 35, p.
136; f., h. HV 111/3, tab. 506; g. Kushnareva, K. and V
Markovin (1994) Epokha Bronzy Kavkaza i Sredney Azii.
Moscow, Nauka, tab. 56, p. 210; i.-j. HVII, tab. 128.
Potapovka: b. Vasil’ev, I. B., P F Kuzentsov and A. P Semenova
(1995) Pamyatniki Potapovskogo Tip.* v lesostepnom
Povolzh’e, in Drevniye Indoiranskiyc Kul’tury r Volgo-
Ural’ya. Samara, fig., 4, p. 17; c.-d. ibid., fig. 18, p. 35; e.,
h. ibid., fig. 13, p. 30; f. ibid., fig. 7, p. 20; g. ibid , fig. ] 7,
р. 34.
Prague: b. Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR 111, fig. 29, p. \40;
с. ibid., fig. 30, p. 144.
Przeworsk: b. Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR III, fig. 9, p. 58.
Razor: a. Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR I, fig. 95, p. 342; b.
Miiller-Karpe, H. (1959) Beitrage zur Chronologie e'er
Umenfelderzeit. Berlin, de Gruyter, fig. 50, p. 214.
Remedello. b. HV II1/3, tab. 439; c.-e. ibid., tab. 440.
Rinaldone: b. Mallory, J. (1989) In Search of the Indo-
Europeans. London, Thames and Hudson, fig. 66, p. 94;
c. -f. HV 111/3, tab. 437.
Rossen: b. HVII, tab. 236; c. Luning, J., Offa 39, fig. 14, p.
30; d. ibid., fig. 1 1, p. 26.
Sacred Drink: a.-b Sariamdi, V (1994) Antiquity 68, fig. 4,
p. 393, fig. 6, p. 396.
Samara: b. Vasilyev, L, Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 1979, 4, fig.
3, p. 152; c.-f. ibid., fig. 5, p. 154.
Shoe: Coles, B. and J. (1989) People of the Wetlands. London,
Thames and Hudson, fig. 77, p. 1 12.,
Sickle: a. CG, fig. 2.3 1C, p. 39; b. Kushnareva, K. and T.
Chubinshvili (1970) Drevniye KuTtury Yuzhnogo Kavkaza.
Leningrad, Nauka, fig. 42, p. 118; c. CG., fig. 7-45, p.
250; d. Avdusin, D. A. (1977) Arkheologiya SSSR. Moscow,
Yysshaya Shkola, fig. 86, p. 202.
Sintashta: b. Gening, V. F, G. Zdanovich and V V Gening
(1992) Sintashta. Chelyabinsk, Yuzno-Ural’skoye
knizhnoye izdatelstvo, fig. 7, p. 22; c. ibid. fig. 21, p. 85;
d. ibid. fig. 12, p. 39; e. ibid. , fig. 72, p. 154.
Spear: a. Vasilev, 1. B., P F Kuzentsov and A. P Semenova
(1995) Pamyatniki Potapovskogo Tipa v lesostepnom
Povolzh’e, in Drevniye Indoiranskiye Kul'tury Volgo-
Ural’ya. Samara, fig., 18, p. 35; b. Kushnareva, K. and V.
Markovin (1994) Epokha Bronzy Kavkaza i Sredney Azii.
Moscow, Nauka, tab. 46, p. 190; c. Klochko, V (1994) The
weaponry of the pastoral societies in the context of the
weaponry of the steppe-forest-steppe communities: 5000-
— 827 —
FIGURE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
2350 BC, in Nomadism and Pastoralism in the Circle of
Baltic-Pontic Early Agrarian Cultures , ed. A. Kosko.
Poznan, fig. 14, p. 188; NVIV/3, tab. 431.
Sredny Stog: b. Telehin, D. Ya. (1973) Seredn’o-Stohivs’ka
Kul’tura Epokhy Midi. Kiev, Naukova Dumka, fig. 48, p.
88; c. ibid., fig. 41, p. 73; d. ibid., fig. 66, p. 141. e. ibid.,
fig. 39, p. 66; f. ibid., fig. 36, p. 61.
Srubna: b. Berezanskaya, S. S. (1990) Usovo Ozero: Poselediye
Srubnoy Kul’tury na Severskom Dontse. Kiev, Naukova
Dumka, fig. 4, pp. 14-15; c. ibid. fig. 6, p. 19; d. BAC, fig.
394, p. 568; e. ibid. fig. 359, p. 537.
Stelae: a. Telegin, D. Ya. and J. P. Mallory (1994) The
Anthropomorphic Stelae of the Ukraine. Washington, D.C.,
Institute for the Study of Man, fig. 1, p. 2; b.-d. ibid., fig.
5, p. 8; e. ibid., fig. 8, p. 12; f. CG, fig. 10-41, p. 396.
Subgrouping: I. Pedersen, H. (1931) The Discovery of
Language. Bloomington, Indiana, p. 312; II. Gamkrelidze,
T. and V Ivanov (1995) Indo-European and the Indo-
Europeans. Berlin and New York, Mouton de Gruyter, p.
350; III. Hamp, E. (1990) The Pre-Indo-European
languages of northern (central) Europe, When Worlds
Collide (ed. T. Markey and J. A. C. Greppin). Ann Arbor,
Karoma, 302; IV Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New
York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, fig. 3, p. 316; V Dyen,
I. , J. B. Kruskal and P. Black (1992) An Indo-European
Classification: A Lexicostatistic Experiment. Transactions
of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 82, Pt. 5, back
pocket; VI. Wamow, T., D. Ringe, and A. Taylor (1995)
Reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural lang-
uages. Institute for Research in Cognitive Report 95-16.
Philadelphia Institute for Research in Cognitive Science,
figs 1-6, p. 16-18.
Suvorovo Group: b. CG, fig. 10-9, p. 362; c.-e. Manzura, I
et al. (1995) JIES 23, fig. 2, p. 7.
Swat: b. Stacul. G. (1987) Prehistoric and Protohistoric Swat,
Pakistan. Rome, Ismeo, fig. 46h, p. 106, c. ibid., fig. 26, p.
64; d. Muller-Karpe, H. (1983) Jungbronzezeitlich-
fruheisenzeitliche Graber der Swat-Kultur in Nord-
Pakistan. Munich, C. H. Becker, fig. 14, p. 37; e. ibid., fig.
23; f.-g. ibid., fig. 32, p. 67; h. ibid., fig. 36; i. ibid., fig.
38; j. ibid., fig. 39.
Sword: a. Telehin, D. Ya. (1973) Seredn’o-Stohivs’ka Kuftura
Epokhy Midi. Kiev, Naukova Dumka, fig. 36, p. 61; b.
Avdusin, D. A. (1977) Arkheologiya SSSR. Moscow,
Vysshaya Shkola, fig. 35, p. 101 ; c. Zbenovich, B. G. (1974)
Pozdnetriplo’skiye Plemena Sevemogo Prichemomor’ya.
Kiev, Naukova Dumka, fig. 28, p. 73; d. Shaposhnikova,
O. G. et al. (1986) Yamnaya Kul'tumo-Istoricheskaya
Oblast Kiev, Naukova Dumka, fig. 16, p. 45; e. Mallory,
J. P (1991) Orpheus 1, fig. 1, p. 100; f. BAC , fig. 242, p.
352.
Tartaria: a. Vlassa, N. (1963) Dacia 7, fig. 8, p. 490; b. CG,
fig. 8-12, p. 313; c. ibid. fig. 8-22, p. 320.
Textiles: a. Barber, E. J. W. (1991) Prehistoric Textiles.
Princeton, Princeton University Press, fig. 11-1, p. 250;
b. ibid., fig. 3.11, p. 91; c. ibid., fig. 3.27, p. 111.
Three-headed Monster: a. Lincoln, B. (1981) Pnests, Warriors,
and Cattle. Berkeley and Los Angeles, fig. 7, p. 121; b.
ibid., fig. 5, 1 14; c. Hoddinott, R. E (1981) The Thracians.
London, Thames and Hudson, fig. 106, p. 109.
Tiszapolg&r. b. Bognar-Kutzian, I. (1972) The Early Copper
Age Tiszapolgar Culture. Budapest, Akademiai Kiado, fig.
31, p. 165; c.-d. Bognar-Kutzian, I. (1963) The Copper
Age Cemetery of Tiszapolgar-Basatanya, = Archaeologica
Hungarica 42, figs 64-65, p. 135.
TRB I: b. Midgeley, M. (1992) TRB Culture: The First Farmers
of the North European Plain. Edinburgh, Edinburgh
University Press, fig. 109, p. 412; c. ibid. , fig. 99, p. 336;
d. ibid., fig. 127, p. 442; e. Wislanski, T. (1970) The
Neolithic in Poland. Wroclaw, Nauk, fig. 54, p. 162; f.
Midgeley, op. cit., fig. 120, p. 432.
TRB II: g. Midgeley, op. cit., fig. 108, p. 379; h. ibid., p. 289;
i. ibid., p. 287; j -1. Gimbutas, M. (1956) The Prehistory
of Eastern Europe. Cambridge, Mass., Peabody Museum,
fig. 68, p. 125.
Tripolye: b. Masson, V. and N. Merpert (1982) Eneolit SSSR.
Moscow, Nauka, tab. 69, p. 287; c. Rannezemledel’cheskiye
Poseleniya-Giganty Tripol'skoy Kul’tury na Ukraine ( 1 990) ,
Tal’yanki, fig. 2, p. 64; d. Eneolit, tab. 59, p. 273; e. CG,
fig. 3-66, p. 106; f. Eneolit, tab. 56, p. 270; g. ibid., tab.
65, p. 282; h.-j. ibid., tab. 82, p. 303; k. ibid. tab. 80, p.
301.
Trout: Sadovszky, O. (1973) JIES 1, p. 93.
Troy: a. Blegen, C. (1963) Troy and the Trojans. London,
Thames and Hudson, fig. 30, p. 114; b .ibid., fig. 15, p.
65; c. ibid., fig. 31, p. 115.
Trzciniec: b.-e. Arkhelogiya Ukrainskoy SSR I. Kiev, Naukova
Dumka, fig. 118, p. 438.
Umfield: b. Coles, J. and A. Harding (1979) The Bronze Age
in Europe. New York, St Martin’s Press, fig. 135, p. 375; c.
ibid., fig. 133, p. 371.
Usatovo: b. Masson, V and N. Merpert (1982) Eneolit SSSR.
Moscow, Nauka, tab. 88, p. 309; c. Zbenovich, V G. (1974)
PozdnetripoTskiye Plemena Sevemogo Prichemomor’ya.
Kiev, Naukovo Dumka, fig. 28, p. 73; d. ibid., fig. 34, p.
91; e. ibid. fig. 38, p. 105; f. ibid., fig. 33, p. 86.
Vakhsh: b.-c. Litvinsky, B. A. and L. T. P’yankova (1981),
Pastoral tribes of the Bronze Age in the Oxus Valley
(Bactria), in The Bronze Age Civilization of Central Asia ,
New York, fig. 2, p. 383.
Varna: a. Fol, A. and J. Lichardus (1988) Macht, Hcrrschaft
und Gold. Saarbriicken, Moderne Galerie des Saarland-
Museums, fig. 26, p. 56; b.-c. ibid., fig. 36, p. 70; d. ibid.,
fig. 38, p. 72; e.-f. ibid., fig. 34, p. 66.
Villanovan: b. Randall-Maclver, D. (1924) Villanovans and
Early Etruscans. Oxford, Clarendon, fig. 7, p. 42; c. ibid.,
fig. 10, p. 67; d. ibid., pi. 16.
— 828 —
FIGURE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Wagons I: b. Piggott, S.( 1983) The Earliest Wheeled
Transport. London, Thames and Hudson, fig. 1 1 , p. 41 ; c.
Whittle, A. (1983) Neolithic Europe: A Survey. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, fig. 6.13, p. 209; d. Piggott,
S., op. cit ., fig. 5, p. 25; e. Piggott, op. cit., fig. 23, p. 55; f.
ibid., fig. 34, p. 73; g. ibid., fig. 26, p. 57.
Wagons II: b. Drews, R. (1988) The Coming of the Greeks.
Princeton, University Press, fig. 6, p. 95; c. Vermeule, E.
(1964) Greece in the Bronze Age. Chicago, University Press,
fig. 17, p. 91; d. Piggott, op. cit., fig. 51, p. 95; e. Gening,
V E, G. Zdanovich and V V. Gening (1992) Sintashta.
Chelyabinsk, Yuzno-Uralskoye knizhnoye izdatel’stvo, fig.
116, p. 215.
Wine: Zohary, D. and M. Hopf (1988) Domestication of Plants
in the Old World. Oxford, Clarendon, map 18, p. 138.
Yamna l: b. Lagodovos’ka, O. F et al. (1962) Mykhaylivs’ke
Poselennya. Kiev, Akademiy Nauk Ukrains’koi RSR, fig.
25, p. 66; c. Shaposhnikova, O. G. et al. (1986) Yamnaya
KuTturno-lstoricheskaya Oblast'. Kiev, Naukova Dumka,
fig. 79, p. 157; d. ibid., fig. 42, p. 120; e. ibid. fig. 36, p.
114.
Yamna II: a.-b. Ecsedy, I. (1979) The People of the Pit-grave
Kurgansm Eastern Hungary. Budapest, Akademiai Kiado,
fig. 12, p. 24; c. Lagodovos’ka, op. cit., fig. 22, p. 133; d.
Shaposhnikova, op. cit. fig. 18, p. 48; e.-g. ibid., fig. 16.
p. 45; h. ibid., fig. 17, p. 46; i. Lagodovos’ka, op. cit., fig.
33, p. 113; j. Shaposhnikova, op. cit., fig. 13, p. 39; k.
ibid., fig. 16, p. 45.
Zarubintsy: b. Tretyakov, P. N. (1959) Chaplinskoye
gorodishche, in Pamyatmki Zarubinetskoy Kul'tury.
Moscow, fig. 6, p. 127; c. Avdusin, D. A. (1977)
Arkheologiya SSSR. Moscow, Vysshaya Shkola, fig. 86, p.
202; d. Arkhelogiya Ukramskoy SSR III. Kiev, Naukova
Dumka, fig. 1, p. 18; e. ibid., fig. 2, p. 20; f. Avdushin, op.
cit., fig. 86, p. 202; g. Arkhelogiya Ukrainskoy SSR Ilf
Kiev, Naukova Dumka, fig 1, p. 18
i
t
i
829 —
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11